Re: [geo] paywalls

[Stephen Salter]

Douglas

So we just send each other email attachments.  It is quicker and draws 
attention to each publication.  If people think that enough other people 
are less likely to cite their work the battle will be won.


The whole idea of money is to prevent excess consumption of a limited 
resource. The cost of spreading information is now very much lower and 
the possible value of spreading it widely to people who might save 
civlization is VERY high.


The UK Government has a specific published policy of not supporting any 
form of solar radiation management so this is even less than 'almost zero'.


Some of us do not even have salaries!

Stephen


On 05/08/2018 16:07, Douglas MacMartin wrote:


Some of us don’t have research budgets to cover publishing open-access 
(indeed, some of my funding explicitly doesn’t cover any publication 
fees at all).  Given that there is almost zero public funding in this 
field in the US, most US geoengineering papers probably aren’t 
generated with public money, and a lot of them aren’t even generated 
with any dedicated research funding that can be tapped.  Paying 
open-access fees isn’t cheap, and not something I’m inclined to do out 
of my personal bank account.  So ignoring any  research that was 
generated by people without big research budgets doesn’t seem like a 
solution to me.


Agree that Elsevier is one of the worst offenders in making profit off 
of things they didn’t generate, but ultimately even without their 
obscene profits, someone has to pay for the publishing, and that’s 
either the authors or the readers.




On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Stephen Salter > wrote:


Hi All

The turnover of Elsevier in 2017 was £2.478 billion. The profit
was 36.8%.

Suppose that nobody cited papers which appeared behind a paywall .
. . .

Stephen


On 05/08/2018 01:47, Alan Robock wrote:

Dear All,

Yes, I support open access for all research already paid for by
public funds.  Many journals make papers free after a year or
two, but many still require a subscription.  I know AMS and AGU
are trying to decide how to maintain their business model if open
access is required.  They say they don't know how ACP (the EGU
journal) does it, as their page charges are similar to AMS and AGU.

In the meantime, what do we do?  Do we break the rules and
distribute papers that we can access through our personal
subscriptions or our university or government access?
Alan

On 8/4/2018 6:01 PM, Charles Greene wrote:

How about a single-payer system? The Library of Congress
subscribes to all of the journals and makes them freely
available online to all tax-paying citizens. Your password is
issued to you when your federal income taxes are filed! Just
like single-payer healthcare, this would enable the government
to negotiate reasonable subscription rates, especially with
regard to predatory, for-profit publishing houses. The federal
government is already paying for most of the publishing expenses
in its research grants to scientists and its indirect costs paid
to universities. Open-access journals are a step in the right
direction; however, they are far from an ideal solution to the
problem of making science more accessible to the taxpayers
supporting it. Other countries could negotiate their own deals
with the publishing houses, or just imagine if countries
actually worked together to negotiate fair journal subscription
rates...


On Aug 4, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Michael MacCracken
mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>> wrote:

I'd just add on behalf of openness that much of the research is
already being paid for by the taxpayer and that those in the
public, especially on issues that are of significant public
concern and interest, argue that they should have free access
to the results and not have to pay further. Given the
scientific community is seeking to inform the public and
continue to want research funds from taxpayers, its hiding of
the results behind ridiculously priced paywalls is really an
obstruction (the journals really need to greatly lower their
prices for reprints and I'd venture they'd get more
participation). And as Ron notes there are all sorts of
journals and if everyone has to pay for everything, they'd be
broke--and it would be very inefficient to be getting so much
in really wanting access to so few articles of real interest to
those focused on looking at specific topics.

I'd be interested to know how much journals actually take in
based on their very high paywall rates, and where that money is
coming from (probably mainly from overhead put on the research
money awarded to scientists--are many members of the public
actually paying the quite high rates?). In my view, if the
scientific community wants ongoing support, then there 

Re: [geo] paywalls

[Douglas MacMartin]

Some of us don’t have research budgets to cover publishing open-access
(indeed, some of my funding explicitly doesn’t cover any publication fees
at all).  Given that there is almost zero public funding in this field in
the US, most US geoengineering papers probably aren’t generated with public
money, and a lot of them aren’t even generated with any dedicated research
funding that can be tapped.  Paying open-access fees isn’t cheap, and not
something I’m inclined to do out of my personal bank account.  So ignoring
any  research that was generated by people without big research budgets
doesn’t seem like a solution to me.



Agree that Elsevier is one of the worst offenders in making profit off of
things they didn’t generate, but ultimately even without their obscene
profits, someone has to pay for the publishing, and that’s either the
authors or the readers.


On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Stephen Salter  wrote:

> Hi All
>
> The turnover of Elsevier in 2017 was £2.478 billion. The profit was 36.8%.
>
> Suppose that nobody cited papers which appeared behind a paywall . . . .
>
> Stephen
>
> On 05/08/2018 01:47, Alan Robock wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Yes, I support open access for all research already paid for by public
> funds.  Many journals make papers free after a year or two, but many still
> require a subscription.  I know AMS and AGU are trying to decide how to
> maintain their business model if open access is required.  They say they
> don't know how ACP (the EGU journal) does it, as their page charges are
> similar to AMS and AGU.
>
> In the meantime, what do we do?  Do we break the rules and distribute
> papers that we can access through our personal subscriptions or our
> university or government access?
>
> Alan
>
>
> On 8/4/2018 6:01 PM, Charles Greene wrote:
>
> How about a single-payer system? The Library of Congress subscribes to all
> of the journals and makes them freely available online to all tax-paying
> citizens. Your password is issued to you when your federal income taxes are
> filed! Just like single-payer healthcare, this would enable the government
> to negotiate reasonable subscription rates, especially with regard to
> predatory, for-profit publishing houses. The federal government is already
> paying for most of the publishing expenses in its research grants to
> scientists and its indirect costs paid to universities. Open-access
> journals are a step in the right direction; however, they are far from an
> ideal solution to the problem of making science more accessible to the
> taxpayers supporting it. Other countries could negotiate their own deals
> with the publishing houses, or just imagine if countries actually worked
> together to negotiate fair journal subscription rates...
>
> On Aug 4, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Michael MacCracken 
> wrote:
>
> I'd just add on behalf of openness that much of the research is already
> being paid for by the taxpayer and that those in the public, especially on
> issues that are of significant public concern and interest, argue that they
> should have free access to the results and not have to pay further. Given
> the scientific community is seeking to inform the public and continue to
> want research funds from taxpayers, its hiding of the results behind
> ridiculously priced paywalls is really an obstruction (the journals really
> need to greatly lower their prices for reprints and I'd venture they'd get
> more participation). And as Ron notes there are all sorts of journals and
> if everyone has to pay for everything, they'd be broke--and it would be
> very inefficient to be getting so much in really wanting access to so few
> articles of real interest to those focused on looking at specific topics.
>
> I'd be interested to know how much journals actually take in based on
> their very high paywall rates, and where that money is coming from
> (probably mainly from overhead put on the research money awarded to
> scientists--are many members of the public actually paying the quite high
> rates?). In my view, if the scientific community wants ongoing support,
> then there needs to be another way found than high paywall rates that
> inhibit the public actually getting to read the articles instead of just
> seeing the possible media coverage of the articles. Indeed, as Alan notes,
> most editors and reviewers work for free, so a good question is where all
> the money is going, especially with articles mostly now being provided to
> journals online. Across the community there are discussions on such issues,
> even on quite remote subjects--for things related to climate change science
> to be behind paywalls I just do not think is the optimal approach and
> alternatives need to be found.
>
> Mike
>
> On 8/4/18 2:39 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>
> Alan:
>
> I agree with all you wrote - but I think it great also that we have more
> papers all the time that are NOT behind a paywall.  I am not taking this
> personally - and am glad you responded below.
>
> I 

Re: [geo] paywalls

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

The turnover of Elsevier in 2017 was £2.478 billion. The profit was 36.8%.

Suppose that nobody cited papers which appeared behind a paywall . . . .

Stephen


On 05/08/2018 01:47, Alan Robock wrote:

Dear All,

Yes, I support open access for all research already paid for by public 
funds.  Many journals make papers free after a year or two, but many 
still require a subscription.  I know AMS and AGU are trying to decide 
how to maintain their business model if open access is required.  They 
say they don't know how ACP (the EGU journal) does it, as their page 
charges are similar to AMS and AGU.


In the meantime, what do we do?  Do we break the rules and distribute 
papers that we can access through our personal subscriptions or our 
university or government access?

Alan

On 8/4/2018 6:01 PM, Charles Greene wrote:
How about a single-payer system? The Library of Congress subscribes 
to all of the journals and makes them freely available online to all 
tax-paying citizens. Your password is issued to you when your federal 
income taxes are filed! Just like single-payer healthcare, this would 
enable the government to negotiate reasonable subscription rates, 
especially with regard to predatory, for-profit publishing houses. 
The federal government is already paying for most of the publishing 
expenses in its research grants to scientists and its indirect costs 
paid to universities. Open-access journals are a step in the right 
direction; however, they are far from an ideal solution to the 
problem of making science more accessible to the taxpayers supporting 
it. Other countries could negotiate their own deals with the 
publishing houses, or just imagine if countries actually worked 
together to negotiate fair journal subscription rates...


On Aug 4, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Michael MacCracken > wrote:


I'd just add on behalf of openness that much of the research is 
already being paid for by the taxpayer and that those in the public, 
especially on issues that are of significant public concern and 
interest, argue that they should have free access to the results and 
not have to pay further. Given the scientific community is seeking 
to inform the public and continue to want research funds from 
taxpayers, its hiding of the results behind ridiculously priced 
paywalls is really an obstruction (the journals really need to 
greatly lower their prices for reprints and I'd venture they'd get 
more participation). And as Ron notes there are all sorts of 
journals and if everyone has to pay for everything, they'd be 
broke--and it would be very inefficient to be getting so much in 
really wanting access to so few articles of real interest to those 
focused on looking at specific topics.


I'd be interested to know how much journals actually take in based 
on their very high paywall rates, and where that money is coming 
from (probably mainly from overhead put on the research money 
awarded to scientists--are many members of the public actually 
paying the quite high rates?). In my view, if the scientific 
community wants ongoing support, then there needs to be another way 
found than high paywall rates that inhibit the public actually 
getting to read the articles instead of just seeing the possible 
media coverage of the articles. Indeed, as Alan notes, most editors 
and reviewers work for free, so a good question is where all the 
money is going, especially with articles mostly now being provided 
to journals online. Across the community there are discussions on 
such issues, even on quite remote subjects--for things related to 
climate change science to be behind paywalls I just do not think is 
the optimal approach and alternatives need to be found.


Mike


On 8/4/18 2:39 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:

Alan:

I agree with all you wrote - but I think it great also that we have 
more papers all the time that are NOT behind a paywall.  I am not 
taking this personally - and am glad you responded below.


I have been a AAAS member for possibly 40 years and I get great 
value from that annual expenditure for *Science*.  I also this year 
found a sweet deal for two subcategories of *Nature. * And I 
receive a dozen other magazines - a few where I am a life member, 
and a surprising number that are free.  I don't subscribe to AMS 
and AGU because too little there that fits my background.


But in my small part of Geoengineering (biochar), I could be 
reading four or five articles a day from perhaps up to 100 
different journals - maybe only one a month from AMS, AGU, and AAAS 
re biochar.  No way anyone working in biochar can cover all that 
(the IBI website has started showing the 10-20% of unlocked papers 
every month - which I find helpful - and tend to read).


Re "/Why are there so many complaints about "paywalls?" "/   I make 
a point of mentioning paywalls only because it is such a joy when 
someone has found a free-to-me way to help get their message out - 
and I presume 

Re: [geo] paywalls

[Alan Robock]

Dear All,

Yes, I support open access for all research already paid for by public 
funds.  Many journals make papers free after a year or two, but many 
still require a subscription.  I know AMS and AGU are trying to decide 
how to maintain their business model if open access is required.  They 
say they don't know how ACP (the EGU journal) does it, as their page 
charges are similar to AMS and AGU.


In the meantime, what do we do?  Do we break the rules and distribute 
papers that we can access through our personal subscriptions or our 
university or government access?


Alan

On 8/4/2018 6:01 PM, Charles Greene wrote:
How about a single-payer system? The Library of Congress subscribes to 
all of the journals and makes them freely available online to all 
tax-paying citizens. Your password is issued to you when your federal 
income taxes are filed! Just like single-payer healthcare, this would 
enable the government to negotiate reasonable subscription rates, 
especially with regard to predatory, for-profit publishing houses. The 
federal government is already paying for most of the publishing 
expenses in its research grants to scientists and its indirect costs 
paid to universities. Open-access journals are a step in the right 
direction; however, they are far from an ideal solution to the problem 
of making science more accessible to the taxpayers supporting it. 
Other countries could negotiate their own deals with the publishing 
houses, or just imagine if countries actually worked together to 
negotiate fair journal subscription rates...


On Aug 4, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Michael MacCracken > wrote:


I'd just add on behalf of openness that much of the research is 
already being paid for by the taxpayer and that those in the public, 
especially on issues that are of significant public concern and 
interest, argue that they should have free access to the results and 
not have to pay further. Given the scientific community is seeking to 
inform the public and continue to want research funds from taxpayers, 
its hiding of the results behind ridiculously priced paywalls is 
really an obstruction (the journals really need to greatly lower 
their prices for reprints and I'd venture they'd get more 
participation). And as Ron notes there are all sorts of journals and 
if everyone has to pay for everything, they'd be broke--and it would 
be very inefficient to be getting so much in really wanting access to 
so few articles of real interest to those focused on looking at 
specific topics.


I'd be interested to know how much journals actually take in based on 
their very high paywall rates, and where that money is coming from 
(probably mainly from overhead put on the research money awarded to 
scientists--are many members of the public actually paying the quite 
high rates?). In my view, if the scientific community wants ongoing 
support, then there needs to be another way found than high paywall 
rates that inhibit the public actually getting to read the articles 
instead of just seeing the possible media coverage of the articles. 
Indeed, as Alan notes, most editors and reviewers work for free, so a 
good question is where all the money is going, especially with 
articles mostly now being provided to journals online. Across the 
community there are discussions on such issues, even on quite remote 
subjects--for things related to climate change science to be behind 
paywalls I just do not think is the optimal approach and alternatives 
need to be found.


Mike


On 8/4/18 2:39 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:

Alan:

I agree with all you wrote - but I think it great also that we have 
more papers all the time that are NOT behind a paywall.  I am not 
taking this personally - and am glad you responded below.


I have been a AAAS member for possibly 40 years and I get great 
value from that annual expenditure for *Science*.  I also this year 
found a sweet deal for two subcategories of *Nature. * And I receive 
a dozen other magazines - a few where I am a life member, and a 
surprising number that are free.  I don't subscribe to AMS and AGU 
because too little there that fits my background.


But in my small part of Geoengineering (biochar), I could be reading 
four or five articles a day from perhaps up to 100 different 
journals - maybe only one a month from AMS, AGU, and AAAS re 
biochar.  No way anyone working in biochar can cover all that (the 
IBI website has started showing the 10-20% of unlocked papers every 
month - which I find helpful - and tend to read).


Re "/Why are there so many complaints about "paywalls?" "/   I make 
a point of mentioning paywalls only because it is such a joy when 
someone has found a free-to-me way to help get their message out - 
and I presume readers find that useful as well.  Finding a long 
version in a thesis always pleases me - and they are mostly free.


Re "/Who do you expect to pay for the publication of scientific 
papers?" / - I agree with 

Re: [geo] paywalls

[Andrew Lockley]

One of the most troubling effects of paywalls, particularly in a
controversial discipline like CE, is that journalists often end up relying
on garbled and incomplete press releases. This 'Chinese whispers" approach,
with at least two intermediaries between scientists and the public, does a
grave disservice to citizens' right access to accurate science. With
individual article charges around $50 or more, effectively 0% of the public
are getting their scientific information directly. In many cases, the paper
on which a journalist's story is based isn't cited, nor is sufficient
information given to even find that paper. That's how we get from papers
that say "chemical x, found in apples, caused cancer in susceptible rats at
high doses" to "apples give you cancer". For health messages, that's
confusing, risky and problematic. For geoengineering, that's disastrous
misinformation that could conceivably lead to famine or war.

It's therefore vital that our discipline is accessible to the voting
public. Paywalls, particularly from rent-seeking for-profit companies, have
no legitimate place in this.

A (personal view)

On Sat, 4 Aug 2018, 22:21 Michael MacCracken,  wrote:

> I'd just add on behalf of openness that much of the research is already
> being paid for by the taxpayer and that those in the public, especially on
> issues that are of significant public concern and interest, argue that they
> should have free access to the results and not have to pay further. Given
> the scientific community is seeking to inform the public and continue to
> want research funds from taxpayers, its hiding of the results behind
> ridiculously priced paywalls is really an obstruction (the journals really
> need to greatly lower their prices for reprints and I'd venture they'd get
> more participation). And as Ron notes there are all sorts of journals and
> if everyone has to pay for everything, they'd be broke--and it would be
> very inefficient to be getting so much in really wanting access to so few
> articles of real interest to those focused on looking at specific topics.
>
> I'd be interested to know how much journals actually take in based on
> their very high paywall rates, and where that money is coming from
> (probably mainly from overhead put on the research money awarded to
> scientists--are many members of the public actually paying the quite high
> rates?). In my view, if the scientific community wants ongoing support,
> then there needs to be another way found than high paywall rates that
> inhibit the public actually getting to read the articles instead of just
> seeing the possible media coverage of the articles. Indeed, as Alan notes,
> most editors and reviewers work for free, so a good question is where all
> the money is going, especially with articles mostly now being provided to
> journals online. Across the community there are discussions on such issues,
> even on quite remote subjects--for things related to climate change science
> to be behind paywalls I just do not think is the optimal approach and
> alternatives need to be found.
>
> Mike
>
> On 8/4/18 2:39 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>
> Alan:
>
> I agree with all you wrote - but I think it great also that we have more
> papers all the time that are NOT behind a paywall.  I am not taking this
> personally - and am glad you responded below.
>
> I have been a AAAS member for possibly 40 years and I get great value from
> that annual expenditure for *Science*.  I also this year found a sweet
> deal for two subcategories of *Nature.  * And I receive a dozen other
> magazines - a few where I am a life member, and a surprising number that
> are free.  I don't subscribe to AMS and AGU because too little there that
> fits my background.
>
> But in my small part of Geoengineering (biochar), I could be reading four
> or five articles a day from perhaps up to 100 different journals - maybe
> only one a month from AMS, AGU, and AAAS re biochar.  No way anyone working
> in biochar can cover all that (the IBI website has started showing the
> 10-20% of unlocked papers every month - which I find helpful - and tend to
> read).
>
> Re "*Why are there so many complaints about "paywalls?" "*   I make a
> point of mentioning paywalls only because it is such a joy when someone has
> found a free-to-me way to help get their message out - and I presume
> readers find that useful as well.  Finding a long version in a thesis
> always pleases me - and they are mostly free.
>
> Re "*Who do you expect to pay for the publication of scientific papers?" * -
> I agree with everything you say about the need for someone to pay.   In
> many cases, that should be the group that paid for the research to be
> performed.  That leaves many who can't - in particular in this case the
> University of Alberta.  So delighted they have a library.
>
> I repeat that this particular thesis looks quite well done, and presume
> the paper will also demonstrate that.  I repeat that I agree with all you

Re: [geo] paywalls

[Charles Greene]

How about a single-payer system? The Library of Congress subscribes to all of 
the journals and makes them freely available online to all tax-paying citizens. 
Your password is issued to you when your federal income taxes are filed! Just 
like single-payer healthcare, this would enable the government to negotiate 
reasonable subscription rates, especially with regard to predatory, for-profit 
publishing houses. The federal government is already paying for most of the 
publishing expenses in its research grants to scientists and its indirect costs 
paid to universities. Open-access journals are a step in the right direction; 
however, they are far from an ideal solution to the problem of making science 
more accessible to the taxpayers supporting it. Other countries could negotiate 
their own deals with the publishing houses, or just imagine if countries 
actually worked together to negotiate fair journal subscription rates...

> On Aug 4, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Michael MacCracken  wrote:
> 
> I'd just add on behalf of openness that much of the research is already being 
> paid for by the taxpayer and that those in the public, especially on issues 
> that are of significant public concern and interest, argue that they should 
> have free access to the results and not have to pay further. Given the 
> scientific community is seeking to inform the public and continue to want 
> research funds from taxpayers, its hiding of the results behind ridiculously 
> priced paywalls is really an obstruction (the journals really need to greatly 
> lower their prices for reprints and I'd venture they'd get more 
> participation). And as Ron notes there are all sorts of journals and if 
> everyone has to pay for everything, they'd be broke--and it would be very 
> inefficient to be getting so much in really wanting access to so few articles 
> of real interest to those focused on looking at specific topics.
> 
> I'd be interested to know how much journals actually take in based on their 
> very high paywall rates, and where that money is coming from (probably mainly 
> from overhead put on the research money awarded to scientists--are many 
> members of the public actually paying the quite high rates?). In my view, if 
> the scientific community wants ongoing support, then there needs to be 
> another way found than high paywall rates that inhibit the public actually 
> getting to read the articles instead of just seeing the possible media 
> coverage of the articles. Indeed, as Alan notes, most editors and reviewers 
> work for free, so a good question is where all the money is going, especially 
> with articles mostly now being provided to journals online. Across the 
> community there are discussions on such issues, even on quite remote 
> subjects--for things related to climate change science to be behind paywalls 
> I just do not think is the optimal approach and alternatives need to   be 
> found.
> 
> Mike
> 
> On 8/4/18 2:39 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>> Alan:
>> 
>>  I agree with all you wrote - but I think it great also that we have 
>> more papers all the time that are NOT behind a paywall.  I am not taking 
>> this personally - and am glad you responded below.
>> 
>>  I have been a AAAS member for possibly 40 years and I get great value 
>> from that annual expenditure for Science.  I also this year found a sweet 
>> deal for two subcategories of Nature.   And I receive a dozen other 
>> magazines - a few where I am a life member, and a surprising number that are 
>> free.  I don't subscribe to AMS and AGU because too little there that fits 
>> my background.
>> 
>>  But in my small part of Geoengineering (biochar), I could be reading 
>> four or five articles a day from perhaps up to 100 different journals - 
>> maybe only one a month from AMS, AGU, and AAAS re biochar.  No way anyone 
>> working in biochar can cover all that (the IBI website has started showing 
>> the 10-20% of unlocked papers every month - which I find helpful - and tend 
>> to read).
>> 
>>  Re "Why are there so many complaints about "paywalls?" "   I make a 
>> point of mentioning paywalls only because it is such a joy when someone has 
>> found a free-to-me way to help get their message out - and I presume readers 
>> find that useful as well.  Finding a long version in a thesis always pleases 
>> me - and they are mostly free.
>> 
>>  Re "Who do you expect to pay for the publication of scientific papers?" 
>>  - I agree with everything you say about the need for someone to pay.   In 
>> many cases, that should be the group that paid for the research to be 
>> performed.  That leaves many who can't - in particular in this case the 
>> University of Alberta.  So delighted they have a library.
>> 
>>  I repeat that this particular thesis looks quite well done, and presume 
>> the paper will also demonstrate that.  I repeat that I agree with all you 
>> wrote below.
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 4, 2018, at 11:44 

Re: [geo] paywalls

[Michael MacCracken]

I'd just add on behalf of openness that much of the research is already 
being paid for by the taxpayer and that those in the public, especially 
on issues that are of significant public concern and interest, argue 
that they should have free access to the results and not have to pay 
further. Given the scientific community is seeking to inform the public 
and continue to want research funds from taxpayers, its hiding of the 
results behind ridiculously priced paywalls is really an obstruction 
(the journals really need to greatly lower their prices for reprints and 
I'd venture they'd get more participation). And as Ron notes there are 
all sorts of journals and if everyone has to pay for everything, they'd 
be broke--and it would be very inefficient to be getting so much in 
really wanting access to so few articles of real interest to those 
focused on looking at specific topics.


I'd be interested to know how much journals actually take in based on 
their very high paywall rates, and where that money is coming from 
(probably mainly from overhead put on the research money awarded to 
scientists--are many members of the public actually paying the quite 
high rates?). In my view, if the scientific community wants ongoing 
support, then there needs to be another way found than high paywall 
rates that inhibit the public actually getting to read the articles 
instead of just seeing the possible media coverage of the articles. 
Indeed, as Alan notes, most editors and reviewers work for free, so a 
good question is where all the money is going, especially with articles 
mostly now being provided to journals online. Across the community there 
are discussions on such issues, even on quite remote subjects--for 
things related to climate change science to be behind paywalls I just do 
not think is the optimal approach and alternatives need to be found.


Mike


On 8/4/18 2:39 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:

Alan:

I agree with all you wrote - but I think it great also that we have 
more papers all the time that are NOT behind a paywall.  I am not 
taking this personally - and am glad you responded below.


I have been a AAAS member for possibly 40 years and I get great value 
from that annual expenditure for *Science*.  I also this year found a 
sweet deal for two subcategories of *Nature. * And I receive a dozen 
other magazines - a few where I am a life member, and a surprising 
number that are free.  I don't subscribe to AMS and AGU because too 
little there that fits my background.


But in my small part of Geoengineering (biochar), I could be reading 
four or five articles a day from perhaps up to 100 different journals 
- maybe only one a month from AMS, AGU, and AAAS re biochar.  No way 
anyone working in biochar can cover all that (the IBI website has 
started showing the 10-20% of unlocked papers every month - which I 
find helpful - and tend to read).


Re "/Why are there so many complaints about "paywalls?" "/   I make a 
point of mentioning paywalls only because it is such a joy when 
someone has found a free-to-me way to help get their message out - and 
I presume readers find that useful as well.  Finding a long version in 
a thesis always pleases me - and they are mostly free.


Re "/Who do you expect to pay for the publication of scientific 
papers?" / - I agree with everything you say about the need for 
someone to pay.   In many cases, that should be the group that paid 
for the research to be performed.  That leaves many who can't - in 
particular in this case the University of Alberta.  So delighted they 
have a library.


I repeat that this particular thesis looks quite well done, and 
presume the paper will also demonstrate that.  I repeat that I agree 
with all you wrote below.


Ron



On Aug 4, 2018, at 11:44 AM, Alan Robock > wrote:


Dear Ron,

Don't take this personally, but your email was a tipping point for 
me, and I have to respond.  Why are there so many complaints about 
"paywalls?"  Who do you expect to pay for the publication of 
scientific papers?  The American Meteorological Society, American 
Geophysical Union, and American Association for the Advancement of 
Science are non-profits.  Part of the cost of publication is paid by 
authors, and reviewers and most editors work for free.  If you want 
them to give you the papers for free, the authors will have to pay 
even more.  If you want the papers, join the AMS, AGU, and AAAS, and 
support our science.  Pay for subscriptions to the journals.  I have 
been a member of all three for my entire career.

Alan

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
   Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers UniversityE-mail:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA
☮http://twitter.com/AlanRobock  2017 Nobel Peace Prize to ICAN!
Watch my 18 min 

Re: [geo] paywalls

[Ronal W. Larson]

Alan:

I agree with all you wrote - but I think it great also that we have 
more papers all the time that are NOT behind a paywall.  I am not taking this 
personally - and am glad you responded below.

I have been a AAAS member for possibly 40 years and I get great value 
from that annual expenditure for Science.  I also this year found a sweet deal 
for two subcategories of Nature.   And I receive a dozen other magazines - a 
few where I am a life member, and a surprising number that are free.  I don't 
subscribe to AMS and AGU because too little there that fits my background.

But in my small part of Geoengineering (biochar), I could be reading 
four or five articles a day from perhaps up to 100 different journals - maybe 
only one a month from AMS, AGU, and AAAS re biochar.  No way anyone working in 
biochar can cover all that (the IBI website has started showing the 10-20% of 
unlocked papers every month - which I find helpful - and tend to read).

Re "Why are there so many complaints about "paywalls?" "   I make a 
point of mentioning paywalls only because it is such a joy when someone has 
found a free-to-me way to help get their message out - and I presume readers 
find that useful as well.  Finding a long version in a thesis always pleases me 
- and they are mostly free.

Re "Who do you expect to pay for the publication of scientific papers?" 
 - I agree with everything you say about the need for someone to pay.   In many 
cases, that should be the group that paid for the research to be performed.  
That leaves many who can't - in particular in this case the University of 
Alberta.  So delighted they have a library.

I repeat that this particular thesis looks quite well done, and presume 
the paper will also demonstrate that.  I repeat that I agree with all you wrote 
below.

Ron



> On Aug 4, 2018, at 11:44 AM, Alan Robock  wrote:
> 
> Dear Ron,
> 
> Don't take this personally, but your email was a tipping point for me, and I 
> have to respond.  Why are there so many complaints about "paywalls?"  Who do 
> you expect to pay for the publication of scientific papers?  The American 
> Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, and American Association 
> for the Advancement of Science are non-profits.  Part of the cost of 
> publication is paid by authors, and reviewers and most editors work for free. 
>  If you want them to give you the papers for free, the authors will have to 
> pay even more.  If you want the papers, join the AMS, AGU, and AAAS, and 
> support our science.  Pay for subscriptions to the journals.  I have been a 
> member of all three for my entire career.
> Alan
> 
> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>   Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
> Rutgers UniversityE-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu 
> 
> 14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock 
> 
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA 
> ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock  2017 
> Nobel Peace Prize to ICAN!
> Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 
> 
> On 8/4/2018 1:24 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>> Andrew and list:
>> 
>>  Thanks for the lead.  
>> 
>>  Believing that arctic ice loss is our best global indicator of how fast 
>> we are heading to ever more serious climate problems, I've tried to follow 
>> Arctic melting for the last 10-12 years (I just learned that 2018 is lagging 
>> other years overall, but is in first place for the central Arctic basin - 
>> the most important).  So, disappointed that this paper is behind a pay wall, 
>> I found by Googling that the paper is probably the result of this 2016 
>> Master's thesis (his second Master's), downloadable at
>>   
>> https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/7669/Mueller_Bennit_MSc_2016.pdf?sequence=1
>>  
>> 
>> 
>>  Possibly more here than in the paper.  I have only skimmed the thesis, 
>> but believe Mr. Mueller has described a new useful methodology.  He 
>> has pulled a lot of new information out of some pretty sketchy actual data 
>> and huge amounts of modeled data.
>> 
>>   So, I hope that climate modelers will pay attention to this thesis as 
>> a way to improve their models.
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 4, 2018, at 7:35 AM, Andrew Lockley >> > wrote:



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to