Some of us don’t have research budgets to cover publishing open-access (indeed, some of my funding explicitly doesn’t cover any publication fees at all). Given that there is almost zero public funding in this field in the US, most US geoengineering papers probably aren’t generated with public money, and a lot of them aren’t even generated with any dedicated research funding that can be tapped. Paying open-access fees isn’t cheap, and not something I’m inclined to do out of my personal bank account. So ignoring any research that was generated by people without big research budgets doesn’t seem like a solution to me.
Agree that Elsevier is one of the worst offenders in making profit off of things they didn’t generate, but ultimately even without their obscene profits, someone has to pay for the publishing, and that’s either the authors or the readers. On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Stephen Salter <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> > 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]> > 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 Road http://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 at 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 > > 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]> > 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]. > 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. > > > > -- > 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. > > > > -- > 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. > > > -- > > 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. > > -- 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.
