Re: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have!
Pay "university" coaches what they pay postdocs and see how many still do it "for the love of the game". On 2/17/2016 3:55 PM, Malcolm McCallum wrote: Apparently the enjoyment is not sufficient for the majority, because here has a been a long discussion going on for several years about the difficulty getting qualified reviewers. Then, over on the sports side, a rapidly increasing number athletes in football are retiring early (at least that was said on KC radio this week). Having said that, I doubt paying reviewers would be much encouragement for someone who is making over 70K. I did not miss the point, I just think the point is losing relevance in relation to the problem. On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Steve Young wrote: You’re missing the point - athletes like to play sports and some scientists like to review manuscripts. It is the enjoyment that drives them, not the money. Steve On 2/17/16, 10:54 AM, "Malcolm McCallum" wrote: paying reviewers is in no way related to paying athletes. The athletes are largely student. Most reviewers are not students. However, one could argue that reviewing is part of a scientist's job. Yet, its a part that most institutions provide no credit for. ITs a really screwed up situation. On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Steve Young wrote: And then there is the argument that some just enjoy reviewing papers – pro bono or payment is not something they consider. They like the opportunity to be involved in cutting edge science albeit the very periphery, before it is widely distributed. Interesting how this relates somewhat to the debate about paying college athletes (http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/why-ncaa-athletes-shouldnt- be-paid). Steve From: ECOLOG on behalf of David Duffy Reply-To: David Duffy Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM To: ECOLOG Subject: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have! http://chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Change-Academic/134546?cid=trend_rig ht_h "So why not try this: If academic work is to be commodified and turned into a source of profit for shareholders and for the 1 percent of the publishing world, then we should give up our archaic notions of unpaid craft labor and insist on professional compensation for our expertise, just as doctors, lawyers, and accountants do." -- David Duffy 戴大偉 (Dài Dàwěi) Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit/Makamakaʻāinana Botany University of Hawaii/Ke Kulanui o Hawaiʻi 3190 Maile Way Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA 1-808-956-8218 -- Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP Link to online CV and portfolio : https://www.visualcv.com/malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.” -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into law. "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ATD of ATB and ISI -- Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Founder/Owner: All Things Bugs LLC Capitalizing on Low-Crawling Fruit from Insect-Based Innovation ABOUT: http://allthingsbugs.com/People LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/all-things-bugs-dr-aaron-t-dossey/53/775/104 FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/Allthingsbugs ISI: https://www.facebook.com/InvertebrateStudiesInstitute PHONE: 1-352-281-3643
Re: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have!
Hi all, Many scientists (especially younger ones) are NOT paid by 'home institutions' (<- this term is also pretty much a mythical beast for many younger scientists). Many work contract-to-contract, or grant-to-grant. Many work in-between regardless. However, they are all asked to review regardless. I acknowledge that some journals do publish free of charge. But those where authors pay a fee should offer some sort of review fee. It would certainly help boost the likelihood that journals will get more reviews in faster - especially if they offer 4 or 5 people the chance to review, and those that accept first get the fees. Cheers, Andrew -- Andrew Wright, Ph.D. VaquitaAreBrowncoats: Where Sci-Fi meets Science, the Cosmos meets Conservation and Firefly meets Flipper. Shiny https://www.facebook.com/vaquitaarebrowncoats. "We don't have to save the world. The world is big enough to look after itself. What we have to be concerned about is whether or not the world we live in will be capable of sustaining us in it." Douglas Adams On 18 February 2016 at 05:16, Ganter, Philip wrote: > The problem is not whether or not we are being paid. We are paid by our > home institutions. The problem is the cost of getting to publications > based on research funded by public money. That has been and continues to > be the root problem, compounded by the publish-or-perish, paper-counting > mentality and the rise of predatory “open-source” publishers. > > Just this week, I have visited the websites of major scientific publishers > who all wanted over $35 for access to a single article. Preposterous (I am > reminded at the silly prices that keep most “minibar” items firmly in the > hotel room refrigerator in the US, while in South America, they are priced > reasonably and actually are a convenience). But I could often “rent” > temporary access for a few dollars. Hm. > > The major US academic funding agencies need to learn a lesson from Apple. > They need to flex their power and establish an iTunes for academic > publishing where a dollar gets you the publication you want. The > publishers can be paid royalties from this. With a bit of quality control > over which publications are part of the scheme and some peer pressure to > not submit manuscripts to publishers not participating in the scheme, we > can resolve many of the issues surrounding access to science (for that is > what we are, ultimately, discussing). > > Phil Ganter > Biological Sciences > Tennessee State University > Nashville, TN > > From: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" < > ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> on behalf of Steve Young > Reply-To: Steve Young > Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 7:57 AM > To: "ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU" > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have! > > And then there is the argument that some just enjoy reviewing papers – pro > bono or payment is not something they consider. They like the opportunity > to be involved in cutting edge science albeit the very periphery, before it > is widely distributed. Interesting how this relates somewhat to the debate > about paying college athletes ( > http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/why-ncaa-athletes-shouldnt-be-paid > ). > > Steve > > > From: ECOLOG on behalf of David Duffy < > ddu...@hawaii.edu> > Reply-To: David Duffy > Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM > To: ECOLOG > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have! > > > http://chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Change-Academic/134546?cid=trend_right_h > > "So why not try this: If academic work is to be commodified and turned > into a source of profit for shareholders and for the 1 percent of the > publishing world, then we should give up our archaic notions of unpaid > craft labor and insist on professional compensation for our expertise, just > as doctors, lawyers, and accountants do." > > -- > David Duffy > 戴大偉 (Dài Dàwěi) > Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit/Makamakaʻāinana > Botany > University of Hawaii/*Ke Kulanui o Hawaiʻi* > 3190 Maile Way > Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA > 1-808-956-8218 >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have!
Apparently the enjoyment is not sufficient for the majority, because here has a been a long discussion going on for several years about the difficulty getting qualified reviewers. Then, over on the sports side, a rapidly increasing number athletes in football are retiring early (at least that was said on KC radio this week). Having said that, I doubt paying reviewers would be much encouragement for someone who is making over 70K. I did not miss the point, I just think the point is losing relevance in relation to the problem. On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Steve Young wrote: > You’re missing the point - athletes like to play sports and some > scientists like to review manuscripts. It is the enjoyment that drives > them, not the money. > Steve > > > > > > On 2/17/16, 10:54 AM, "Malcolm McCallum" > wrote: > >>paying reviewers is in no way related to paying athletes. >>The athletes are largely student. >>Most reviewers are not students. >>However, one could argue that reviewing is part of a scientist's job. >>Yet, its a part that most institutions provide no credit for. >>ITs a really screwed up situation. >> >>On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Steve Young wrote: >>> And then there is the argument that some just enjoy reviewing papers – >>>pro >>> bono or payment is not something they consider. They like the >>>opportunity to >>> be involved in cutting edge science albeit the very periphery, before >>>it is >>> widely distributed. Interesting how this relates somewhat to the debate >>> about paying college athletes >>> >>>(http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/why-ncaa-athletes-shouldnt- >>>be-paid). >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> From: ECOLOG on behalf of David Duffy >>> >>> Reply-To: David Duffy >>> Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM >>> To: ECOLOG >>> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have! >>> >>> >>>http://chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Change-Academic/134546?cid=trend_rig >>>ht_h >>> >>> "So why not try this: If academic work is to be commodified and turned >>>into >>> a source of profit for shareholders and for the 1 percent of the >>>publishing >>> world, then we should give up our archaic notions of unpaid craft labor >>>and >>> insist on professional compensation for our expertise, just as doctors, >>> lawyers, and accountants do." >>> >>> -- >>> David Duffy >>> 戴大偉 (Dài Dàwěi) >>> Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit/Makamakaʻāinana >>> Botany >>> University of Hawaii/Ke Kulanui o Hawaiʻi >>> 3190 Maile Way >>> Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA >>> 1-808-956-8218 >> >> >> >>-- >>Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP >>Link to online CV and portfolio : >>https://www.visualcv.com/malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO >> >> “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich >>array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a >>many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature >>lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share >>as Americans.” >>-President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of >>1973 into law. >> >>"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - >>Allan Nation >> >>1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert >>1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, >>and pollution. >>2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction >> MAY help restore populations. >>2022: Soylent Green is People! >> >>The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) >>Wealth w/o work >>Pleasure w/o conscience >>Knowledge w/o character >>Commerce w/o morality >>Science w/o humanity >>Worship w/o sacrifice >>Politics w/o principle >> >>Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >>attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >>contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >>review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not >>the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and >>destroy all copies of the original message. > -- Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP Link to online CV and portfolio : https://www.visual
Re: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have!
In regard to publishing, I do not agree with you, I agree with Sir Peter Medawar. Medawar won the Nobel Prize in Medicine and the Copley Medal. The papers are the end-point of research. IF you have not published it as some form of a communication (e.g. Journals, proceedings, books, govt docs, internal-use docs, its not research. YOu did somethign, but you have not done research. Publishing is part of research, not adjunct to it. Having said that, this is my opinion and you have a right to yours (obviously), however, one of the biggest failures as a scientist is not finishing what you start by publishing what you spent all that time doing. Young upstart scientists would be better to consider publishing as part of their research, even if my opinion is completely wrong, because they may feel pressure to finish what they start and publish the results for potential the good of society. While its sitting in a lab drawer, there is no good to be had except self-fulfilling gratification that you know or found something out that no one else knows. Mindset is everything when it comes to maintaining motivation. On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Rodney J Dyer wrote: > Just two tangential points on this topic that I've been mulling about and > bouncing off my local colleagues. > > 1. First, the papers we produce are not our research, they are but > advertisements of our research. We all know very highly cited papers whose > underlying quality of data may not match the elegance of wordsmithery that > got it published. However, it is the data itself that is the fundamental > component of our research, no? Is there a possible future where data > citation rankings will also be used to quantify research output? The more > people use my data, the more beneficial it is to the larger community... We > can already associate doi values for raw data. > > 2. Second, and perhaps more fundamental, we have historically chased > particular journals in our discipline because they were the sole place to > showcase our work. We pay page charges, publication fees, or membership > dues and do the reviewing pro bono as pointed out in the Chronicle article. > However, there are increasingly large numbers of locations we can put our > data, analyses, and interpretations outside just a handful of publications. > Many of us no longer get the physical journals each month. I used to thumb > through them when they arrived to keep up with the latest and greatest work > but now Google Scholar and Web of Science are my primary vectors towards > research discovery. The odd thing about this arrangement is that WE are the > content creators, not the journals. Without the content then the Chief > Executive of Elsevier, Mr Engstrom, wouldn't have received the reported > $4.6e6 compensation for 2010. Is there a future where the magnitude of > venues for our research results in competition among the journals for good > science such that the journals chase the people who actually make content > instead of the other way around? > > Just some thoughts, > > Rodney > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:31 PM, James Farlin wrote: >> >> Some journals, such as the open access UC Journal Collabra are doing just >> that, where a portion of publication fees are set aside for authors and they >> can either use that money to compensate themselves ($/review done) or donate >> it to a fund to offset those publication fees for other authors with less >> funding (UGs, Grad, Post-docs). >> >> They have a very short video which explains the model on their website: >> http://www.collabra.org. >> >> Encouraging to see from this young scientist. >> >> James >> >> On Feb 16, 2016 1:21 PM, "David Duffy" wrote: >>> >>> >>> http://chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Change-Academic/134546?cid=trend_right_h >>> >>> "So why not try this: If academic work is to be commodified and turned >>> into a source of profit for shareholders and for the 1 percent of the >>> publishing world, then we should give up our archaic notions of unpaid craft >>> labor and insist on professional compensation for our expertise, just as >>> doctors, lawyers, and accountants do." >>> >>> -- >>> David Duffy >>> 戴大偉 (Dài Dàwěi) >>> Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit/Makamakaʻāinana >>> Botany >>> University of Hawaii/Ke Kulanui o Hawaiʻi >>> 3190 Maile Way >>> Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA >>> 1-808-956-8218 > > > > > -- > Rodney J. Dyer, PhD > Department of Biology > Center for Environmental Studies > Virginia Commonwealth University > http://dyerlab.bio.vcu.edu -- Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP Link to online CV and portfolio : https://www.visualcv.com/malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.” -President Richard Nixon upo
Re: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have!
That is what Digital Commons is for. Steve From: "Ganter, Philip" mailto:pgan...@tnstate.edu>> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 11:16 AM To: Steve Young mailto:sl...@cornell.edu>>, ECOLOG mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have! The problem is not whether or not we are being paid. We are paid by our home institutions. The problem is the cost of getting to publications based on research funded by public money. That has been and continues to be the root problem, compounded by the publish-or-perish, paper-counting mentality and the rise of predatory “open-source” publishers. Just this week, I have visited the websites of major scientific publishers who all wanted over $35 for access to a single article. Preposterous (I am reminded at the silly prices that keep most “minibar” items firmly in the hotel room refrigerator in the US, while in South America, they are priced reasonably and actually are a convenience). But I could often “rent” temporary access for a few dollars. Hm. The major US academic funding agencies need to learn a lesson from Apple. They need to flex their power and establish an iTunes for academic publishing where a dollar gets you the publication you want. The publishers can be paid royalties from this. With a bit of quality control over which publications are part of the scheme and some peer pressure to not submit manuscripts to publishers not participating in the scheme, we can resolve many of the issues surrounding access to science (for that is what we are, ultimately, discussing). Phil Ganter Biological Sciences Tennessee State University Nashville, TN From: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>> on behalf of Steve Young mailto:sl...@cornell.edu>> Reply-To: Steve Young mailto:sl...@cornell.edu>> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 7:57 AM To: "ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU<mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>" mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have! And then there is the argument that some just enjoy reviewing papers – pro bono or payment is not something they consider. They like the opportunity to be involved in cutting edge science albeit the very periphery, before it is widely distributed. Interesting how this relates somewhat to the debate about paying college athletes (http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/why-ncaa-athletes-shouldnt-be-paid). Steve From: ECOLOG mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>> on behalf of David Duffy mailto:ddu...@hawaii.edu>> Reply-To: David Duffy mailto:ddu...@hawaii.edu>> Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM To: ECOLOG mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have! http://chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Change-Academic/134546?cid=trend_right_h "So why not try this: If academic work is to be commodified and turned into a source of profit for shareholders and for the 1 percent of the publishing world, then we should give up our archaic notions of unpaid craft labor and insist on professional compensation for our expertise, just as doctors, lawyers, and accountants do." -- David Duffy 戴大偉 (Dài Dàwěi) Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit/Makamakaʻāinana Botany University of Hawaii/Ke Kulanui o Hawaiʻi 3190 Maile Way Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA 1-808-956-8218
Re: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have!
The problem is not whether or not we are being paid. We are paid by our home institutions. The problem is the cost of getting to publications based on research funded by public money. That has been and continues to be the root problem, compounded by the publish-or-perish, paper-counting mentality and the rise of predatory “open-source” publishers. Just this week, I have visited the websites of major scientific publishers who all wanted over $35 for access to a single article. Preposterous (I am reminded at the silly prices that keep most “minibar” items firmly in the hotel room refrigerator in the US, while in South America, they are priced reasonably and actually are a convenience). But I could often “rent” temporary access for a few dollars. Hm. The major US academic funding agencies need to learn a lesson from Apple. They need to flex their power and establish an iTunes for academic publishing where a dollar gets you the publication you want. The publishers can be paid royalties from this. With a bit of quality control over which publications are part of the scheme and some peer pressure to not submit manuscripts to publishers not participating in the scheme, we can resolve many of the issues surrounding access to science (for that is what we are, ultimately, discussing). Phil Ganter Biological Sciences Tennessee State University Nashville, TN From: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>> on behalf of Steve Young mailto:sl...@cornell.edu>> Reply-To: Steve Young mailto:sl...@cornell.edu>> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 7:57 AM To: "ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU<mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>" mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have! And then there is the argument that some just enjoy reviewing papers – pro bono or payment is not something they consider. They like the opportunity to be involved in cutting edge science albeit the very periphery, before it is widely distributed. Interesting how this relates somewhat to the debate about paying college athletes (http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/why-ncaa-athletes-shouldnt-be-paid). Steve From: ECOLOG mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>> on behalf of David Duffy mailto:ddu...@hawaii.edu>> Reply-To: David Duffy mailto:ddu...@hawaii.edu>> Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM To: ECOLOG mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have! http://chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Change-Academic/134546?cid=trend_right_h "So why not try this: If academic work is to be commodified and turned into a source of profit for shareholders and for the 1 percent of the publishing world, then we should give up our archaic notions of unpaid craft labor and insist on professional compensation for our expertise, just as doctors, lawyers, and accountants do." -- David Duffy 戴大偉 (Dài Dàwěi) Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit/Makamakaʻāinana Botany University of Hawaii/Ke Kulanui o Hawaiʻi 3190 Maile Way Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA 1-808-956-8218
Re: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have!
You’re missing the point - athletes like to play sports and some scientists like to review manuscripts. It is the enjoyment that drives them, not the money. Steve On 2/17/16, 10:54 AM, "Malcolm McCallum" wrote: >paying reviewers is in no way related to paying athletes. >The athletes are largely student. >Most reviewers are not students. >However, one could argue that reviewing is part of a scientist's job. >Yet, its a part that most institutions provide no credit for. >ITs a really screwed up situation. > >On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Steve Young wrote: >> And then there is the argument that some just enjoy reviewing papers – >>pro >> bono or payment is not something they consider. They like the >>opportunity to >> be involved in cutting edge science albeit the very periphery, before >>it is >> widely distributed. Interesting how this relates somewhat to the debate >> about paying college athletes >> >>(http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/why-ncaa-athletes-shouldnt- >>be-paid). >> >> Steve >> >> >> From: ECOLOG on behalf of David Duffy >> >> Reply-To: David Duffy >> Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM >> To: ECOLOG >> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have! >> >> >>http://chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Change-Academic/134546?cid=trend_rig >>ht_h >> >> "So why not try this: If academic work is to be commodified and turned >>into >> a source of profit for shareholders and for the 1 percent of the >>publishing >> world, then we should give up our archaic notions of unpaid craft labor >>and >> insist on professional compensation for our expertise, just as doctors, >> lawyers, and accountants do." >> >> -- >> David Duffy >> 戴大偉 (Dài Dàwěi) >> Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit/Makamakaʻāinana >> Botany >> University of Hawaii/Ke Kulanui o Hawaiʻi >> 3190 Maile Way >> Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA >> 1-808-956-8218 > > > >-- >Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP >Link to online CV and portfolio : >https://www.visualcv.com/malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO > > “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich >array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a >many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature >lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share >as Americans.” >-President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of >1973 into law. > >"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - >Allan Nation > >1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert >1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, >and pollution. >2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > MAY help restore populations. >2022: Soylent Green is People! > >The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) >Wealth w/o work >Pleasure w/o conscience >Knowledge w/o character >Commerce w/o morality >Science w/o humanity >Worship w/o sacrifice >Politics w/o principle > >Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not >the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and >destroy all copies of the original message.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have!
Just two tangential points on this topic that I've been mulling about and bouncing off my local colleagues. 1. First, the papers we produce are not our research, they are but advertisements of our research. We all know very highly cited papers whose underlying quality of data may not match the elegance of wordsmithery that got it published. However, it is the data itself that is the fundamental component of our research, no? Is there a possible future where data citation rankings will also be used to quantify research output? The more people use my data, the more beneficial it is to the larger community... We can already associate doi values for raw data. 2. Second, and perhaps more fundamental, we have historically chased particular journals in our discipline because they were the sole place to showcase our work. We pay page charges, publication fees, or membership dues and do the reviewing pro bono as pointed out in the Chronicle article. However, there are increasingly large numbers of locations we can put our data, analyses, and interpretations outside just a handful of publications. Many of us no longer get the physical journals each month. I used to thumb through them when they arrived to keep up with the latest and greatest work but now Google Scholar and Web of Science are my primary vectors towards research discovery. The odd thing about this arrangement is that WE are the content creators, not the journals. Without the content then the Chief Executive of Elsevier, Mr Engstrom, wouldn't have received the reported $4.6e6 compensation for 2010. Is there a future where the magnitude of venues for our research results in competition among the journals for good science such that the journals chase the people who actually make content instead of the other way around? Just some thoughts, Rodney On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:31 PM, James Farlin wrote: > Some journals, such as the open access UC Journal Collabra are doing just > that, where a portion of publication fees are set aside for authors and > they can either use that money to compensate themselves ($/review done) or > donate it to a fund to offset those publication fees for other authors with > less funding (UGs, Grad, Post-docs). > > They have a very short video which explains the model on their website: > http://www.collabra.org. > > Encouraging to see from this young scientist. > > James > On Feb 16, 2016 1:21 PM, "David Duffy" wrote: > >> >> http://chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Change-Academic/134546?cid=trend_right_h >> >> "So why not try this: If academic work is to be commodified and turned >> into a source of profit for shareholders and for the 1 percent of the >> publishing world, then we should give up our archaic notions of unpaid >> craft labor and insist on professional compensation for our expertise, just >> as doctors, lawyers, and accountants do." >> >> -- >> David Duffy >> 戴大偉 (Dài Dàwěi) >> Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit/Makamakaʻāinana >> Botany >> University of Hawaii/*Ke Kulanui o Hawaiʻi* >> 3190 Maile Way >> Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA >> 1-808-956-8218 >> > -- Rodney J. Dyer, PhD Department of Biology Center for Environmental Studies Virginia Commonwealth University http://dyerlab.bio.vcu.edu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have!
And then there is the argument that some just enjoy reviewing papers – pro bono or payment is not something they consider. They like the opportunity to be involved in cutting edge science albeit the very periphery, before it is widely distributed. Interesting how this relates somewhat to the debate about paying college athletes (http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/why-ncaa-athletes-shouldnt-be-paid). Steve From: ECOLOG mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>> on behalf of David Duffy mailto:ddu...@hawaii.edu>> Reply-To: David Duffy mailto:ddu...@hawaii.edu>> Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM To: ECOLOG mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have! http://chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Change-Academic/134546?cid=trend_right_h "So why not try this: If academic work is to be commodified and turned into a source of profit for shareholders and for the 1 percent of the publishing world, then we should give up our archaic notions of unpaid craft labor and insist on professional compensation for our expertise, just as doctors, lawyers, and accountants do." -- David Duffy 戴大偉 (Dài Dàwěi) Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit/Makamakaʻāinana Botany University of Hawaii/Ke Kulanui o Hawaiʻi 3190 Maile Way Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA 1-808-956-8218
Re: [ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have!
Some journals, such as the open access UC Journal Collabra are doing just that, where a portion of publication fees are set aside for authors and they can either use that money to compensate themselves ($/review done) or donate it to a fund to offset those publication fees for other authors with less funding (UGs, Grad, Post-docs). They have a very short video which explains the model on their website: http://www.collabra.org. Encouraging to see from this young scientist. James On Feb 16, 2016 1:21 PM, "David Duffy" wrote: > > http://chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Change-Academic/134546?cid=trend_right_h > > "So why not try this: If academic work is to be commodified and turned > into a source of profit for shareholders and for the 1 percent of the > publishing world, then we should give up our archaic notions of unpaid > craft labor and insist on professional compensation for our expertise, just > as doctors, lawyers, and accountants do." > > -- > David Duffy > 戴大偉 (Dài Dàwěi) > Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit/Makamakaʻāinana > Botany > University of Hawaii/*Ke Kulanui o Hawaiʻi* > 3190 Maile Way > Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA > 1-808-956-8218 >
[ECOLOG-L] let's go corporate, publishing companies have!
http://chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Change-Academic/134546?cid=trend_right_h "So why not try this: If academic work is to be commodified and turned into a source of profit for shareholders and for the 1 percent of the publishing world, then we should give up our archaic notions of unpaid craft labor and insist on professional compensation for our expertise, just as doctors, lawyers, and accountants do." -- David Duffy 戴大偉 (Dài Dàwěi) Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit/Makamakaʻāinana Botany University of Hawaii/*Ke Kulanui o Hawaiʻi* 3190 Maile Way Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA 1-808-956-8218
