Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Eugene Osipov]

AI researchers are boycotting Nature journals:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/why-are-ai-researchers-boycotting-new-nature-journal-and-shunning-others
May be there is something we can in our field?

2018-07-02 10:01 GMT+03:00 George Sheldrick :

> Since neither I nor my university can afford Elsevier journals, I have no
> access to papers published in them. In view of their excessive profits, for
> some years I have not submitted papers to them and have declined all
> requests to referee for them. If everyone did that, they might reconsider
> their approach. I am not an Apple fan either - I use a more reasonably
> priced native Linux laptop - but have to give Apple credit for innovation.
>
> George
>
>
>
> On 07/01/2018 06:57 PM, Patrick Loll wrote:
>
>
> I think what we should do is not publish in journal families where the
> profit is above 10 per cent. Elsevier is the place to start as their profit
> margins are like those of Apple, and of competition there is none.
>
>
> Elsevier: Like Apple, but without the design sense.
>
>
> But seriously, Adrian makes an excellent point. And the large profit
> margins wouldn’t be quite so galling, if only the publishers were able to
> provide competent and helpful administrative support; but in my recent
> experience, not-for-profit scientific society journals are actually
> providing better experiences for reviewers and authors than the big
> commercial ones.
>
> Pat
>
> 
> ---
>
> Patrick J. Loll, Ph. D.
>
> Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
>
> Drexel University College of Medicine
>
> Room 10-102 New College Building
>
> 245 N. 15th St
> .,
> Mailstop 497
>
> Philadelphia, PA  19102-1192  USA
>
>
> (215) 762-7706
>
> pjl...@gmail.com
>
> pj...@drexel.edu
>
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
>
>
>
> --
> Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
> Dept. Structural Chemistry,
> University of Goettingen,
> Tammannstr. 4,
> D37077 Goettingen, Germany
> Tel. +49-551-39-33021 or +49-5594-227312
>
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
>



-- 
Eugene Osipov
Junior Research Scientist
Laboratory of Enzyme Engineering
Research Center of Biotechnology
Russian Academy of Sciences
Leninsky pr. 33, 119071 Moscow, Russia
e-mail: e.m.osi...@gmail.com



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[George Sheldrick]

Since neither I nor my university can afford Elsevier journals, I have 
no access to papers published in them. In view of their excessive 
profits, for some years I have not submitted papers to them and have 
declined all requests to referee for them. If everyone did that, they 
might reconsider their approach. I am not an Apple fan either - I use a 
more reasonably priced native Linux laptop - but have to give Apple 
credit for innovation.


George


On 07/01/2018 06:57 PM, Patrick Loll wrote:


I think what we should do is not publish in journal families where 
the profit is above 10 per cent. Elsevier is the place to start as 
their profit margins are like those of Apple, and of competition 
there is none.


Elsevier: Like Apple, but without the design sense.


But seriously, Adrian makes an excellent point. And the large profit 
margins wouldn’t be quite so galling, if only the publishers were able 
to provide competent and helpful administrative support; but in my 
recent experience, not-for-profit scientific society journals are 
actually providing better experiences for reviewers and authors than 
the big commercial ones.


Pat

---

Patrick J. Loll, Ph. D.

Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology

Drexel University College of Medicine

Room 10-102 New College Building

245 N. 15th St., Mailstop 497

Philadelphia, PA19102-1192USA


(215) 762-7706

pjl...@gmail.com 

pj...@drexel.edu 





To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1 






--
Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
Dept. Structural Chemistry,
University of Goettingen,
Tammannstr. 4,
D37077 Goettingen, Germany
Tel. +49-551-39-33021 or +49-5594-227312




To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Robbie Joosten]

There is a way to get some credit for reviewing, which is a good step: 
https://publons.com/home/



You can link it to your ORCID.



Cheers,

Robbie





Sent from my Windows 10 phone




From: CCP4 bulletin board  on behalf of 
graeme.win...@diamond.ac.uk 
Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2018 7:13:44 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

Jacob,

This is a known thing in other circles - see e.g.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6590

"Extending ArXiv.org<http://ArXiv.org> to Achieve Open Peer Review and 
Publishing

Axel Boldt
(Submitted on 23 Nov 2010)
Today's peer review process for scientific articles is unnecessarily opaque and 
offers few incentives to referees. Likewise, the publishing process is 
unnecessarily inefficient and its results are only rarely made freely available 
to the public. Here we outline a comparatively simple extension of 
arXiv.org<http://arXiv.org>, an online preprint archive widely used in the 
mathematical and physical sciences, that addresses both of these problems. 
Under the proposal, editors invite referees to write public and signed reviews 
to be attached to the posted preprints, and then elevate selected articles to 
"published" status.”

Also:

http://blog.scienceopen.com/2016/04/what-if-you-could-peer-review-the-arxiv/

And:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2015/sep/07/peer-review-preprints-speed-science-journals

(different things)

I think the idea here is that people want to trust the manuscript - having it 
in Acta Cryst D (or whatever else) does give some measure of provenance. I 
suspect we could achieve the same with an open peer review process but it would 
be non-trivial, especially for most of the stuff which ends up in Nature… 
though this does not make it wrong, just hard.

Cheerio Graeme

On 1 Jul 2018, at 04:17, Keller, Jacob 
mailto:kell...@janelia.hhmi.org>> wrote:

I don't fully understand the cynicism in the response, unless it is simply the 
outpouring from years of painstaking review work for no monetary reward in a 
very broken publication system. Everybody I have talked to thinks the system is 
terrible, and various solutions have been proposed. One of these is, believe it 
or not, what I suggested, which is to pay reviewers. It is a huge amount of 
work, if one has a conscience about it, and the number of people with the 
expertise and experience required for this type of work is exceedingly small. 
Further, a real review of a paper takes significantly more than 2 hours of 
work, depending on the type of paper (I think you were joking about 2 h, but 
not totally sure). What really kills me is that the publishing houses are 
making money hand over fist, and this because they know that they can get very 
cooperative scientists (G-d bless them) to do huge amounts of work for free. It 
is really scandalous, and I am not sure why we scientists go along with it. To 
put it bluntly: we are being exploited by the journals; why not do something 
about it? I am sure that the journals will not be overjoyed to release their 
grip on the profits, but that should not stop us.

JPK

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
Cell: (301)592-7004
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Hughes, 
Jon
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 6:13 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Subject: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

great idea! 2 hours at €200 per hour makes €1000 - sounds like an eminently 
reasonable starting point for negotiations. if the publishers don't like our 
price, they can do the reviewing themselves - and after a while no one will 
bother to buy the resulting rubbish anyhow! in the mean time we put our stuff 
online directly (without wasting our time, for example, still formatting 
reference lists in the 21st century!). we have them over a barrel. the only 
problem i see is how to get grants without papers in Nature. anyone have a 
solution to that one?
one final aspect is: who gets the money? surely the universities etc. should 
get it, not us: the taxpayer pays us already.
best,
jon

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Keller, 
Jacob
Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 00:00

Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Goldman, Adrian]

I personally don’t think paying reviewers is a necessary solution, though it 
would be nice- for us. The result would just be an increase in journal costs. 

I think what we should do is not publish in journal families where the profit 
is above 10 per cent. Elsevier is the place to start as their profit margins 
are like those of Apple, and of competition there is none. 

Adrian 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Jul 2018, at 05:18, Keller, Jacob  wrote:
> 
> I don't fully understand the cynicism in the response, unless it is simply 
> the outpouring from years of painstaking review work for no monetary reward 
> in a very broken publication system. Everybody I have talked to thinks the 
> system is terrible, and various solutions have been proposed. One of these 
> is, believe it or not, what I suggested, which is to pay reviewers. It is a 
> huge amount of work, if one has a conscience about it, and the number of 
> people with the expertise and experience required for this type of work is 
> exceedingly small. Further, a real review of a paper takes significantly more 
> than 2 hours of work, depending on the type of paper (I think you were joking 
> about 2 h, but not totally sure). What really kills me is that the publishing 
> houses are making money hand over fist, and this because they know that they 
> can get very cooperative scientists (G-d bless them) to do huge amounts of 
> work for free. It is really scandalous, and I am not sure why we scientists 
> go along with it. To put it bluntly: we are being exploited by the journals; 
> why not do something about it? I am sure that the journals will not be 
> overjoyed to release their grip on the profits, but that should not stop us.
> 
> JPK
> 
> +
> Jacob Pearson Keller
> Research Scientist / Looger Lab
> HHMI Janelia Research Campus
> 19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
> Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
> Cell: (301)592-7004
> +
> 
> The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
> specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
> message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
> received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow 
> with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the 
> future.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Hughes, 
> Jon
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 6:13 AM
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
> 
> great idea! 2 hours at €200 per hour makes €1000 - sounds like an eminently 
> reasonable starting point for negotiations. if the publishers don't like our 
> price, they can do the reviewing themselves - and after a while no one will 
> bother to buy the resulting rubbish anyhow! in the mean time we put our stuff 
> online directly (without wasting our time, for example, still formatting 
> reference lists in the 21st century!). we have them over a barrel. the only 
> problem i see is how to get grants without papers in Nature. anyone have a 
> solution to that one?
> one final aspect is: who gets the money? surely the universities etc. should 
> get it, not us: the taxpayer pays us already. 
> best,
> jon
> 
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von 
> Keller, Jacob
> Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 00:00
> An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
> 
> The one I don't get is why not pay reviewers? $1000 per review? If you look 
> at publishers' profit margins, you will see that they can afford it. I 
> actually think the scientific community should go on a "review strike" until 
> reviewers get paid.
> 
> JPK
> 
> +
> Jacob Pearson Keller
> Research Scientist / Looger Lab
> HHMI Janelia Research Campus
> 19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
> Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
> Cell: (301)592-7004
> +
> 
> The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
> specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
> message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
> received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow 
> with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the 
> future.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Petr

Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[graeme.win...@diamond.ac.uk]

Jacob,

This is a known thing in other circles - see e.g.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6590

"Extending ArXiv.org<http://ArXiv.org> to Achieve Open Peer Review and 
Publishing

Axel Boldt
(Submitted on 23 Nov 2010)
Today's peer review process for scientific articles is unnecessarily opaque and 
offers few incentives to referees. Likewise, the publishing process is 
unnecessarily inefficient and its results are only rarely made freely available 
to the public. Here we outline a comparatively simple extension of 
arXiv.org<http://arXiv.org>, an online preprint archive widely used in the 
mathematical and physical sciences, that addresses both of these problems. 
Under the proposal, editors invite referees to write public and signed reviews 
to be attached to the posted preprints, and then elevate selected articles to 
"published" status.”

Also:

http://blog.scienceopen.com/2016/04/what-if-you-could-peer-review-the-arxiv/

And:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2015/sep/07/peer-review-preprints-speed-science-journals

(different things)

I think the idea here is that people want to trust the manuscript - having it 
in Acta Cryst D (or whatever else) does give some measure of provenance. I 
suspect we could achieve the same with an open peer review process but it would 
be non-trivial, especially for most of the stuff which ends up in Nature… 
though this does not make it wrong, just hard.

Cheerio Graeme

On 1 Jul 2018, at 04:17, Keller, Jacob 
mailto:kell...@janelia.hhmi.org>> wrote:

I don't fully understand the cynicism in the response, unless it is simply the 
outpouring from years of painstaking review work for no monetary reward in a 
very broken publication system. Everybody I have talked to thinks the system is 
terrible, and various solutions have been proposed. One of these is, believe it 
or not, what I suggested, which is to pay reviewers. It is a huge amount of 
work, if one has a conscience about it, and the number of people with the 
expertise and experience required for this type of work is exceedingly small. 
Further, a real review of a paper takes significantly more than 2 hours of 
work, depending on the type of paper (I think you were joking about 2 h, but 
not totally sure). What really kills me is that the publishing houses are 
making money hand over fist, and this because they know that they can get very 
cooperative scientists (G-d bless them) to do huge amounts of work for free. It 
is really scandalous, and I am not sure why we scientists go along with it. To 
put it bluntly: we are being exploited by the journals; why not do something 
about it? I am sure that the journals will not be overjoyed to release their 
grip on the profits, but that should not stop us.

JPK

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
Cell: (301)592-7004
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Hughes, 
Jon
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 6:13 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Subject: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

great idea! 2 hours at €200 per hour makes €1000 - sounds like an eminently 
reasonable starting point for negotiations. if the publishers don't like our 
price, they can do the reviewing themselves - and after a while no one will 
bother to buy the resulting rubbish anyhow! in the mean time we put our stuff 
online directly (without wasting our time, for example, still formatting 
reference lists in the 21st century!). we have them over a barrel. the only 
problem i see is how to get grants without papers in Nature. anyone have a 
solution to that one?
one final aspect is: who gets the money? surely the universities etc. should 
get it, not us: the taxpayer pays us already.
best,
jon

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Keller, 
Jacob
Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 00:00
An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

The one I don't get is why not pay reviewers? $1000 per review? If you look at 
publishers' profit margins, you will see that they can afford it. I actually 
think the scientific community should go on a "review strike" until reviewers 
get paid.

JPK

++

Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Keller, Jacob]

I don't fully understand the cynicism in the response, unless it is simply the 
outpouring from years of painstaking review work for no monetary reward in a 
very broken publication system. Everybody I have talked to thinks the system is 
terrible, and various solutions have been proposed. One of these is, believe it 
or not, what I suggested, which is to pay reviewers. It is a huge amount of 
work, if one has a conscience about it, and the number of people with the 
expertise and experience required for this type of work is exceedingly small. 
Further, a real review of a paper takes significantly more than 2 hours of 
work, depending on the type of paper (I think you were joking about 2 h, but 
not totally sure). What really kills me is that the publishing houses are 
making money hand over fist, and this because they know that they can get very 
cooperative scientists (G-d bless them) to do huge amounts of work for free. It 
is really scandalous, and I am not sure why we scientists go along with it. To 
put it bluntly: we are being exploited by the journals; why not do something 
about it? I am sure that the journals will not be overjoyed to release their 
grip on the profits, but that should not stop us.

JPK

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
Cell: (301)592-7004
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Hughes, 
Jon
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 6:13 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

great idea! 2 hours at €200 per hour makes €1000 - sounds like an eminently 
reasonable starting point for negotiations. if the publishers don't like our 
price, they can do the reviewing themselves - and after a while no one will 
bother to buy the resulting rubbish anyhow! in the mean time we put our stuff 
online directly (without wasting our time, for example, still formatting 
reference lists in the 21st century!). we have them over a barrel. the only 
problem i see is how to get grants without papers in Nature. anyone have a 
solution to that one?
one final aspect is: who gets the money? surely the universities etc. should 
get it, not us: the taxpayer pays us already. 
best,
jon

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Keller, 
Jacob
Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 00:00
An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

The one I don't get is why not pay reviewers? $1000 per review? If you look at 
publishers' profit margins, you will see that they can afford it. I actually 
think the scientific community should go on a "review strike" until reviewers 
get paid.

JPK

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
Cell: (301)592-7004
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Petr 
Leiman
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 4:47 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

Indeed! Scientists in the Soviet Bloc got paid for publishing their scientific 
papers (and maybe for citations as well - not sure about that one)! We need to 
change the current system! Although these changes could be accompanied by many 
other pleasant virtues of the Soviet regime. 

Petr


> On Jun 29, 2018, at 8:11 AM, Hughes, Jon  
> wrote:
> 
> whose paper? our universities pay subscriptions for these journals and we 
> even pay on top of that for the pages of our publications (even when they're 
> not actually printed!), whilst we review papers for free! sounds like a 
> well-validated way to use taxpayers' money to keep the expensive company cars 
> etc. nice and shiny. why don't universities just require reimbursement for 
> the time we 

Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Keller, Jacob]

The one I don't get is why not pay reviewers? $1000 per review? If you look at 
publishers' profit margins, you will see that they can afford it. I actually 
think the scientific community should go on a "review strike" until reviewers 
get paid.

JPK

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
Cell: (301)592-7004
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Petr 
Leiman
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 4:47 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

Indeed! Scientists in the Soviet Bloc got paid for publishing their scientific 
papers (and maybe for citations as well - not sure about that one)! We need to 
change the current system! Although these changes could be accompanied by many 
other pleasant virtues of the Soviet regime. 

Petr


> On Jun 29, 2018, at 8:11 AM, Hughes, Jon  
> wrote:
> 
> whose paper? our universities pay subscriptions for these journals and we 
> even pay on top of that for the pages of our publications (even when they're 
> not actually printed!), whilst we review papers for free! sounds like a 
> well-validated way to use taxpayers' money to keep the expensive company cars 
> etc. nice and shiny. why don't universities just require reimbursement for 
> the time we invest to insure that the merchandise is up to standard? €100 per 
> hour would be cheap. seems to me as though some capitalists need to add a few 
> lines to their balance sheets
> best, jon
> 
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von 
> Robbie Joosten
> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Juni 2018 13:42
> An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
> 
> Yes, but think of all the money they miss due to your pirating of their paper 
> ;) It's the typical discussion about whether piracy of copyrighted material 
> leads to loss or gain of revenue. There are a lot of models here, but not 
> necessarily well-validated.
> 
> Anyway, if people want to read your papers and cannot get them from 
> ResearchGate, I'm sure they can find them on another online 
> collection, a hub of some sort ;)
> 
> Cheers,
> Robbie
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bernhard Rupp [mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 13:23
>> To: 'Robbie Joosten'; CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: RE: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>> 
>> Agreed, but for 10 years old papers this seems a bit of overkill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: CCP4 bulletin board  On Behalf Of Robbie 
>> Joosten
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 12:11
>> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Were they open access papers? If they were, than OUP is being too 
>> aggressive (IMO), but otherwise it makes sense. I also find the 
>> ResearchGate is rather aggressive in bugging you to upload papers 
>> that are readily available from the publisher. The whole business bit 
>> in scientific publishing is a necessary (?) evil, but I guess if 
>> given the choice one should publish somewhere where you as an author retain 
>> copyright.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Robbie
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of 
>> Bernhard Rupp
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 11:42
>> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Fellows,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> just an advisory that Oxford University Press is pretty aggressive in
>> 
>> enforcing copyright - I had to remove 2 Bioinformatics papers
>> 
>> from ResearchGate.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Fortunately, authors have choices, too
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers, BR
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Bernhard Rupp
>> 
>> http://www.hofkristallamt.org/
>> 
>> b...@hofkristallamt.org
>> 
>> +1 925 209 7429
>> 
&g

Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Petr Leiman]

Indeed! Scientists in the Soviet Bloc got paid for publishing their scientific 
papers (and maybe for citations as well - not sure about that one)! We need to 
change the current system! Although these changes could be accompanied by many 
other pleasant virtues of the Soviet regime. 

Petr


> On Jun 29, 2018, at 8:11 AM, Hughes, Jon  
> wrote:
> 
> whose paper? our universities pay subscriptions for these journals and we 
> even pay on top of that for the pages of our publications (even when they're 
> not actually printed!), whilst we review papers for free! sounds like a 
> well-validated way to use taxpayers' money to keep the expensive company cars 
> etc. nice and shiny. why don't universities just require reimbursement for 
> the time we invest to insure that the merchandise is up to standard? €100 per 
> hour would be cheap. seems to me as though some capitalists need to add a few 
> lines to their balance sheets
> best, jon
> 
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Robbie 
> Joosten
> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Juni 2018 13:42
> An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
> 
> Yes, but think of all the money they miss due to your pirating of their paper 
> ;) It's the typical discussion about whether piracy of copyrighted material 
> leads to loss or gain of revenue. There are a lot of models here, but not 
> necessarily well-validated.
> 
> Anyway, if people want to read your papers and cannot get them from 
> ResearchGate, I'm sure they can find them on another online collection, a hub 
> of some sort ;)
> 
> Cheers,
> Robbie 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bernhard Rupp [mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 13:23
>> To: 'Robbie Joosten'; CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: RE: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>> 
>> Agreed, but for 10 years old papers this seems a bit of overkill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: CCP4 bulletin board  On Behalf Of Robbie 
>> Joosten
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 12:11
>> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Were they open access papers? If they were, than OUP is being too 
>> aggressive (IMO), but otherwise it makes sense. I also find the 
>> ResearchGate is rather aggressive in bugging you to upload papers that 
>> are readily available from the publisher. The whole business bit in 
>> scientific publishing is a necessary (?) evil, but I guess if given 
>> the choice one should publish somewhere where you as an author retain 
>> copyright.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Robbie
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of 
>> Bernhard Rupp
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 11:42
>> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Fellows,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> just an advisory that Oxford University Press is pretty aggressive in
>> 
>> enforcing copyright - I had to remove 2 Bioinformatics papers
>> 
>> from ResearchGate.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Fortunately, authors have choices, too
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers, BR
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Bernhard Rupp
>> 
>> http://www.hofkristallamt.org/
>> 
>> b...@hofkristallamt.org
>> 
>> +1 925 209 7429
>> 
>> +43 676 571 0536
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Many plausible ideas vanish
>> 
>> at the presence of thought
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1




To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1