I'd just add on behalf of openness that much of the research is already
being paid for by the taxpayer and that those in the public, especially
on issues that are of significant public concern and interest, argue
that they should have free access to the results and not have to pay
further. Given the scientific community is seeking to inform the public
and continue to want research funds from taxpayers, its hiding of the
results behind ridiculously priced paywalls is really an obstruction
(the journals really need to greatly lower their prices for reprints and
I'd venture they'd get more participation). And as Ron notes there are
all sorts of journals and if everyone has to pay for everything, they'd
be broke--and it would be very inefficient to be getting so much in
really wanting access to so few articles of real interest to those
focused on looking at specific topics.
I'd be interested to know how much journals actually take in based on
their very high paywall rates, and where that money is coming from
(probably mainly from overhead put on the research money awarded to
scientists--are many members of the public actually paying the quite
high rates?). In my view, if the scientific community wants ongoing
support, then there needs to be another way found than high paywall
rates that inhibit the public actually getting to read the articles
instead of just seeing the possible media coverage of the articles.
Indeed, as Alan notes, most editors and reviewers work for free, so a
good question is where all the money is going, especially with articles
mostly now being provided to journals online. Across the community there
are discussions on such issues, even on quite remote subjects--for
things related to climate change science to be behind paywalls I just do
not think is the optimal approach and alternatives need to be found.
Mike
On 8/4/18 2:39 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
Alan:
I agree with all you wrote - but I think it great also that we have
more papers all the time that are NOT behind a paywall. I am not
taking this personally - and am glad you responded below.
I have been a AAAS member for possibly 40 years and I get great value
from that annual expenditure for *Science*. I also this year found a
sweet deal for two subcategories of *Nature. * And I receive a dozen
other magazines - a few where I am a life member, and a surprising
number that are free. I don't subscribe to AMS and AGU because too
little there that fits my background.
But in my small part of Geoengineering (biochar), I could be reading
four or five articles a day from perhaps up to 100 different journals
- maybe only one a month from AMS, AGU, and AAAS re biochar. No way
anyone working in biochar can cover all that (the IBI website has
started showing the 10-20% of unlocked papers every month - which I
find helpful - and tend to read).
Re "/Why are there so many complaints about "paywalls?" "/ I make a
point of mentioning paywalls only because it is such a joy when
someone has found a free-to-me way to help get their message out - and
I presume readers find that useful as well. Finding a long version in
a thesis always pleases me - and they are mostly free.
Re "/Who do you expect to pay for the publication of scientific
papers?" / - I agree with everything you say about the need for
someone to pay. In many cases, that should be the group that paid
for the research to be performed. That leaves many who can't - in
particular in this case the University of Alberta. So delighted they
have a library.
I repeat that this particular thesis looks quite well done, and
presume the paper will also demonstrate that. I repeat that I agree
with all you wrote below.
Ron
On Aug 4, 2018, at 11:44 AM, Alan Robock <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear Ron,
Don't take this personally, but your email was a tipping point for
me, and I have to respond. Why are there so many complaints about
"paywalls?" Who do you expect to pay for the publication of
scientific papers? The American Meteorological Society, American
Geophysical Union, and American Association for the Advancement of
Science are non-profits. Part of the cost of publication is paid by
authors, and reviewers and most editors work for free. If you want
them to give you the papers for free, the authors will have to pay
even more. If you want the papers, join the AMS, AGU, and AAAS, and
support our science. Pay for subscriptions to the journals. I have
been a member of all three for my entire career.
Alan
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University E-mail:[email protected]
14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA
☮http://twitter.com/AlanRobock 2017 Nobel Peace Prize to ICAN!
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
On 8/4/2018 1:24 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
Andrew and list:
Thanks for the lead.
Believing that arctic ice loss is our best global indicator of how
fast we are heading to ever more serious climate problems, I've
tried to follow Arctic melting for the last 10-12 years (I just
learned that 2018 is lagging other years overall, but is in first
place for the central Arctic basin - the most important). So,
disappointed that this paper is behind a pay wall, I found by
Googling that the paper is probably the result of this 2016 Master's
thesis (his second Master's), downloadable at
https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/7669/Mueller_Bennit_MSc_2016.pdf?sequence=1
Possibly more here than in the paper. I have only skimmed the
thesis, but believe Mr. Mueller has described a new useful
methodology. He has pulled a lot of new information out of some
pretty sketchy actual data and huge amounts of modeled data.
So, I hope that climate modelers will pay attention to this thesis
as a way to improve their models.
Ron
On Aug 4, 2018, at 7:35 AM, Andrew Lockley
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
<snip; off topic>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
