Hi All
The turnover of Elsevier in 2017 was £2.478 billion. The profit was 36.8%.
Suppose that nobody cited papers which appeared behind a paywall . . . .
Stephen
On 05/08/2018 01:47, Alan Robock wrote:
Dear All,
Yes, I support open access for all research already paid for by public
funds. Many journals make papers free after a year or two, but many
still require a subscription. I know AMS and AGU are trying to decide
how to maintain their business model if open access is required. They
say they don't know how ACP (the EGU journal) does it, as their page
charges are similar to AMS and AGU.
In the meantime, what do we do? Do we break the rules and distribute
papers that we can access through our personal subscriptions or our
university or government access?
Alan
On 8/4/2018 6:01 PM, Charles Greene wrote:
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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
<[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]
<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]
<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.
--
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
+44 (0)131 650 5704
--
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.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
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.
