Douglas
So we just send each other email attachments. It is quicker and draws
attention to each publication. If people think that enough other people
are less likely to cite their work the battle will be won.
The whole idea of money is to prevent excess consumption of a limited
resource. The cost of spreading information is now very much lower and
the possible value of spreading it widely to people who might save
civlization is VERY high.
The UK Government has a specific published policy of not supporting any
form of solar radiation management so this is even less than 'almost zero'.
Some of us do not even have salaries!
Stephen
On 05/08/2018 16:07, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
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 <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
<mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> 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
<mmacc...@comcast.net <mailto: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 Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
<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 athttp://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
<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>.
--
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 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>.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@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>.
--
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 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.
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 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.
