Luis, Could you explain more about how your open-access journal is reproducible, or point me to something describing how?
Thanks, Sebastian On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Luis Ibanez <luis.iba...@kitware.com>wrote: > Mel, > > Academic publishing is split today into > two parallel universes: > > A) The Open Access community > > and > > B) The Traditional Publishers using business models > that pre-date the industrial revolution. > > > Some publishers are slowly moving from (B) to (A). > > Some others still doing (B) are hoping that (A) > will go away and that they will survive with their > traditional business models. > > Sadly enough, most of the scientific and technical > societies do (B). For example IEEE, ACM and ACS. > > IEEE went even to the extreme of lobbying *against* > the NIH Public Access policy. > > http://publicaccess.nih.gov/ > > (That requires all NIH publicly funded research > to be published in Open Access so it is available > to the taxpayers who... paid for it). > > > IEEE want's to protect its stream of +$50M/y revenue > that results from Journal subscriptions and conferences. > > As Clay Shirky said: Institutions lose track of their mission > and quickly turn to focus on self-preservation... > > > Fresh minded publishers, such as PLoS and > BiomedCentral have embraced the Open Access > model, and have promoted policies in support of > Open Access publishing for Federally Funded > research (there is an ongoing bill that will extend > the NIH public access policy to other 11 Federal > agencies). > > > Your options today, > then come down to: > > 1) Find an Open Access Journal in the > area of your interest, and publish with them. > > or > > 2) Attempt to not transfer your copyright when > publishing with a traditional Journal that > does (B), and instead just give them the > license that they need to publish your work. > Typically a Creative Commons by Attribution > License should do the trick. In this option, > be ready for a fight... > > or > > 3) Start your own Open Access Journal. > > > In the domain of Medical Image Analysis, > we took option (3), about six years ago: > > http://www.insight-journal.org/ > > We made it open, we made it free, > we made it reproducible. > > --- > > The typical argument that you will hear is > that Traditional Journal in (B) have the "best > reputation", and highest "impact factors", > and that therefore you should bend to their > primitive intellectual property practices. > > The reality in the ground is that "impact > factor" is a bogus measure, computed by > a company using a "proprietary method", > that nobody have ever managed to reproduce; > and that "Reputation" is something that we > (as a community) do for the Journals, when > we send our best papers to them, review > (for free) for them, serve as associate > editors (for free) for them, serve as editors > (for free) for them. It is quite a nice business > model, when you think about it. They get their > content for free, the quality verification for free, > and sell content at high prices. > > For example, > some Elsevier Journals has higher profit margins > than Microsoft and Google: > > http://www.righttoresearch.org/blog/6-reasons-open-access-matters-to-the-medical-commu.shtml > > > -- > > > PLoS gained a reputation of excellence > in just about six years, beating Science > and Nature, that have been around for > more than a century. > > So, reputation can be build, as long as > a community commits to its principles. > (...you know that better than most of us..) > > > You probably will also be exposed to the > fallacy of "Publish or Perish", which sadly > is the mother of all the current mediocrity > in the larger field of scientific research. > > It doesn't take too long to figure out that > if academics are rewarded for the number > of published papers, then they will publish > as many paper as they can, with as little > content as they can. Helas, that's what > we get today. > > --- > > Stick to your guns and your Open Source > instincts. Academic publishing is broken, > and Open Access is part of the remedy. > > > Luis > > > ------------------------ > On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Mel Chua <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > (The subject line is an allusion to > > > http://www.u.arizona.edu/~rubinson/copyright_violations/Go_To_Considered_Harmful.html > .) > > > > As some of you know, I started grad school this week. And... culture > shock. > > Ohhhh boy, culture shock. (Yes, I know every professor who's had me for > > POSSE is now chortling with we-told-you-so glee.) One incident came > today, > > when at the urging of Karl Fogel, who runs http://questioncopyright.org, > I > > looked into academic copyright -- specifically, what's the deal for the > > places TOS typically submits to (FIE and SIGCSE)? > > > > A few hours and a quietly dawning horror later, I... think I've screwed > up. > > My first couple co-submissions of work on teaching open source are, > > ironically, *unable* to be open-licensed. I've documented my naive > findings > > here: > > > http://blog.melchua.com/2011/08/20/in-which-mel-is-saddened-and-bewildered-by-academic-copyright-assignments/ > > > > Please tell me that I'm missing something. How can we get > > academically-published TOS output released under open licenses? Why do we > > put up with this? Yes, I understand the publishing industry needs to make > > money and this "way of doing things" was well-intentioned at the time > they > > were designed, but... but... why? > > > > --Mel > > > > PS: This isn't the only thing I've written about academic culture shock, > btw > > -- for instance, > > > http://blog.melchua.com/2011/08/17/academic-culture-shock-grad-student-ta-training/ > . > > _______________________________________________ > > tos mailing list > > tos@teachingopensource.org > > http://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos > > > _______________________________________________ > tos mailing list > tos@teachingopensource.org > http://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos >
_______________________________________________ tos mailing list tos@teachingopensource.org http://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos
