This is very in keeping with the 9-29 Princeton Open Access Publishing article: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2011/09/29/28869/
On 09/30/2011 10:36 AM, Mel Chua wrote: > On 09/30/2011 11:21 AM, Don Davis wrote: >> Having to assign copyright to someone else recently felt like a sort >> awkward uncomfortable rite of passage in the academic world. > > But it *doesn't* have to be a rite of passage. I mean, yeah, the > situation sucks and we *do* have to deal with it now, but just "putting > up with it" or quietly avoiding the medium of peer-reviewed journals > entirely won't make it change. I'd like to make things so that someday > my own PhD students won't have to go through that at all. (It may be a > very far-off someday. That's okay. We have time.) > >> What's a list of the better 'open' journals? > > So I've looked at this some, and sadly in our field the "good" journals > and the OA journals overlap in... zero places, as best as I can tell. > (Actually, I couldn't find any OA journals I would want to submit my > scholarly work to, but my subfield is engineering education so others > may have more pointers.) > >> The copyright agreements often seem very overwhelming. (I'm thinking of >> ACM.) > > ACM is actually pretty standard. IEEE is worse, they'll ask for > copyright assignment upon *submission* -- not even acceptance! One of > the other major publishers in my field, ASEE, has even weirder and > loopier and fuzzier copyright stuff... it *is* overwhelming. It also > seems like we tend to deal with the overwhelmingness by signing the > papers so we can move on with our lives/research instead of getting > mired in legal stuff which isn't interesting to us. So major props for > taking the time to look at this, Don -- and thank you. > >> "You're not giving ACM the copyright to the dataset -- just the paper >> itself. Research hypotheses are, in general, second order – that is, >> they're not simple descriptions of the data (i.e., sample size, gender >> distribution). On a public dataset, descriptions (first-order analyses) >> are assumed to be public, as well." > >> It seems to me then (with my limited knowledge and limited copyright >> finesse), that making the dataset public before submission may be a way >> to guarantee(?) that you and others may continue to evaluate the data. > > I think so! Seb Benthall sent me a link to a blogpost from one of his > colleagues from Berkeley on exactly this strategy, and then I think I > lost the link (or at least can't find it now). Seb, do you remember what > I'm talking about? > > --Mel _______________________________________________ tos mailing list tos@teachingopensource.org http://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos
