Note that there is movement afoot to increase public access to federally funded research: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf.
Of particular interest to this thread is Section 3: <begin quote> 3. Objectives for Public Access to Scientific Publications To the extent feasible and consistent with law; agency mission; resource constraints; U.S. national, homeland, and economic security; and the objectives listed below, the results of unclassified research that are published in peer-reviewed publications directly arising from Federal funding should be stored for long-term preservation and publicly accessible to search, retrieve, and analyze in ways that maximize the impact and accountability of the Federal research investment. In developing their public access plans, agencies shall seek to put in place policies that enhance innovation and competitiveness by maximizing the potential to create new business opportunities and are otherwise consistent with the principles articulated in section 1. Agency plans must also describe, to the extent feasible, procedures the agency will take to help prevent the unauthorized mass redistribution of scholarly publications. Further, each agency plan shall: a) Ensure that the public can read, download, and analyze in digital form final peer-reviewed manuscripts or final published documents within a timeframe that is appropriate for each type of research conducted or sponsored by the agency. Specifically, each agency: i) shall use a twelve-month post-publication embargo period as a guideline for making research papers publicly available; however, an agency may tailor its plan as necessary to address the objectives articulated in this memorandum, as well as the challenges and public interests that are unique to each field and mission combination, and ii) shall also provide a mechanism for stakeholders to petition for changing the embargo period for a specific field by presenting evidence demonstrating that the plan would be inconsistent with the objectives articulated in this memorandum; b) Facilitate easy public search, analysis of, and access to peer-reviewed scholarly publications directly arising from research funded by the Federal Government; c) Ensure full public access to publications’ metadata without charge upon first publication in a data format that ensures interoperability with current and future search technology. Where possible, the metadata should provide a link to the location where the full text and associated supplemental materials will be made available after the embargo period; d) Encourage public-private collaboration to: i) maximize the potential for interoperability between public and private platforms and creative reuse to enhance value to all stakeholders, ii) avoid unnecessary duplication of existing mechanisms, iii) maximize the impact of the Federal research investment, and iv) otherwise assist with implementation of the agency plan; e) Ensure that attribution to authors, journals, and original publishers is maintained; and f) Ensure that publications and metadata are stored in an archival solution that: i) provides for long-term preservation and access to the content without charge, ii) uses standards, widely available and, to the extent possible, nonproprietary archival formats for text and associated content (e.g., images, video, supporting data), iii) provides access for persons with disabilities consistent with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and iv) enables integration and interoperability with other Federal public access archival solutions and other appropriate archives. Repositories could be maintained by the Federal agency funding the research, through an arrangement with other Federal agencies, or through other parties working in partnership with the agency including, but not limited to, scholarly and professional associations, publishers and libraries. <end quote> Implementation of this policy at US universities is already having an impact, e.g., http://www.arl.org/focus-areas/public-access-policies & http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/content/datamanagement/ostp.html & http://www.cdc.gov/od/science/docs/Final-CDC-Public-Access-Plan-Jan-2015_508-Compliant.pdf Change is coming to an institution near you.... ~~~~ +/*\+ ~~~~ Geoffrey M. Henebry PhD CSE Professor, Natural Resource Management Co-Director, Geospatial Sciences Center of Excellence (GSCE) South Dakota State University 1021 Medary Avenue, Wecota Hall 506B Brookings, SD 57007-3510, USA voice: +1-605-688-5351 (-5227 FAX) email: [email protected] http://globalmonitoring.sdstate.edu/content/henebry-geoffrey-m -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ganter, Philip Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 3:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers If the model of scientific publishing is the for-profit publisher hiding publicly funded research behind a pay wall and making a profit, then I think most would agree with Atanu: reviewers should be paid. If the model is the older model of professional societies and individual scientists (or small groups of scientists) publishing as a service to their field (so well described by Malcolm in an earlier posting) then most would disagree with Atanu as there is no money for paying reviewers and we all benefit from their work. There was a time when the latter model was more common or, at least, was seen by most scientists as more common. This perception produced the comment about free-riding, Atanu, not animosity towards you personally. Unless we stop publishing in for-profit journals (is Wiley or Reed Elselvier any less predatory than Jacobs?), we risk motives other than the communication of quality scientific work taking command of science publishing. Profit is a great motivator, as free market exponents continually remind us. So great, in fact, that other motives are over-ridden when push comes to shove. Removing profit should be a priority and funding agencies should lead the way by requiring sufficient publishing funds be included in proposal budgets as well as requiring those receiving their funds to only publish in open-access journals. Science be damned (the journal, that is). If this were the case, Geoffrey’s assertion that those who want to publish must also agree to review would have more weight. As it is, many (seemingly including Atanu) choose not to make money for the shareholders of large publishing houses. Phil Ganter Biological Sciences Tennessee State University On 3/30/15, 1:57 PM, "Atanu Mukherjee" <[email protected]> wrote: >Sorry, you're just judging me without really knowing me. > >"The economics are really rather different." - Prove it. Why lot of >good reviewers are NOT interested in reviewing anymore then? > >"Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in >chronically short supply and is differentially compensated." What did >you mean by "differentially compensated", exactly? > >"Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need >reviewers to get their papers published." - If that was the case then >why did the thread started otherwise? > >"If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that >you submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer >review system and that behavior is not professional at all." - Not >relevant at all, just bogus personal opinion advocating current >flaw-filled peer reviewing process. If you wanna be professional, act >like a professional by paying a good salary to the reviewers and see >the change you want. Period. > > > >On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Henebry, Geoffrey < >[email protected]> wrote: > >> The economics are really rather different. >> >> Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in >> chronically short supply and is differentially compensated. >> >> Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also >> need reviewers to get their papers published. >> >> If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that >>you submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer >>review system and that behavior is not professional at all. >> >> ~~~~ +/*\+ ~~~~ >> Geoffrey M. Henebry PhD CSE >> Professor, Natural Resource Management Co-Director, Geospatial >> Sciences Center of Excellence (GSCE) South Dakota State University >> 1021 Medary Avenue, Wecota Hall 506B >> Brookings, SD 57007-3510, USA >> voice: +1-605-688-5351 (-5227 FAX) >> email: [email protected] >> http://globalmonitoring.sdstate.edu/content/henebry-geoffrey-m >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto: >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Atanu Mukherjee >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:28 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of >> papers >> >> Yes, people would continue declining to do reviews because at the end >>they don't see an extra penny. Let me ask you how much the journals >>charge for a paper? Lot of the journals charge a decent amount of >>money to the authors for publishing but the people who perform the >>major role behind the journals' success get unpaid. Sorry, either you >>pay the reviewers (nobody is interested in your subscription waiver >>or something like that) a standard money or you keep seeing the >>trend: "so many people decline to do reviews these days". When you're >>doing business, be professional. >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Stefano Liccioli >><[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Good morning, >> > in regards to the reviewing issue and the fact that "so many people >> > decline to do reviews these days",I was wondering how many of the >> > Ecologgers (at least, those of you who are reviewers) are >> > registered on Poblons https://publons.com/ I was recently invited >> > to do so and I haven't done yet (perhaps waiting to hear on it from >> > colleagues) - but maybe it could help to actually get a credit for >> > the reviewing work, and who knows, perhaps making it more official >> > and less prone to fraud? >> > Thanks for your input. >> > Stefano >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Il Sabato 28 Marzo 2015 22:06, Stephen L. Young >> > <[email protected]> ha scritto: >> > >> > >> > It is interesting that we tend to look at how things were and >> > reminisce about how good it was then, yet I wonder if we were >> > thinking similarly at that time? The same things have been said >> > regarding formula funding and IDC rates and while comparison with >> > the past is good, there needs to be a balance with what kinds of >> > creative solutions we can come up with for the future. >> > Steve >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Martin Meiss <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> > > >> > >>What ever happened to the scholarly journal being a pet sideline >> > >>of a working professor, struggling by on subscription fees and >> > >>small allotments from the university's research foundation, with >> > >>high-level graduate students doing some of the editorial work as >> > >>part of a stipend deal? >> > >> Perhaps not the best of all possible governance models, but it >> > >>seems to me like a better recipe for scientific integrity than >> > >>being a profit-center of a corporate machine. >> > >> >> > >> Your thoughts, please... >> > >> >> > >> Martin M. Meiss >> > >> >> > >> 2015-03-27 23:29 GMT-04:00 Stephen L. Young <[email protected]>: >> > >> >> > >> > There is little incentive other than prestige, but then how >> > >> > does that >> > >>get >> > >> > you any more sleep or time to do research? Probably would help >> > >> > to >> > >>offer >> > >> > honoraria, like they do for most review panels or invited >>seminars. >> > >> > Steve >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 3/27/15, 10:17 PM, "Judith S. Weis" >> > >> > <[email protected]> >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do >> > >> > >reviews >> > >>these >> > >> > >days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have >> > >> > >to keep looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline >> > >> > >to do reviews >> > >>don't >> > >> > >recommend another potential reviewer. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who >> > >> > > have >> > >>done >> > >> > >> work >> > >> > >> that crosses over. >> > >> > >> For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian >> > >> > >> larvae >> > >>in >> > >> an >> > >> > >> agronomic landscape. >> > >> > >> I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one >> > >> > >>who is versed in ecotox (especially involving >> > >> > >>agrochemicals), then maybe a third >> > >>who >> > >> > >> does >> > >> > >> amphibian tox. When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask >> > >> > >> him/her >> > >>to >> > >> > >> recommend someone else if they are unable to do it. This >> > >> > >> is >> > >> INCREDIBLY >> > >> > >> productive and successful. We don't take reviewer >> > >> > >> recommendations >> > >>at >> > >> > >>HCB. >> > >> > >> I always get really flustered when a journal asks for >> > >> > >>reviewers >> > >>too. >> > >> > >>I'm >> > >> > >> always concerned about the balance between naming someone >> > >> > >>who I >> > >>think >> > >> is >> > >> > >> well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in >> > >> > >> some >> way. >> > >> It >> > >> > >> gets >> > >> > >> really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start >> > >> > >> to know >> > >>a >> > >> lot >> > >> > >> of >> > >> > >> people and you also tick off your fair share. Also, if you >> > >> > >> are >> > >>doing >> > >> > >> research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are >> > >> > >> going >> > >>to >> > >> end >> > >> > >> up >> > >> > >> communicating with others who do similar stuff. It isn't >> > >> > >> long, and everyone knows everyone. >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> Malcolm >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric >> > >> > >> <[email protected]> >> > >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >>> As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest. >> > >>When I >> > >> > >>>do, >> > >> > >>> it is because I know the person is capable of giving a >> > >> > >>>serious, unbiased review >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> Eric S. Menges >> > >> > >>> Editor, Natural Areas Journal >> > >> > >>>________________________________________ >> > >> > >>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ >> > >> > >>>[email protected]] on behalf of David Mellor [ >> > >> > >>>[email protected]] >> > >> > >>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM >> > >> > >>> To: [email protected] >> > >> > >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to >> > >> > >>>retractions of papers >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation >> > >>services†>> > >> > >>> that pose >> > >> > >>> on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the >> > >>“suggested >> > >> > >>> reviewer†feature in the submission process to mislead >> > >> > >>> editors >> > >>into >> > >> > >>> contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. >> > >> > >>> The BMC >> > >>blog >> > >> > >>> post >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >> > >>http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-pe >> > >>er- >> > >>revi >> > >> > >>>ew/ >> > >> > >>> < >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >> > >>http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-pe >> > >>er- >> > >>revi >> > >> > >>>ew/> >> > >> > >>> explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be >> > >> > >>>happening elsewhere, and that BMC is doing the right >> > >> > >>>thing to bring it to light, given >> > >>the >> > >> > >>> potential tarnish it creates. >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> David Mellor >> > >> > >>> Center for Open Science <http://centerforopenscience.org/> >> > >> > >>> (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> > On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss >> > >> > >>> > <[email protected]> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >>> > I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, >> > >> > >>> > BioMed >> > >> > >>>Central, >> > >> > >>> > <http://www.biomedcentral.com/about> puts out 277 journals. >> > >>That >> > >> > >>> seems >> > >> > >>> > like a lot of concentration of power. >> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >>> > Martin M. Meiss >> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >>> > 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye <[email protected]>: >> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >>> >> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. >> > >> > >>> >> >> > >> > >>> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/ >> > >> > >>> >> 03/ >> > >> > >>> >> 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to >> > >> > >>> >> - >> > >> > >>> >> retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-jo >> > >> > >>> >> urn >> > >> > >>> >> als/ >> > >> > >>> >> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> -- >> > >> > >> Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP Environmental Studies Program >> > >> > >> Green Mountain College Poultney, Vermont >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation >> > >> > >> than the >> > >>rich >> > >> > >> array >> > >> > >> of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It >> > >> > >>is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, >> > >> > >>scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital >> > >> > >>part of the heritage we all share as Americans.†>> > >> > >>-President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species >> > >> > >>Act of >> > >> 1973 >> > >> > >> into law. >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense >> > >> > >> of >> > >>drive" - >> > >> > >> Allan >> > >> > >> Nation >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. >> > >> > >> Gilbert >> > >> > >> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, >> > >> > >> habitat >> > >>loss, >> > >> > >> and pollution. >> > >> > >> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and >> > >> > >> pollution >> > >>reduction >> > >> > >> MAY help restore populations. >> > >> > >> 2022: Soylent Green is People! >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth >> > >> > >> w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character >> > >> > >> Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o >> > >> > >> sacrifice Politics w/o principle >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >> > >> > >> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended >> > >> > >> recipient(s) and >> > >>may >> > >> > >> contain confidential and privileged information. Any >> > >> > >> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is >> > >> > >> prohibited. If you are >> > >>not >> > >> > >> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply >> > >> > >> e-mail >> > >>and >> > >> > >> destroy all copies of the original message. >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >-- >> > >Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP >> > >Environmental Studies Program >> > >Green Mountain College >> > >Poultney, Vermont >> > > >> > > “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the >> > >rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. >> > >It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, >> > >and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage >> > >we all share as Americans.” >> > >-President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act >> > >of >> > >1973 into law. >> > > >> > >"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of >> > >drive" - Allan Nation >> > > >> > >1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert >> > >1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, >> > > and pollution. >> > >2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution >>reduction >> > > MAY help restore populations. >> > >2022: Soylent Green is People! >> > > >> > >The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work >> > >Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o >> > >morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o >> > >principle >> > > >> > >Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >> > >attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and >> > >may contain confidential and privileged information. Any >> > >unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is >> > >prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact >> > >the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> >> *Atanu Mukherjee, Ph.D* >> *Columbus Ohio 43220* >> *352-870-1228* >> > > > >-- > >*Atanu Mukherjee, Ph.D* >*Columbus Ohio 43220* >*352-870-1228*
