On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 09:32 -0600, David L. McNeely wrote: > ---- Gavin Simpson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 08:51 -0600, David L. McNeely wrote: > > > ---- Jane Shevtsov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article > > > > published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable? > > > > And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price > > > > point > > > > in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an > > > > article > > > > if I was an infrequent reader, but $20? > > > > > > > > There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support > > > > at < > > > > http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/ > > > > >. > > > > > > Is it really so difficult to get a paper? I have never been unable to > > > get a paper I wanted or needed, and I have never paid the high prices > > > that publishers demand for instant access on the internet. Most of us > > > live within 50 miles of a library. If the library does not subscribe > > > to the journal in which the paper appears, interlibrary loan will get > > > it for a reasonable cost. > > > > I question the use of the word reasonable here. In the UK an > > interlibrary loan for a single paper or part of a work costs me £12 - > > for a photocopy!!! My university subsidises this so I must personally > > pay £3.[*] > > > > If the authors of the paper have paid ESA page charges to produce the > > thing and subscribers to the journal have paid for the print copy, where > > exactly does the $20 charged for the paper go, what does it pay for? The > > website and mechanisms for storing and delivering the content > > electronically, but that can't possibly cost $20. > > > > There are ways round this and many scientists probably share PDFs of > > papers they shouldn't but the point is that $20 for a stream of bits is > > ridiculously expensive. Those lay people might not be that aware of the > > other methods for getting papers and seeing the price they may be put > > off trying to access the work. If that is work funded by the Government > > it is shameful. > > The money that ESA and other scholarly organizations charge for > electronic copies of their reports goes to support the organization. > The organization makes possible the publication and decimination of > new knowledge. There are costs involved, whether or not you think > that the only thing the organization has to pay is for the electrical > power to zip electrons around. Yes, the incremental cost of pushing > out another copy is small. But all the infrastructure of the > organization is involved in getting there, and is at stake if we > succomb to the idea that only the incremental cost should be paid by > the user.
You read far too much into what I said. ESA shouldn't be making money off Government funded research by charging exorbitant rates for downloading PDFs of papers reporting the results of said work. Making money in the sense of using those funds for its activities in support of ecology. Listen to what you are advocating; that ESA be allowed to fund its outreach and other society activities (which are all very important and noble, and I have no problem with) by placing charges on access to the outputs of work funded by by taxpayers. If ESA went cap in hand to the Government for a handout to fund these other activities we probably know the outcome. > Yes, libraries and other institutions pay a substantial subsidy in > providing photocopies through interlibrary loan. If they don't, then > charges must be high like those you paid. The entity that supports > the library has taken the position that creation and decimination of > knowledge is its role in society, and it will recoup costs via > whatever funding mechanisms it has. In a just society, that is the > public through its various taxing mechanisms and through donations > that result in successful investment. Nothing wrong with this. New > knowledge into the public realm is worth paying for. But scholarly > organizations like ESA don't have access to those funding sources. > Their funding is their membership and their publishing. The > publishing is mostly, for most such organizations, not really > profitable. It only works because they charge institutional > subscribers large fees, because some organizations actually do pay > page charges, and because some scholarly organizations have s! > uccessful investment programs (endowments, which have suffered along > with the rest of the economy). If ESA wants to engage in extra activities, then it should fund them through its membership fees. The tax payer should not be being asked to fund this work in a roundabout way. > You want the electronic copies for the incremental cost of producing > one copy. But that is not the whole story, and when you get it for > that, you are parasitizing the membership of the organization, which > already subsidizes the functions of the organization substantially. > You place the whole enterprise at risk. Where will we be when there > is no ESA, no ASIH, no Limnological Society, ........ ? I didn't say that. I said that a reasonable charge for supporting the infrastructure, bandwidth, archival, web sys admin salary etc would be perfectly reasonable costs to attach to the PDF requested. $20 seems exceptionally high for covering those costs and must include all the extras activities not related to publishing the work you talk about. If ESA wants to engage in other activities it is wrong to be generating the income to do so from charging high rates to access the published account of publicly funded research. Does ESA breakdown somewhere what the $20 goes towards? One of the main concerns in the wider debate is the lack of transparency in the open access charges publishers make and in the charges them impose for access to works that are not open access. We all have to live within our means, especially in these harsh economic conditions. At least ESA is not for profit - don't get me started on for profit publishers. G > mcneely > > > > G > > > > [*] things have improved markedly at UCL since I was a grad student > > here, but only at huge cost to my institution through subscription > > charges paid to the publishers. The situation is not sustainable and the > > desperate pleadings of publishers is reminiscent of those from the music > > industry when we all cottoned on to the fact that we really don't have > > to pay what they charge for an MP3 or CD if we don't want to. > > > > > The real problem is the demand for instant gratification that we > > > have developed. It is that that we are being asked to pay for. > > > > > > Should a paper cost $50? I really don't know what it costs the journal > > > to produce the paper, what the demand is (well, for some papers the > > > demand is virtually nothing), or what distribution costs. I do know that > > > such services as BioOne have greatly improved the bottom lines of some > > > scholarly organizations, which in the long run makes papers more > > > available, not less. > > > > > > I guess in this one instance I am suggesting that free market is not so > > > bad. If you really must have the paper the instant you locate it through > > > the free search and free abstract mechanisms of the publishers, why then > > > pay the asking price. Otherwise, use more traditional means of getting > > > it. If publishers are getting the asking price, they will maintain it, > > > or maybe ask a little more. If they are not getting it, they will back > > > off. > > > > > > If you are so far back in the sticks that you don't have ready access to > > > a library, investigate a bit. I'll bet some library serves you if you > > > find out how. If you are living in a cabin off the traveled roads and > > > off the grid, then you don't have internet access either, so your > > > complaints about no open access are moot. > > > > > > David McNeely > > > > > > > > Jane Shevtsov > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM, M.S. Patterson > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less > > > > > charitable: > > > > > http://phylogenomics.blogspot.**com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** > > > > > ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner&** > > > > > utm_medium=twitter&utm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* > > > > > *Life%29<http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29>< > > > > > http://phylogenomics.**blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** > > > > > ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner&** > > > > > utm_medium=twitter&utm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* > > > > > *Life%29<http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that ESA forces authors to cede the copyright to their work > > > > > is > > > > > offensive, IMO, even if they 'grant' the author reprint or > > > > > reproduction > > > > > rights. It also means that ESA could choose to rewrite their rules > > > > > such > > > > > that authors could lose rights to reprint or reproduce their own work. > > > > > Academic publishers should be granted first printing rights, with the > > > > > option to acquire additional rights at a later date, as they desire. > > > > > Nothing more. As it currently stands, ESA's policy is essentially > > > > > treating research articles as work-made-for-hire, which is ludicrous, > > > > > given > > > > > that authors must pay page charges to print the work! In essence > > > > > researchers are paying to have their work printed, while ceding all of > > > > > their rights to the publisher in the process. > > > > > > > > > > Further, I don't think anyone is suggesting that ESA should be denied > > > > > all > > > > > subscription fees (or page fees), but simply that papers should become > > > > > available publicly over time, and that any research funded by public > > > > > monies > > > > > should be available to the public sooner rather than later. Which is > > > > > entirely reasonable, and more than likely beneficial to the public. > > > > > > > > > > -m > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/5/2012 12:33 AM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Fellow Ecologgers, > > > > >> > > > > >> Have people read ESA's response to a proposed requirement that the > > > > >> results > > > > >> of federally funded research be publicly available, possibly after an > > > > >> embargo period? It's available here. > > > > >> http://www.esa.org/pao/**policyStatements/Letters/** > > > > >> ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI20**11.pdf<http://www.esa.org/pao/policyStatements/Letters/ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI2011.pdf> > > > > >> > > > > >> I have to say I find this response somewhat disappointing. While > > > > >> some of > > > > >> the concerns raised in it are certainly valid, I believe it > > > > >> underestimates > > > > >> ecologists' desire to read an interesting new paper now rather than > > > > >> later. > > > > >> Also, kudos to ESA for allowing authors to freely post their papers > > > > >> online, > > > > >> something I relied on when I didn't have university journal access, > > > > >> but > > > > >> how > > > > >> is this financially different from open access? ESA's 2009 financial > > > > >> statement (the latest available online) may be of interest. > > > > >> http://www.esa.org/aboutesa/**docs/FS2009.pdf<http://www.esa.org/aboutesa/docs/FS2009.pdf> > > > > >> > > > > >> Thoughts? > > > > >> > > > > >> Jane Shevtsov > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Matt Patterson > > > > > MSES/MPA 2012 > > > > > Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs > > > > > Center for the study of Institutions, Population and Environmental > > > > > Change > > > > > (CIPEC) > > > > > Room 226A | 408 N Indiana Ave | Bloomington, IN 47408-3799 > > > > > Environmentally Scientific Emblogulations > > > > > <http://env-sci-blog.blogspot.** > > > > > com <http://env-sci-blog.blogspot.com>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ------------- > > > > Jane Shevtsov > > > > Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia > > > > co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org > > > > > > > > "She has future plans and dreams at night. > > > > They tell her life is hard; she says 'That's all right'." --Faith Hill, > > > > "Wild One" > > > > > > -- > > > David McNeely > > > > > > > -- > > %~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~% > > Dr. Gavin Simpson [t] +44 (0)20 7679 0522 > > ECRC, UCL Geography, [f] +44 (0)20 7679 0565 > > Pearson Building, [e] gavin.simpsonATNOSPAMucl.ac.uk > > Gower Street, London [w] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfagls/ > > UK. WC1E 6BT. [w] http://www.freshwaters.org.uk > > %~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~% > > > > > > -- > David McNeely > -- %~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~% Dr. Gavin Simpson [t] +44 (0)20 7679 0522 ECRC, UCL Geography, [f] +44 (0)20 7679 0565 Pearson Building, [e] gavin.simpsonATNOSPAMucl.ac.uk Gower Street, London [w] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfagls/ UK. WC1E 6BT. [w] http://www.freshwaters.org.uk %~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%
