zeroPPPR leads to an immediate immense saving of human effort and cost - the removal of the arbitrary authoring torture-chambers created by publishers. This has the following benefits:
* authors can choose the means of authoring that their community converges on. The crystallographers (and I am proud to be involved) have created the best scientific authoring system (CIF) for data-rich science. The community uses it. Download Knuth created the best document authoring system LaTeX 30 years ago. TimBl created HTML - a brilliant, simple flexible tool. Why do we not use these? Because the publishers can be bothered to change their arcane, archaic systems. At least 1 billion USD of data is destroyed in the publication process in chemistry alone. * authoring would be faster. No retyping for different journals * authoring would be higher quality. There could be an intermediate market for organizations and companies who helped authors created better documents if they wanted to pay. Markup languages, etc. would flourish * the higher quality (e.g. HTML5) leads to better ways of presenting the material. Why do people have to turn their heads through 90 deg simply to read a landscape table. It could be i-n-t-e-r-a-c-t-i-v-e (there's a thought!) * Gosh, we might even have versions (like Github) The saving of time, the better quality will rapidly add up to saved billions both upstream and downstream of the publication event. New publication-consuming industries would arise. But see how strongly publishers resist the re-use of information - lobbying against content-mining and spraying CC-ND around. ... it was all a dream. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Sally Morris < sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Jan, you may well be right. Certainly we will have to give up some of > what we hold dear (pun not intended!) in the old system, if scholarly > communication to cope in future. The losses may be even more drastic - who > knows? > > Sally > > Sally Morris > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 > Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jan Velterop [mailto:velte...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 10 December 2013 14:37 > > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Cc:* sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk > *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Re: Pre-publication peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall > Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List) > > Sally, > > May I join you in the ranks of those who risk being pilloried or branded > heretics? I think the solution is clear. We should get rid of > pre-publication peer review (PPPR) and publish results in open > repositories. PPPR is the one thing that keeps the whole publishing system > standing, and expensive – in monetary terms, but also in terms of effort > expended. It may have some benefits, but we pay very dearly for those. > Where are the non-peer-reviewed articles that have caused damage? They may > have to public understanding, of course (there's a lot of rubbish on the > internet), but to scientific understanding? On the other hand, I can point > to peer-reviewed articles that clearly have done damage, particularly to > public understanding. Take the Wakefield MMR paper. Had it just been > published without peer-review, the damage would likely have been no greater > than that of any other drivel on the internet. Its peer-reviewed status, > however, gave it far more credibility than it deserved. There are more > examples. > > My assertion: pre-publication peer review is dangerous since it is too > easily used as an excuse to absolve scientists – and science journalists – > from applying sufficient professional skepticism and critical appraisal. > > Doing away with PPPR will do little damage – if any at all – to science, > but removes most barriers to open access and saves the scientific community > a hell of a lot of money. > > The 'heavy lifting is that of cultural change' (crediting William Gunn for > that phrase), so I won't hold my breath. > > Jan Velterop > > On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:36, Sally Morris <sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > > At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by OA conformists, let > me say that – whatever ithe failings of his article – I thank Jeffrey Beall > for raising some fundamental questions which are rarely, if ever, addressed. > > I would put them under two general headings: > > 1) What is the objective of OA? > > I originally understood the objective to be to make scholarly research > articles, in some form, accessible to all those who needed to read them. > Subsequent refinements such as 'immediately', 'published version' and > 'free to reuse' may have acquired quasi-religious status, but are surely > secondary to this main objective. > > However, two other, financial, objectives (linked to each other, but not > to the above) have gained increasing prominence. The first is the > alleged cost saving (or at least cost shifting). The second - more > malicious, and originally (but no longer) denied by OA's main proponents - > is the undermining of publishers' businesses. If this were to work, we > may be sure the effects would not be choosy about 'nice' or 'nasty' > publishers. > > 2) Why hasn't OA been widely adopted by now? > > If – as we have been repetitively assured over many years – OA is > self-evidently the right thing for scholars to do, why have so few of them > done so voluntarily? As Jeffrey Beall points out, it seems very curious > that scholars have to be forced, by mandates, to adopt a model which is > supposedly preferable to the existing one. > > Could it be that the monotonous rantings of the few and the tiresome > debates about the fine detail are actually confusing scholars, and may even > be putting them off? Just asking ;-) > > I don't disagree that the subscription model is not going to be able to > address the problems we face in making the growing volume of research > available to those who need it; but I'm not convinced that OA (whether > Green, Gold or any combination) will either. I think the solution, if > there is one, still eludes us. > > > Merry Christmas! > > Sally > > Sally Morris > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 > Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org > [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org<goal-boun...@eprints.org>] > *On Behalf Of *David Prosser > *Sent:* 09 December 2013 22:10 > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility > ofBeall's List > > 'Lackeys'? This is going beyond parody. > > David > > > > On 9 Dec 2013, at 21:45, Beall, Jeffrey wrote: > > Wouter, > Hello, yes, I wrote the article, I stand by it, and I take > responsibility for it. > I would ask Prof. Harnad to clarify one thing in his email below, namely > this statement, "OA is all an anti-capitlist plot." > This statement's appearance in quotation marks makes it look like I > wrote it in the article. The fact is that this statement does not appear in > the article, and I have never written such a statement. > Prof. Harnad and his lackeys are responding just as my article predicts. > Jeffrey Beall > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org > [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org<goal-boun...@eprints.org> > ] *On Behalf Of *Gerritsma, Wouter > *Sent:* Monday, December 09, 2013 2:14 PM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of > Beall's List > Dear all. > Has this article really been written by Jeffrey Beall? > He has been victim of a smear campaign before! > I don’t see he has claimed this article on his blog > http://scholarlyoa.com/ or his tweet stream @Jeffrey_Beall (which > actually functions as his RSS feed). > I really like to hear from the man himself on his own turf. > Wouter > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org > [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org<goal-boun...@eprints.org> > ] *On Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad > *Sent:* maandag 9 december 2013 16:04 > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of > Beall's List > Beall, Jeffrey (2013) The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open > Access <http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514>. > TripleC Communication, Capitalism & Critique Journal. 11(2): 589-597 > http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514 > This wacky article is going to be fun to review. I still think Jeff > Beall is doing something useful with his naming and shaming of junk OA > journals, but I now realize that he is driven by some sort of fanciful > conspiracy theory! "OA is all an anti-capitlist plot." (Even on a quick > skim it is evident that Jeff's article is rife with half-truths, errors and > downright nonsense. Pity. It will diminish the credibility of his valid > exposés, but maybe this is a good thing, if the judgment and motivation > behind Beall's list is as kooky as this article! But alas it will now also > give the genuine "predatory" junk-journals some specious arguments for > discrediting Jeff's work altogether. Of course it will also give the > publishing lobby some good sound-bites, but they use them at their peril, > because of all the other nonsense in which they are nested!) > Before I do a critique later today), I want to post some tidbits to set > the stage: > > *JB: **"ABSTRACT: While the open-access (OA) movement purports to be > about making scholarly content open-access, its true motives are much > different. The OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to > deny the freedom of the press to companies it disagrees with. The movement > is also actively imposing onerous mandates on researchers, mandates that > restrict individual freedom. To boost the open-access movement, its leaders > sacrifice the academic futures of young scholars and those from developing > countries, pressuring them to publish in lower-quality open-access > journals. The open-access movement has fostered the creation of numerous > predatory publishers and standalone journals, increasing the amount of > research misconduct in scholarly publications and the amount of > pseudo-science that is published as if it were authentic science."* > *JB: **"[F]rom their high-salaried comfortable positions…OA > advocates... demand that for-profit, scholarly journal publishers not be > involved in scholarly publishing and devise ways (such as green > open-access) to defeat and eliminate them...* > *JB: **"OA advocates use specious arguments to lobby for mandates, > focusing only on the supposed economic benefits of open access and ignoring > the value additions provided by professional publishers. The arguments > imply that publishers are not really needed; all researchers need to do is > upload their work, an action that constitutes publishing, and that this act > results in a product that is somehow similar to the products that > professional publishers produce…. * > *JB: **"The open-access movement isn't really about open access. > Instead, it is about collectivizing production and denying the freedom of > the press from those who prefer the subscription model of scholarly > publishing. It is an anti-corporatist, oppressive and negative movement, > one that uses young researchers and researchers from developing countries > as pawns to artificially force the make-believe gold and green open-access > models to work. The movement relies on unnatural mandates that take free > choice away from individual researchers, mandates set and enforced by an > onerous cadre of Soros-funded European autocrats...* > *JB: **"The open-access movement is a failed social movement and a > false messiah, but its promoters refuse to admit this. The emergence of > numerous predatory publishers – a product of the open-access movement – has > poisoned scholarly communication, fostering research misconduct and the > publishing of pseudo-science, but OA advocates refuse to recognize the > growing problem. By instituting a policy of exchanging funds between > researchers and publishers, the movement has fostered corruption on a grand > scale. Instead of arguing for openaccess, we must determine and settle on > the best model for the distribution of scholarly research, and it's clear > that neither green nor gold open-access is that model...* > > And then, my own personal favourites: > > *JB: **"Open access advocates think they know better than everyone else > and want to impose their policies on others. Thus, the open access movement > has the serious side-effect of taking away other's freedom from them. We > observe this tendency in institutional mandates. Harnad (2013) goes so far > as to propose [an]…Orwellian system of mandates… documented [in a] table of > mandate strength, with the most restrictive pegged at level 12, with the > designation "immediate deposit + performance evaluation (no waiver > option)". This Orwellian system of mandates is documented in Table 1... * > *JB: **"A social movement that needs mandates to work is doomed to > fail. A social movement that uses mandates is abusive and tantamount to > academic slavery. Researchers need more freedom in their decisions not > less. How can we expect and demand academic freedom from our universities > when we impose oppressive mandates upon ourselves?..."* > > Stay tuned!… > *Stevan Harnad* > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
