Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
Here's a blog post that analyzes whether inter-library loan is an adequate solution. http://scientopia.org/blogs/christinaslisrant/2012/01/11/access-to-the-literature-does-interlibrary-loan-solve-our-problems/ Jane Shevtsov On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:11 PM, mcnee...@cox.net wrote: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:32 AM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: The money that ESA and other scholarly organizations charge for electronic copies of their reports goes to support the organization. The organization makes possible the publication and decimination of new knowledge. There are costs involved, whether or not you think that the only thing the organization has to pay is for the electrical power to zip electrons around. Yes, the incremental cost of pushing out another copy is small. But all the infrastructure of the organization is involved in getting there, and is at stake if we succomb to the idea that only the incremental cost should be paid by the user. Then what did ESA and other publishers do before widespread Internet use? Back then, people would go to the library and, if the library subscribed, photocopy the articles they needed. They paid the library for copies, but publishers saw none of that money. And if they just read the article without copying it, they paid nothing at all! So, just go to the library and photocopy the article, like in the old days 10 years ago. That is still an option. mcneely Jane Shevtsov -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org She has future plans and dreams at night. They tell her life is hard; she says 'That's all right'. --Faith Hill, Wild One -- David McNeely -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org She has future plans and dreams at night. They tell her life is hard; she says 'That's all right'. --Faith Hill, Wild One
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
Gavin Simpson gavin.simp...@ucl.ac.uk wrote: On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 08:51 -0600, David L. McNeely wrote: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com wrote: I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable? And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article if I was an infrequent reader, but $20? There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/ . Is it really so difficult to get a paper? I have never been unable to get a paper I wanted or needed, and I have never paid the high prices that publishers demand for instant access on the internet. Most of us live within 50 miles of a library. If the library does not subscribe to the journal in which the paper appears, interlibrary loan will get it for a reasonable cost. I question the use of the word reasonable here. In the UK an interlibrary loan for a single paper or part of a work costs me £12 - for a photocopy!!! My university subsidises this so I must personally pay £3.[*] If the authors of the paper have paid ESA page charges to produce the thing and subscribers to the journal have paid for the print copy, where exactly does the $20 charged for the paper go, what does it pay for? The website and mechanisms for storing and delivering the content electronically, but that can't possibly cost $20. There are ways round this and many scientists probably share PDFs of papers they shouldn't but the point is that $20 for a stream of bits is ridiculously expensive. Those lay people might not be that aware of the other methods for getting papers and seeing the price they may be put off trying to access the work. If that is work funded by the Government it is shameful. The money that ESA and other scholarly organizations charge for electronic copies of their reports goes to support the organization. The organization makes possible the publication and decimination of new knowledge. There are costs involved, whether or not you think that the only thing the organization has to pay is for the electrical power to zip electrons around. Yes, the incremental cost of pushing out another copy is small. But all the infrastructure of the organization is involved in getting there, and is at stake if we succomb to the idea that only the incremental cost should be paid by the user. Yes, libraries and other institutions pay a substantial subsidy in providing photocopies through interlibrary loan. If they don't, then charges must be high like those you paid. The entity that supports the library has taken the position that creation and decimination of knowledge is its role in society, and it will recoup costs via whatever funding mechanisms it has. In a just society, that is the public through its various taxing mechanisms and through donations that result in successful investment. Nothing wrong with this. New knowledge into the public realm is worth paying for. But scholarly organizations like ESA don't have access to those funding sources. Their funding is their membership and their publishing. The publishing is mostly, for most such organizations, not really profitable. It only works because they charge institutional subscribers large fees, because some organizations actually do pay page charges, and because some scholarly organizations have s! uccessful investment programs (endowments, which have suffered along with the rest of the economy). You want the electronic copies for the incremental cost of producing one copy. But that is not the whole story, and when you get it for that, you are parasitizing the membership of the organization, which already subsidizes the functions of the organization substantially. You place the whole enterprise at risk. Where will we be when there is no ESA, no ASIH, no Limnological Society, ? mcneely G [*] things have improved markedly at UCL since I was a grad student here, but only at huge cost to my institution through subscription charges paid to the publishers. The situation is not sustainable and the desperate pleadings of publishers is reminiscent of those from the music industry when we all cottoned on to the fact that we really don't have to pay what they charge for an MP3 or CD if we don't want to. The real problem is the demand for instant gratification that we have developed. It is that that we are being asked to pay for. Should a paper cost $50? I really don't know what it costs the journal to produce the paper, what the demand is (well, for some papers the demand is virtually nothing), or what distribution costs. I do know that such services as BioOne have greatly improved the
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 09:32 -0600, David L. McNeely wrote:
Gavin Simpson gavin.simp...@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 08:51 -0600, David L. McNeely wrote:
Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com wrote:
I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article
published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable?
And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price
point
in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an
article
if I was an infrequent reader, but $20?
There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support
at
http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/
.
Is it really so difficult to get a paper? I have never been unable to
get a paper I wanted or needed, and I have never paid the high prices
that publishers demand for instant access on the internet. Most of us
live within 50 miles of a library. If the library does not subscribe
to the journal in which the paper appears, interlibrary loan will get
it for a reasonable cost.
I question the use of the word reasonable here. In the UK an
interlibrary loan for a single paper or part of a work costs me £12 -
for a photocopy!!! My university subsidises this so I must personally
pay £3.[*]
If the authors of the paper have paid ESA page charges to produce the
thing and subscribers to the journal have paid for the print copy, where
exactly does the $20 charged for the paper go, what does it pay for? The
website and mechanisms for storing and delivering the content
electronically, but that can't possibly cost $20.
There are ways round this and many scientists probably share PDFs of
papers they shouldn't but the point is that $20 for a stream of bits is
ridiculously expensive. Those lay people might not be that aware of the
other methods for getting papers and seeing the price they may be put
off trying to access the work. If that is work funded by the Government
it is shameful.
The money that ESA and other scholarly organizations charge for
electronic copies of their reports goes to support the organization.
The organization makes possible the publication and decimination of
new knowledge. There are costs involved, whether or not you think
that the only thing the organization has to pay is for the electrical
power to zip electrons around. Yes, the incremental cost of pushing
out another copy is small. But all the infrastructure of the
organization is involved in getting there, and is at stake if we
succomb to the idea that only the incremental cost should be paid by
the user.
You read far too much into what I said. ESA shouldn't be making money
off Government funded research by charging exorbitant rates for
downloading PDFs of papers reporting the results of said work. Making
money in the sense of using those funds for its activities in support of
ecology. Listen to what you are advocating; that ESA be allowed to fund
its outreach and other society activities (which are all very important
and noble, and I have no problem with) by placing charges on access to
the outputs of work funded by by taxpayers.
If ESA went cap in hand to the Government for a handout to fund these
other activities we probably know the outcome.
Yes, libraries and other institutions pay a substantial subsidy in
providing photocopies through interlibrary loan. If they don't, then
charges must be high like those you paid. The entity that supports
the library has taken the position that creation and decimination of
knowledge is its role in society, and it will recoup costs via
whatever funding mechanisms it has. In a just society, that is the
public through its various taxing mechanisms and through donations
that result in successful investment. Nothing wrong with this. New
knowledge into the public realm is worth paying for. But scholarly
organizations like ESA don't have access to those funding sources.
Their funding is their membership and their publishing. The
publishing is mostly, for most such organizations, not really
profitable. It only works because they charge institutional
subscribers large fees, because some organizations actually do pay
page charges, and because some scholarly organizations have s!
uccessful investment programs (endowments, which have suffered along
with the rest of the economy).
If ESA wants to engage in extra activities, then it should fund them
through its membership fees. The tax payer should not be being asked to
fund this work in a roundabout way.
You want the electronic copies for the incremental cost of producing
one copy. But that is not the whole story, and when you get it for
that, you are parasitizing the membership of the organization, which
already subsidizes the functions of the organization substantially.
You place the whole enterprise
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:32 AM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: The money that ESA and other scholarly organizations charge for electronic copies of their reports goes to support the organization. The organization makes possible the publication and decimination of new knowledge. There are costs involved, whether or not you think that the only thing the organization has to pay is for the electrical power to zip electrons around. Yes, the incremental cost of pushing out another copy is small. But all the infrastructure of the organization is involved in getting there, and is at stake if we succomb to the idea that only the incremental cost should be paid by the user. Then what did ESA and other publishers do before widespread Internet use? Back then, people would go to the library and, if the library subscribed, photocopy the articles they needed. They paid the library for copies, but publishers saw none of that money. And if they just read the article without copying it, they paid nothing at all! Jane Shevtsov -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org She has future plans and dreams at night. They tell her life is hard; she says 'That's all right'. --Faith Hill, Wild One
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
Jane, In the past, professional societies made most of their money by selling institutional subscriptions; personal subscriptions were usually sold at the marginal cost of printing and mailing the journals. The profits from these subscriptions subsidized most of the activities of the society, including meetings, public outreach, etc. This was simply the business model. As libraries began to be squeezed by reduced funds and the ever increasing number of journals, institutional subscriptions began declining, even before electronic publishing. Although the labor costs associated with journal production have declined somewhat by moving away from paper and old publishing methods, the decline is not as great as one might think. Good editorial staff is still expensive. None of this was transparent to the people paying the bills. It was just the way the system worked. Professional societies now have to rely on making money from meetings and are struggling with different subscription models, including the absurd cost of an individual article. It isn't just about the marginal cost of pushing electrons, it is also about demand for the information. This is the free market at work. As to whether research paid for with tax dollars should be open access, that is a different question. The alternative funding mechanism is that the authors pay the cost of publication (which gets billed to the grant and hence paid for with tax money). That reduces all journals to a vanity press. If the authors pay, why shouldn't all articles get published? I know the answer to that, but you appreciate the temptation for publishers if we go to a fully author-financed system. There aren't any easy answers here. Open access solves some problems but creates others. My two cents, Rick Hooper _ Richard Hooper Ph.D. Executive Director CUAHSI 196 Boston Avenue, Suite 2100 Medford, MA 02155 e: rhoo...@cuahsi.org p: +1.202.777.7306 f: 202.777.7308 w: www.cuahsi.org-Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jane Shevtsov Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:27 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:32 AM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: The money that ESA and other scholarly organizations charge for electronic copies of their reports goes to support the organization. The organization makes possible the publication and decimination of new knowledge. There are costs involved, whether or not you think that the only thing the organization has to pay is for the electrical power to zip electrons around. Yes, the incremental cost of pushing out another copy is small. But all the infrastructure of the organization is involved in getting there, and is at stake if we succomb to the idea that only the incremental cost should be paid by the user. Then what did ESA and other publishers do before widespread Internet use? Back then, people would go to the library and, if the library subscribed, photocopy the articles they needed. They paid the library for copies, but publishers saw none of that money. And if they just read the article without copying it, they paid nothing at all! Jane Shevtsov -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org She has future plans and dreams at night. They tell her life is hard; she says 'That's all right'. --Faith Hill, Wild One
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:00 PM, mcnee...@cox.net wrote: H. Jane, perhaps you might include sorts of institutions other than universities, such as government agencies, industrial organizations (why should Exon Mobil get a free ride?), NGOs? Sure. Maybe any entity that downloads more than X papers a month. The New York Times has this sort of system. They allow non-subscribers 20 free articles a month. A scientific publisher would have to set a lower threshold than that, but you get the idea. Also, the regulation that ESA's letter was written about includes an embargo period. Suppose a student or faculty member works at home at night, and makes the request from there? Free then, but if he makes the request from his office or a laboratory, he gets dinged? No, he doesn't get dinged if the university library has a subscription, which it normally would. Fact is, the publisher has to recoup costs and costs for a a scholarly organization include things other than publishing. When students first get into this game most are unaware that authors pay for preprints (including electronic preprints) and pay page charges for publication. That being the case, why shouldn't the publisher offset some costs by charging users for access? Again, libraries would pay for access, as would anyone else who wanted an article during its embargo period. BTW, the part of the letter arguing that an embargo period won't work for ecology journals because our research takes longer than many other kinds is flawed. Citation half-lives are the wrong measure, precisely because our research takes a long time. If I download a paper today, get excited by it, and decide to base a field project on it, I may not publish for several years. This makes the citation half-life much longer than the reading half-life or download half-life. ESA and most scholarly organizations that publish journals are truly nonprofit. Elsevier Press is another matter, and There oughta be a law ... . Which really stinks for me, as Ecological Modelling is a major journal in my area and is published by Elsevier. There definitely oughta be a law Jane Shevtsov -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org She has future plans and dreams at night. They tell her life is hard; she says 'That's all right'. --Faith Hill, Wild One
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable? And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article if I was an infrequent reader, but $20? There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/ . Jane Shevtsov On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM, M.S. Patterson tertiarym...@gmail.comwrote: Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less charitable: http://phylogenomics.blogspot.**com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner** utm_medium=twitterutm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* *Life%29http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 http://phylogenomics.**blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner** utm_medium=twitterutm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* *Life%29http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 The fact that ESA forces authors to cede the copyright to their work is offensive, IMO, even if they 'grant' the author reprint or reproduction rights. It also means that ESA could choose to rewrite their rules such that authors could lose rights to reprint or reproduce their own work. Academic publishers should be granted first printing rights, with the option to acquire additional rights at a later date, as they desire. Nothing more. As it currently stands, ESA's policy is essentially treating research articles as work-made-for-hire, which is ludicrous, given that authors must pay page charges to print the work! In essence researchers are paying to have their work printed, while ceding all of their rights to the publisher in the process. Further, I don't think anyone is suggesting that ESA should be denied all subscription fees (or page fees), but simply that papers should become available publicly over time, and that any research funded by public monies should be available to the public sooner rather than later. Which is entirely reasonable, and more than likely beneficial to the public. -m On 1/5/2012 12:33 AM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: Fellow Ecologgers, Have people read ESA's response to a proposed requirement that the results of federally funded research be publicly available, possibly after an embargo period? It's available here. http://www.esa.org/pao/**policyStatements/Letters/** ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI20**11.pdfhttp://www.esa.org/pao/policyStatements/Letters/ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI2011.pdf I have to say I find this response somewhat disappointing. While some of the concerns raised in it are certainly valid, I believe it underestimates ecologists' desire to read an interesting new paper now rather than later. Also, kudos to ESA for allowing authors to freely post their papers online, something I relied on when I didn't have university journal access, but how is this financially different from open access? ESA's 2009 financial statement (the latest available online) may be of interest. http://www.esa.org/aboutesa/**docs/FS2009.pdfhttp://www.esa.org/aboutesa/docs/FS2009.pdf Thoughts? Jane Shevtsov -- Matt Patterson MSES/MPA 2012 Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs Center for the study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change (CIPEC) Room 226A | 408 N Indiana Ave | Bloomington, IN 47408-3799 Environmentally Scientific Emblogulations http://env-sci-blog.blogspot.** com http://env-sci-blog.blogspot.com -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org She has future plans and dreams at night. They tell her life is hard; she says 'That's all right'. --Faith Hill, Wild One
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com wrote: I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable? And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article if I was an infrequent reader, but $20? There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/ . Is it really so difficult to get a paper? I have never been unable to get a paper I wanted or needed, and I have never paid the high prices that publishers demand for instant access on the internet. Most of us live within 50 miles of a library. If the library does not subscribe to the journal in which the paper appears, interlibrary loan will get it for a reasonable cost. The real problem is the demand for instant gratification that we have developed. It is that that we are being asked to pay for. Should a paper cost $50? I really don't know what it costs the journal to produce the paper, what the demand is (well, for some papers the demand is virtually nothing), or what distribution costs. I do know that such services as BioOne have greatly improved the bottom lines of some scholarly organizations, which in the long run makes papers more available, not less. I guess in this one instance I am suggesting that free market is not so bad. If you really must have the paper the instant you locate it through the free search and free abstract mechanisms of the publishers, why then pay the asking price. Otherwise, use more traditional means of getting it. If publishers are getting the asking price, they will maintain it, or maybe ask a little more. If they are not getting it, they will back off. If you are so far back in the sticks that you don't have ready access to a library, investigate a bit. I'll bet some library serves you if you find out how. If you are living in a cabin off the traveled roads and off the grid, then you don't have internet access either, so your complaints about no open access are moot. David McNeely Jane Shevtsov On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM, M.S. Patterson tertiarym...@gmail.comwrote: Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less charitable: http://phylogenomics.blogspot.**com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner** utm_medium=twitterutm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* *Life%29http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 http://phylogenomics.**blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner** utm_medium=twitterutm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* *Life%29http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 The fact that ESA forces authors to cede the copyright to their work is offensive, IMO, even if they 'grant' the author reprint or reproduction rights. It also means that ESA could choose to rewrite their rules such that authors could lose rights to reprint or reproduce their own work. Academic publishers should be granted first printing rights, with the option to acquire additional rights at a later date, as they desire. Nothing more. As it currently stands, ESA's policy is essentially treating research articles as work-made-for-hire, which is ludicrous, given that authors must pay page charges to print the work! In essence researchers are paying to have their work printed, while ceding all of their rights to the publisher in the process. Further, I don't think anyone is suggesting that ESA should be denied all subscription fees (or page fees), but simply that papers should become available publicly over time, and that any research funded by public monies should be available to the public sooner rather than later. Which is entirely reasonable, and more than likely beneficial to the public. -m On 1/5/2012 12:33 AM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: Fellow Ecologgers, Have people read ESA's response to a proposed requirement that the results of federally funded research be publicly available, possibly after an embargo period? It's available here. http://www.esa.org/pao/**policyStatements/Letters/** ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI20**11.pdfhttp://www.esa.org/pao/policyStatements/Letters/ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI2011.pdf I have to say I find this response somewhat disappointing. While some of the concerns raised in it are certainly valid, I believe it underestimates ecologists' desire to read an interesting new
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
Jordan Mayor clavul...@gmail.com wrote: Just email the author for a digital reprint. If (s)he has them. Authors may have to pay for these with some publishers, and depending on circumstances, may or may not get them. For older papers they may not exist. authors contact addresses may not be the same as shown on the abstract, and they may not necessarily be easy to track down. Libraries are always there, with helpful personnel who do not charge a fee (there may or may not be a small fee for the copy depending on your relationship with the library -- student, faculty or staff, community library, community patron of academic library .. ). mcneely Jordan On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:51 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com wrote: I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable? And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article if I was an infrequent reader, but $20? There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/ . Is it really so difficult to get a paper? I have never been unable to get a paper I wanted or needed, and I have never paid the high prices that publishers demand for instant access on the internet. Most of us live within 50 miles of a library. If the library does not subscribe to the journal in which the paper appears, interlibrary loan will get it for a reasonable cost. The real problem is the demand for instant gratification that we have developed. It is that that we are being asked to pay for. Should a paper cost $50? I really don't know what it costs the journal to produce the paper, what the demand is (well, for some papers the demand is virtually nothing), or what distribution costs. I do know that such services as BioOne have greatly improved the bottom lines of some scholarly organizations, which in the long run makes papers more available, not less. I guess in this one instance I am suggesting that free market is not so bad. If you really must have the paper the instant you locate it through the free search and free abstract mechanisms of the publishers, why then pay the asking price. Otherwise, use more traditional means of getting it. If publishers are getting the asking price, they will maintain it, or maybe ask a little more. If they are not getting it, they will back off. If you are so far back in the sticks that you don't have ready access to a library, investigate a bit. I'll bet some library serves you if you find out how. If you are living in a cabin off the traveled roads and off the grid, then you don't have internet access either, so your complaints about no open access are moot. David McNeely Jane Shevtsov On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM, M.S. Patterson tertiarym...@gmail.comwrote: Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less charitable: http://phylogenomics.blogspot.**com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner** utm_medium=twitterutm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* *Life%29http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 http://phylogenomics.**blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner** utm_medium=twitterutm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* *Life%29http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 The fact that ESA forces authors to cede the copyright to their work is offensive, IMO, even if they 'grant' the author reprint or reproduction rights. It also means that ESA could choose to rewrite their rules such that authors could lose rights to reprint or reproduce their own work. Academic publishers should be granted first printing rights, with the option to acquire additional rights at a later date, as they desire. Nothing more. As it currently stands, ESA's policy is essentially treating research articles as work-made-for-hire, which is ludicrous, given that authors must pay page charges to print the work! In essence researchers are paying to have their work printed, while ceding all of their rights to the publisher in the process. Further, I don't think anyone is suggesting that ESA should be denied all subscription fees (or page fees), but simply that papers should become available publicly over time, and
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
Dear David, You make some very interesting points. On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:51 AM, mcnee...@cox.net wrote: Is it really so difficult to get a paper? I have never been unable to get a paper I wanted or needed, and I have never paid the high prices that publishers demand for instant access on the internet. Most of us live within 50 miles of a library. If the library does not subscribe to the journal in which the paper appears, interlibrary loan will get it for a reasonable cost. If you know that a paper is the one you need, that's a reasonable strategy. But if it's a case of this might be relevant, or it might not, you're not likely to go to the trouble. I was in that position some time ago when interning at Kennedy Space Center. NASA didn't subscribe to ecological journals, as most of its staff didn't need them -- but they were certainly relevant to groups working on bioregenerative life support or environmental impact analysis. The real problem is the demand for instant gratification that we have developed. It is that that we are being asked to pay for. When delivery is essentially free, why is a desire for instant gratification a problem? Should a paper cost $50? I really don't know what it costs the journal to produce the paper, what the demand is (well, for some papers the demand is virtually nothing), or what distribution costs. I do know that such services as BioOne have greatly improved the bottom lines of some scholarly organizations, which in the long run makes papers more available, not less. Having more papers in existence is not the same as improving the availability of each paper. I guess in this one instance I am suggesting that free market is not so bad. There's no free market here. A free market would exist if you could get the same paper from several different stores. From a reader's point of view, a publisher is a monopoly. It's a natural monopoly -- but natural monopolies must be regulated. If you really must have the paper the instant you locate it through the free search and free abstract mechanisms of the publishers, why then pay the asking price. Otherwise, use more traditional means of getting it. If publishers are getting the asking price, they will maintain it, or maybe ask a little more. If they are not getting it, they will back off. Now this is a fascinating point. How often do people actually pay the publisher's asking price? Like you say, a reader can go to a university library (public libraries rarely subscribe to technical journals), go to an author's web site, or email the author. Heck, if you access the Web without a university IP address, Google Scholar will automatically try to find free copies of papers you search for. So is the $20 per paper price really intended to make money directly, or to get people to do something else, like joining ESA and buying a journal subscription? Jane Shevtsov -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org She has future plans and dreams at night. They tell her life is hard; she says 'That's all right'. --Faith Hill, Wild One
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com wrote: I do know that such services as BioOne have greatly improved the bottom lines of some scholarly organizations, which in the long run makes papers more available, not less. Having more papers in existence is not the same as improving the availability of each paper. BioOne is not a paper publisher. It is an online, nonprofit service that makes papers available to readers, for a fee (or a subscription fee for organizations), and pays a portion to the publisher. It has made papers more easily available in that readers can find them on the web, and access them there if a member of an organization that has a subscription, or by paying the fee. One might consider it to be just another layer, and another cost. But it provides the instant gratification that we have come to want. It does not bring more papers into existence. It remits part of the fee to the journal, which is why I said that it has improved the bottom line of some societies. I guess in this one instance I am suggesting that free market is not so bad. There's no free market here. A free market would exist if you could get the same paper from several different stores. You can get the same paper from different sources. You can subscribe to the journal in print or online. You can go to a library that subscribes to the journal. You can request a reprint from the author (who may have had to pay for it himself). You can use online sources that may or may not have a cost associated, depending on the journal and the source. You can use interlibrary loan. There are multiple media through which a journal article may be obtained. These different media have different costs in coin and effort associated with them. From a reader's point of view, a publisher is a monopoly. It's a natural monopoly -- but natural monopolies must be regulated. If you really must have the paper the instant you locate it through the free search and free abstract mechanisms of the publishers, why then pay the asking price. Otherwise, use more traditional means of getting it. If publishers are getting the asking price, they will maintain it, or maybe ask a little more. If they are not getting it, they will back off. Now this is a fascinating point. How often do people actually pay the publisher's asking price? Like you say, a reader can go to a university library (public libraries rarely subscribe to technical journals), go to an author's web site, or email the author. Heck, if you access the Web without a university IP address, Google Scholar will automatically try to find free copies of papers you search for. So is the $20 per paper price really intended to make money directly, or to get people to do something else, like joining ESA and buying a journal subscription? Which is a pretty good idea. It supports ESA (or whatever organization publishes the journal, not all ecological work is published in ESA journals), and it gives one an opportunity to regularly review the spectrum of work being done in Ecology. Joining provides a great many benefits beyond the opportunity to subscribe to the journals, as well. One of those benefits is eventual life membership in emeritus status, which I have earned and take advantage of. David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
David, you're correct that many libraries have subscriptions to various journals, and are capable of getting an article via interlibrary loan. However, this is simply a case of passing the buck. Do you think publishers give free access to libraries and universities? They do not. The subscription fees that libraries pay are exceedingly steep, and as library budgets have been getting slashed, many have been cutting back substantially on their journal access, counting on others within the library system to maintain subscriptions. And, of course, every interlibrary loan request costs time, labor, and money to the communities involved. Surely it is more socially efficient to charge a few dollars for an article, and make it easily available to people, than it is to charge a large sum to a library, and then incur additional labor costs to shuttle a document around from place to place? The cost of distribution for the publishers is essentially nil, given that they already have invested in the sites in place to distribute their articles, whether they cost $50 or $2. Electrons are quite cheap. This is a simple case of an industry with substantial monopoly power engaging in rent seeking. A simple search on academic publisher profits would be extremely enlightening, I suspect. Here is a good place to start: http://www.economist.com/node/18744177 -m On 1/9/2012 9:51 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: Jane Shevtsovjane@gmail.com wrote: I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable? And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article if I was an infrequent reader, but $20? There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/ . Is it really so difficult to get a paper? I have never been unable to get a paper I wanted or needed, and I have never paid the high prices that publishers demand for instant access on the internet. Most of us live within 50 miles of a library. If the library does not subscribe to the journal in which the paper appears, interlibrary loan will get it for a reasonable cost. The real problem is the demand for instant gratification that we have developed. It is that that we are being asked to pay for. Should a paper cost $50? I really don't know what it costs the journal to produce the paper, what the demand is (well, for some papers the demand is virtually nothing), or what distribution costs. I do know that such services as BioOne have greatly improved the bottom lines of some scholarly organizations, which in the long run makes papers more available, not less. I guess in this one instance I am suggesting that free market is not so bad. If you really must have the paper the instant you locate it through the free search and free abstract mechanisms of the publishers, why then pay the asking price. Otherwise, use more traditional means of getting it. If publishers are getting the asking price, they will maintain it, or maybe ask a little more. If they are not getting it, they will back off. If you are so far back in the sticks that you don't have ready access to a library, investigate a bit. I'll bet some library serves you if you find out how. If you are living in a cabin off the traveled roads and off the grid, then you don't have internet access either, so your complaints about no open access are moot. David McNeely Jane Shevtsov On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM, M.S. Pattersontertiarym...@gmail.comwrote: Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less charitable: http://phylogenomics.blogspot.**com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner** utm_medium=twitterutm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* *Life%29http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 http://phylogenomics.**blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner** utm_medium=twitterutm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* *Life%29http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 The fact that ESA forces authors to cede the copyright to their work is offensive, IMO, even if they 'grant' the author reprint or reproduction rights. It also means that ESA could choose to rewrite their rules such that authors could lose rights to reprint or reproduce their own work. Academic publishers should be granted first printing rights, with the option to acquire additional rights at a
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
To be fair, ESA's profit margin is much smaller than that of commercial publishers. But I wonder how much of that money comes from people paying outrageous sums for individual articles. Not much, I'll bet. There would seem to be a simple technical solution. Just as IP addresses are currently used to check whether someone is at a subscribing institution, they could be used to see whether an article request is coming from someone at a university. If yes, they'd only have access if their library subscribed (or if they had an individual subscription). Non-institutional users would get free access. Jane Shevtsov On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:39 PM, M.S. Patterson tertiarym...@gmail.comwrote: David, you're correct that many libraries have subscriptions to various journals, and are capable of getting an article via interlibrary loan. However, this is simply a case of passing the buck. Do you think publishers give free access to libraries and universities? They do not. The subscription fees that libraries pay are exceedingly steep, and as library budgets have been getting slashed, many have been cutting back substantially on their journal access, counting on others within the library system to maintain subscriptions. And, of course, every interlibrary loan request costs time, labor, and money to the communities involved. Surely it is more socially efficient to charge a few dollars for an article, and make it easily available to people, than it is to charge a large sum to a library, and then incur additional labor costs to shuttle a document around from place to place? The cost of distribution for the publishers is essentially nil, given that they already have invested in the sites in place to distribute their articles, whether they cost $50 or $2. Electrons are quite cheap. This is a simple case of an industry with substantial monopoly power engaging in rent seeking. A simple search on academic publisher profits would be extremely enlightening, I suspect. Here is a good place to start: http://www.economist.com/node/**18744177http://www.economist.com/node/18744177 -m On 1/9/2012 9:51 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: Jane Shevtsovjane@gmail.com wrote: I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable? And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article if I was an infrequent reader, but $20? There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at http://researchremix.**wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-** should-the-publishers-lobby-**for/http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/ . Is it really so difficult to get a paper? I have never been unable to get a paper I wanted or needed, and I have never paid the high prices that publishers demand for instant access on the internet. Most of us live within 50 miles of a library. If the library does not subscribe to the journal in which the paper appears, interlibrary loan will get it for a reasonable cost. The real problem is the demand for instant gratification that we have developed. It is that that we are being asked to pay for. Should a paper cost $50? I really don't know what it costs the journal to produce the paper, what the demand is (well, for some papers the demand is virtually nothing), or what distribution costs. I do know that such services as BioOne have greatly improved the bottom lines of some scholarly organizations, which in the long run makes papers more available, not less. I guess in this one instance I am suggesting that free market is not so bad. If you really must have the paper the instant you locate it through the free search and free abstract mechanisms of the publishers, why then pay the asking price. Otherwise, use more traditional means of getting it. If publishers are getting the asking price, they will maintain it, or maybe ask a little more. If they are not getting it, they will back off. If you are so far back in the sticks that you don't have ready access to a library, investigate a bit. I'll bet some library serves you if you find out how. If you are living in a cabin off the traveled roads and off the grid, then you don't have internet access either, so your complaints about no open access are moot. David McNeely Jane Shevtsov On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM, M.S. Pattersontertiarymatt@gmail.**comtertiarym...@gmail.com wrote: Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less charitable: http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburner utm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* *Life%29http://phylogenomics.**blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-**
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:31 PM, mcnee...@cox.net wrote: You can get the same paper from different sources. You can subscribe to the journal in print or online. You can go to a library that subscribes to the journal. You can request a reprint from the author (who may have had to pay for it himself). You can use online sources that may or may not have a cost associated, depending on the journal and the source. You can use interlibrary loan. There are multiple media through which a journal article may be obtained. These different media have different costs in coin and effort associated with them. And ironically, the source with the lowest cost charges the most! On a related but broader note, people might want to read John Perry Barlow's classic essay, Selling Wine Without Bottles: The Economy of Ideas on the Global Net. http://virtualschool.edu/mon/ElectronicFrontier/WineWithoutBottles.html So is the $20 per paper price really intended to make money directly, or to get people to do something else, like joining ESA and buying a journal subscription? Which is a pretty good idea. It supports ESA (or whatever organization publishes the journal, not all ecological work is published in ESA journals), and it gives one an opportunity to regularly review the spectrum of work being done in Ecology. Joining provides a great many benefits beyond the opportunity to subscribe to the journals, as well. One of those benefits is eventual life membership in emeritus status, which I have earned and take advantage of. Indeed, but I hope you're not saying that everyone who might read a few papers a year should necessarily join and subscribe. If they want to, great, but it shouldn't be a condition of access. Just to be clear, I've been an ESA member since 2005, when SEEDS awarded me a one-year membership along with a scholarship to attend the annual meeting. That felt pretty cool to an undergrad, and I've proudly maintained a membership ever since. This is the first time I'm considering not renewing, not because of ESA's own practices, but because of that letter, which supports not only society publishers but the worst actors in the industry. Jane Shevtsov -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org She has future plans and dreams at night. They tell her life is hard; she says 'That's all right'. --Faith Hill, Wild One
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
Honorable Forum: It used to be $15, if I recall correctly; it appears they've jacked it up recently, by 33.33 percent, if my arithmetic is correct--what does that reflect, in policy and business terms? Judging by the deafening silence elicited from previous posts, they are not likely to change their policy of considering access to be a profit center. It would be interesting to see the sales figures, but I suspect that it will be a cold day in hell when they're released. But I suspect that the objective is not to derive income from such sales, but to discourage low-volume readers to the point of forcing then to join. After all, once the article is posted, the cost to the organization is practically zero. But I repeat myself. The bottom line remains, is it the goal of the organization creating such policies to advance and facilitate the understanding of ecology as a phenomenon, a discipline and a profession, or to retard said understanding (and support)? It is ironic that the tradition of science as a practice was, in the old days prior to the advent of the Internet, to freely share one's work with all interested parties, not just a selected, connected, well-heeled few, and to pay it forward. Access to university libraries used to be pretty universal, and almost anyone could, at their own expense, travel to a library, engage with a helpful librarian, browse stacks or order publications, and work in the library. One made notes, and actually wrote in a quiet atmosphere conducive to continuity of thought. This can still be done, but it is inefficient and, if papers must be photocopied from books and journals, rather costly (but for relatively short papers (Lessee, $20 divided by $0.10 per page = 200 pages would be the break-even point, no? What are the normal page limits or average paper lengths for most scientific papers?) at least, less so than purchasing 24-hour access to a pdf file). One can still email most authors with a Reprint request or even send a snailmail request. But this puts the requestor at a competitive disadvantage, under those having institutional (free to the individual, but budget-busting to the taxpayer-supported institution and prohibitive to the smaller institutions, especially those in poorer areas. A comparison of price trends over time and the hard-copy subscription and individual reprint costs compared to the electronic access fees would be enlightening. (Social scientists, awake!) Ain't it kinda ironic that as the vastly superior economy of the Internet and computing, etc. have cut publication costs that publishers can get away with gouging-on-steroids with a straight (if evasive) face? WT - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 8:25 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable? And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article if I was an infrequent reader, but $20? There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/ . Jane Shevtsov On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM, M.S. Patterson tertiarym...@gmail.comwrote: Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less charitable: http://phylogenomics.blogspot.**com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner** utm_medium=twitterutm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* *Life%29http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 http://phylogenomics.**blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner** utm_medium=twitterutm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* *Life%29http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 The fact that ESA forces authors to cede the copyright to their work is offensive, IMO, even if they 'grant' the author reprint or reproduction rights. It also means that ESA could choose to rewrite their rules such that authors could lose rights to reprint or reproduce their own work. Academic publishers should be granted first printing rights, with the option to acquire additional rights at a later date, as they desire. Nothing more. As it currently stands, ESA's policy is essentially treating research articles as work-made-for-hire, which is ludicrous, given that authors must pay page charges to print the work! In essence
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com wrote: To be fair, ESA's profit margin is much smaller than that of commercial publishers. But I wonder how much of that money comes from people paying outrageous sums for individual articles. Not much, I'll bet. There would seem to be a simple technical solution. Just as IP addresses are currently used to check whether someone is at a subscribing institution, they could be used to see whether an article request is coming from someone at a university. If yes, they'd only have access if their library subscribed (or if they had an individual subscription). Non-institutional users would get free access. H. Jane, perhaps you might include sorts of institutions other than universities, such as government agencies, industrial organizations (why should Exon Mobil get a free ride?), NGOs? Suppose a student or faculty member works at home at night, and makes the request from there? Free then, but if he makes the request from his office or a laboratory, he gets dinged? Fact is, the publisher has to recoup costs and costs for a a scholarly organization include things other than publishing. When students first get into this game most are unaware that authors pay for preprints (including electronic preprints) and pay page charges for publication. That being the case, why shouldn't the publisher offset some costs by charging users for access? ESA and most scholarly organizations that publish journals are truly nonprofit. Elsevier Press is another matter, and There oughta be a law ... . So far as the university library is concerned, the universal copyright agreement that allows interlibrary loan is something akin to what you suggest: If a library makes more than five requests from a journal in a year, then the library is expected to subscribe. In other words, requests beyond five would be a copyright violation. Jane Shevtsov On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:39 PM, M.S. Patterson tertiarym...@gmail.comwrote: David, you're correct that many libraries have subscriptions to various journals, and are capable of getting an article via interlibrary loan. However, this is simply a case of passing the buck. Do you think publishers give free access to libraries and universities? They do not. The subscription fees that libraries pay are exceedingly steep, and as library budgets have been getting slashed, many have been cutting back substantially on their journal access, counting on others within the library system to maintain subscriptions. And, of course, every interlibrary loan request costs time, labor, and money to the communities involved. Surely it is more socially efficient to charge a few dollars for an article, and make it easily available to people, than it is to charge a large sum to a library, and then incur additional labor costs to shuttle a document around from place to place? The cost of distribution for the publishers is essentially nil, given that they already have invested in the sites in place to distribute their articles, whether they cost $50 or $2. Electrons are quite cheap. This is a simple case of an industry with substantial monopoly power engaging in rent seeking. A simple search on academic publisher profits would be extremely enlightening, I suspect. Here is a good place to start: http://www.economist.com/node/**18744177http://www.economist.com/node/18744177 -m On 1/9/2012 9:51 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: Jane Shevtsovjane@gmail.com wrote: I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable? And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article if I was an infrequent reader, but $20? There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at http://researchremix.**wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-** should-the-publishers-lobby-**for/http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/ . Is it really so difficult to get a paper? I have never been unable to get a paper I wanted or needed, and I have never paid the high prices that publishers demand for instant access on the internet. Most of us live within 50 miles of a library. If the library does not subscribe to the journal in which the paper appears, interlibrary loan will get it for a reasonable cost. The real problem is the demand for instant gratification that we have developed. It is that that we are being asked to pay for. Should a paper cost $50? I really don't know what it costs the journal to produce the paper, what the demand is (well, for some papers the demand is virtually nothing), or what distribution costs. I do know that such services as BioOne have greatly improved the bottom lines
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Honorable Forum: It used to be $15, if I recall correctly; it appears they've jacked it up recently, by 33.33 percent, if my arithmetic is correct--what does that reflect, in policy and business terms? Judging by the deafening silence elicited from previous posts, they are not likely to change their policy of considering access to be a profit center. It would be interesting to see the sales figures, but I suspect that it will be a cold day in hell when they're released. So far as ESA, ASIH, and SWAN, three organizations I have a fairly close familiarity with, you can get those data from the annual Treasurer's Report, which appears in the Minutes of the Annual Meeting, published on the society web page and in one of the various journals (in ESA's case, _The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America_. But I suspect that the objective is not to derive income from such sales, but to discourage low-volume readers to the point of forcing then to join. After all, once the article is posted, the cost to the organization is practically zero. But I repeat myself. The bottom line remains, is it the goal of the organization creating such policies to advance and facilitate the understanding of ecology as a phenomenon, a discipline and a profession, or to retard said understanding (and support)? It is ironic that the tradition of science as a practice was, in the old days prior to the advent of the Internet, to freely share one's work with all interested parties, not just a selected, connected, well-heeled few, and to pay it forward. Access to university libraries used to be pretty universal, and almost anyone could, at their own expense, travel to a library, engage with a helpful librarian, browse stacks or order publications, and work in the library. One made notes, and actually wrote in a quiet atmosphere conducive to continuity of thought. This can still be done, but it is inefficient and, if papers must be photocopied from books and journals, rather costly (but for relatively short papers (Lessee, $20 divided by $0.10 per page = 200 pages would be the break-even point, no? What are the normal page limits or average paper lengths for most scientific papers?) at least, less so than purchasing 24-hour access to a pdf file). One can still do all this, or if one prefers, use a free to any user who walks in the door computer to do his work in a more modern manner. I worked at a public university library in this fashion for four hours today. Private universities generally have more restrictions on who uses their services, but they do make them available. They may ask the non university affiliated user to pay a small fee to become a community user, renewable annually. They may restrict the services that such users may access more than public universities do. mcneely One can still email most authors with a Reprint request or even send a snailmail request. But this puts the requestor at a competitive disadvantage, under those having institutional (free to the individual, but budget-busting to the taxpayer-supported institution and prohibitive to the smaller institutions, especially those in poorer areas. A comparison of price trends over time and the hard-copy subscription and individual reprint costs compared to the electronic access fees would be enlightening. (Social scientists, awake!) Librarians do this kind of work all the time. Check their journals for such papers, or look at Dissertation Abstracts or University Microfilms. Ain't it kinda ironic that as the vastly superior economy of the Internet and computing, etc. have cut publication costs that publishers can get away with gouging-on-steroids with a straight (if evasive) face? WT - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 8:25 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable? And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article if I was an infrequent reader, but $20? There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/ . Jane Shevtsov On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM, M.S. Patterson tertiarym...@gmail.comwrote: Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less charitable: http://phylogenomics.blogspot.**com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner** utm_medium=twitterutm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* *Life%29http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less charitable: http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 The fact that ESA forces authors to cede the copyright to their work is offensive, IMO, even if they 'grant' the author reprint or reproduction rights. It also means that ESA could choose to rewrite their rules such that authors could lose rights to reprint or reproduce their own work. Academic publishers should be granted first printing rights, with the option to acquire additional rights at a later date, as they desire. Nothing more. As it currently stands, ESA's policy is essentially treating research articles as work-made-for-hire, which is ludicrous, given that authors must pay page charges to print the work! In essence researchers are paying to have their work printed, while ceding all of their rights to the publisher in the process. Further, I don't think anyone is suggesting that ESA should be denied all subscription fees (or page fees), but simply that papers should become available publicly over time, and that any research funded by public monies should be available to the public sooner rather than later. Which is entirely reasonable, and more than likely beneficial to the public. -m On 1/5/2012 12:33 AM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: Fellow Ecologgers, Have people read ESA's response to a proposed requirement that the results of federally funded research be publicly available, possibly after an embargo period? It's available here. http://www.esa.org/pao/policyStatements/Letters/ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI2011.pdf I have to say I find this response somewhat disappointing. While some of the concerns raised in it are certainly valid, I believe it underestimates ecologists' desire to read an interesting new paper now rather than later. Also, kudos to ESA for allowing authors to freely post their papers online, something I relied on when I didn't have university journal access, but how is this financially different from open access? ESA's 2009 financial statement (the latest available online) may be of interest. http://www.esa.org/aboutesa/docs/FS2009.pdf Thoughts? Jane Shevtsov -- Matt Patterson MSES/MPA 2012 Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs Center for the study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change (CIPEC) Room 226A | 408 N Indiana Ave | Bloomington, IN 47408-3799 Environmentally Scientific Emblogulations http://env-sci-blog.blogspot.com
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access - and - scientific communication to the public
Jane, thanks for your post. The ESA's position, as an academic publisher, is predictable. The academic publishing world is rapidly changing. Publishers (of many kinds) are seeing the near future in which they are no longer sole gatekeepers of content, or process. I'd like to comment on a part of ESA's position letter: One way to make taxpayer funded research more visible and accessible to interested members of the public would be to require federally-funded grantees to provide a second version of the research summaries they already prepare, specifically for the lay reader. To aid in online searches, these summaries could also include the source of federal funding institutions and grant numbers. Publishers could also include grant information in paper abstracts which are usually available without a subscription. I would see a 'layperson-targeted research summary' as just a beginning. We scientists should take the lead in promoting and interpreting our scientific work for the public in engaging and digestible ways. There are lots of needs pulling us in this direction: to encourage STEM interest, to justify public research, to enhance human engagement with the biological world (re) conservation. There are great examples of scientists directly engaging the public about their work: tweeting scientists, networking with scientific journalists, making YouTube videos, etc (eg the Large Hadron Rap by Alpinekat on YouTube). Dr. Nalini Nadkarni and colleagues in the International Canopy Network have led the way on engaging the public in novel ways. However, this kind of engaging public communication is the rare exception, not the norm. If you're thinking there's no way I can do all that AND my science too, another means to get your work out to the public is to actively partner with professionals in the visual communication field. Also, many universities have media relations offices that can provide help. I'm an Assoc.Prof. of science at a college of Art and Design, and am actively working in this area - bringing scientists and artists together for improved scientific communication and improved scientific literacy in artists/designers. Both parties (scientists and art/designers) benefit from this collaboration. Did I mention it is awesomely fun? -- Kim Landsbergen Ph.D., Certified Senior Ecologist Associate Professor, Columbus College of Art Design Visiting Research Scholar, EEOB, The Ohio State University CarbonEcology Consulting LLC, Owner e: kim.landsbergen at gmail dot com p: 01-614-795-6003
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access - and - scientific communication to the public
We need a LESS PATRONIZING approach to lay people by scientists, not a more patronizing one. And an academic system that promotes learning and understanding, rather than retarding it. The firewall approach retards learning and understanding, the very thing we want to promote. Even as a business model, the outrageous practice of nicking people outside the scientific priesthood fifteen or fifty bucks for 24 hour access to a two or two hundred page paper is bankrupt. It drives away small customers (the lay public), depriving them of information and access to the best and/or most current thinking on subjects of interest to them, and destroys support for science by the very people most inclined to support it. To extend the patronizing attitude, suggestions for open access to publications are customarily met with silence (the best survival strategy is to avoid discouraging words and other challenges to the priesthood from whom you might want a grant or a job someday) other patronizing yelps from institutional bureaucrats who really want to shake down university and other libraries for huge access fees for services limited to the anointed ONLY. Lay people need not apply! WT PS: I'm only worth a lousy million-plus, and I have no family. Do you think I'm gonna will it to some firewalled institution? Not on my life or yours! I'm thinking of leaving it to some tramp on the street. Please, no pleas! - Original Message - From: Kim Landsbergen Ph.D. kim.landsber...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access - and - scientific communication to the public Jane, thanks for your post. The ESA's position, as an academic publisher, is predictable. The academic publishing world is rapidly changing. Publishers (of many kinds) are seeing the near future in which they are no longer sole gatekeepers of content, or process. I'd like to comment on a part of ESA's position letter: One way to make taxpayer funded research more visible and accessible to interested members of the public would be to require federally-funded grantees to provide a second version of the research summaries they already prepare, specifically for the lay reader. To aid in online searches, these summaries could also include the source of federal funding institutions and grant numbers. Publishers could also include grant information in paper abstracts which are usually available without a subscription. I would see a 'layperson-targeted research summary' as just a beginning. We scientists should take the lead in promoting and interpreting our scientific work for the public in engaging and digestible ways. There are lots of needs pulling us in this direction: to encourage STEM interest, to justify public research, to enhance human engagement with the biological world (re) conservation. There are great examples of scientists directly engaging the public about their work: tweeting scientists, networking with scientific journalists, making YouTube videos, etc (eg the Large Hadron Rap by Alpinekat on YouTube). Dr. Nalini Nadkarni and colleagues in the International Canopy Network have led the way on engaging the public in novel ways. However, this kind of engaging public communication is the rare exception, not the norm. If you're thinking there's no way I can do all that AND my science too, another means to get your work out to the public is to actively partner with professionals in the visual communication field. Also, many universities have media relations offices that can provide help. I'm an Assoc.Prof. of science at a college of Art and Design, and am actively working in this area - bringing scientists and artists together for improved scientific communication and improved scientific literacy in artists/designers. Both parties (scientists and art/designers) benefit from this collaboration. Did I mention it is awesomely fun? -- Kim Landsbergen Ph.D., Certified Senior Ecologist Associate Professor, Columbus College of Art Design Visiting Research Scholar, EEOB, The Ohio State University CarbonEcology Consulting LLC, Owner e: kim.landsbergen at gmail dot com p: 01-614-795-6003 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4126 - Release Date: 01/06/12
[ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
Fellow Ecologgers, Have people read ESA's response to a proposed requirement that the results of federally funded research be publicly available, possibly after an embargo period? It's available here. http://www.esa.org/pao/policyStatements/Letters/ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI2011.pdf I have to say I find this response somewhat disappointing. While some of the concerns raised in it are certainly valid, I believe it underestimates ecologists' desire to read an interesting new paper now rather than later. Also, kudos to ESA for allowing authors to freely post their papers online, something I relied on when I didn't have university journal access, but how is this financially different from open access? ESA's 2009 financial statement (the latest available online) may be of interest. http://www.esa.org/aboutesa/docs/FS2009.pdf Thoughts? Jane Shevtsov -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org She has future plans and dreams at night. They tell her life is hard; she says 'That's all right'. --Faith Hill, Wild One
