How about a single-payer system? The Library of Congress subscribes to all of the journals and makes them freely available online to all tax-paying citizens. Your password is issued to you when your federal income taxes are filed! Just like single-payer healthcare, this would enable the government to negotiate reasonable subscription rates, especially with regard to predatory, for-profit publishing houses. The federal government is already paying for most of the publishing expenses in its research grants to scientists and its indirect costs paid to universities. Open-access journals are a step in the right direction; however, they are far from an ideal solution to the problem of making science more accessible to the taxpayers supporting it. Other countries could negotiate their own deals with the publishing houses, or just imagine if countries actually worked together to negotiate fair journal subscription rates...
> On Aug 4, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote: > > 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 <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu >>> <mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>> 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: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu >>> <mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> >>> 14 College Farm Road http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock >>> <http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock> >>> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA >>> ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock <http://twitter.com/AlanRobock> >>> 2017 Nobel Peace Prize to ICAN! >>> Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 >>> <http://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 >>>> >>>> <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 <andrew.lock...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com >> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering >> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >> <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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com > <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering > <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
