headers
Amit Saha | 1 Sep 2011 02:19
Picon

Re: [clug] [OT] Open Source model needed for Academic Publishing?

On 31/08/11 22:24, Carlo Hamalainen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:06 PM, steve jenkin<sjenkin@...>  wrote:
>> "Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist":
>>   [Academic publishers charge vast fees to access research paid for by
>> us. Down with the knowledge monopoly racketeers.]
>
> This sort of thing really irks me.
>
> http://carlo-hamalainen.net/blog/2009/05/11/open-access/
>
> quoting Springer when I got a paper published in one of their journals:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Authors opting for Open Access in the Springer Open Choice program,
> agree to pay the article processing fee. The standard fee is US$3000.
> Customers in the Americas will be charged in US dollars, and customers
> in Europe, Asia, and Africa will be charged the equivalent fee in Euros.
> VAT and other applicable taxes are not included in the standard fee of
> US$3000, and will be added according to the requirements of the country
> where the order is placed.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So they want *me* to pay $3000 to have my paper available to the
> public, when it was written with funding from the Australian
> Government (an APA scholarship)? Ridiculous.

:-) IMHO, that pretty much sums up the whole scenario. Why would *I* pay 
for publishing my article which I have already spent a significant 
amount of effort on, and _somebody_ is definitely paying my bills? It 
will take a lot of money in my banks to get into that kind of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Hal Ashburner | 1 Sep 2011 02:33

Re: [clug] [OT] Open Source model needed for Academic Publishing?


On 01/Sep/2011, at 10:19 AM, Amit Saha wrote:

> On 31/08/11 22:24, Carlo Hamalainen wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:06 PM, steve jenkin<sjenkin@...>  wrote:
>>> "Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist":
>>>  [Academic publishers charge vast fees to access research paid for by
>>> us. Down with the knowledge monopoly racketeers.]
>> 
>> This sort of thing really irks me.
>> 
>> http://carlo-hamalainen.net/blog/2009/05/11/open-access/
>> 
>> quoting Springer when I got a paper published in one of their journals:
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Authors opting for Open Access in the Springer Open Choice program,
>> agree to pay the article processing fee. The standard fee is US$3000.
>> Customers in the Americas will be charged in US dollars, and customers
>> in Europe, Asia, and Africa will be charged the equivalent fee in Euros.
>> VAT and other applicable taxes are not included in the standard fee of
>> US$3000, and will be added according to the requirements of the country
>> where the order is placed.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> So they want *me* to pay $3000 to have my paper available to the
>> public, when it was written with funding from the Australian
>> Government (an APA scholarship)? Ridiculous.
> 
> :-) IMHO, that pretty much sums up the whole scenario. Why would *I* pay for publishing my article which I
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Francis Markham | 1 Sep 2011 02:45
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [clug] [OT] Open Source model needed for Academic Publishing?

Interestingly, some top medical journals have been flirting with open /
almost open access for a while.  For example, Australia's top public health
journal has a temporally based open access policy:

   - Articles are open access for the first two weeks (presumably to
   encourage press coverage)
   - Articles are then subscriber only for one year, at which point they
   revert to open access

http://www.mja.com.au/access_policy.html

So there should/can be a middle ground business model for publishers to be
slightly less evil, while still raking in subscription fees.  But I agree
that generally the whole thing is a scam.

Francis

On 1 September 2011 10:33, Hal Ashburner <hal@...> wrote:

>
> On 01/Sep/2011, at 10:19 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
>
> > On 31/08/11 22:24, Carlo Hamalainen wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:06 PM, steve jenkin<sjenkin@...>
>  wrote:
> >>> "Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist":
> >>>  [Academic publishers charge vast fees to access research paid for by
> >>> us. Down with the knowledge monopoly racketeers.]
> >>
> >> This sort of thing really irks me.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
steve jenkin | 1 Sep 2011 04:43
X-Face
Picon
Picon

Re: [clug] [OT] Open Source model needed for Academic Publishing?

Hal Ashburner wrote on 1/09/11 10:33 AM:
> You're paying for the Attest service you get from the publication. i.e. the peer-review, editorial input
and brand reputation of the publication that signals "this is a quality piece of research"
> 

My understanding is that for most Journals, the editorial selection and
peer-review of papers is done pro-Bono.

These days, I thought all Journals require electronic/digital
submissions using defined standards.

Which means someone has to do the sub-editing...
Not all that expensive.

Am I missing something?

The author of the piece seemed to that that a Profit Margin of 36-40%
indicates the Publishers don't incur high costs, which agrees with my
thinking.
(not to be confused with the Gross Margin, usually around double Profit).

-- 
Steve Jenkin, Info Tech, Systems and Design Specialist.
0412 786 915 (+61 412 786 915)
PO Box 48, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA

sjenkin@... http://members.tip.net.au/~sjenkin
--

-- 
linux mailing list
linux@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Carlo Hamalainen | 1 Sep 2011 04:51
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [clug] [OT] Open Source model needed for Academic Publishing?

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:43 PM, steve jenkin <sjenkin <at> canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> My understanding is that for most Journals, the editorial selection and
> peer-review of papers is done pro-Bono.

That's the case.

> These days, I thought all Journals require electronic/digital
> submissions using defined standards.

Indeed.

> Which means someone has to do the sub-editing...
> Not all that expensive.

Springer Verlag (the ones who wanted a $3000 open access fee) use
cheap labour in India:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Title:  PARTITIONING 3-HOMOGENEOUS LATIN BITRADES
DOI: 10.1007/s10711-008-9242-4
Editorial manuscript number: GEOM1126

Dear Dr/Prof.Carlo Hämäläinen,

We are pleased to inform you that your paper Geometriae Dedicata is
nearing publication. The page proofs are available at:

<snip>

Sincerely yours,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Scott Ferguson | 1 Sep 2011 05:36
Picon

Re: [clug] [OT] Open Source model needed for Academic Publishing?

On 01/09/11 12:51, Carlo Hamalainen wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:43 PM, steve jenkin<sjenkin@...>  wrote:
<snipped>

> So... where does that $3000 go? :)
>

I realise you're probably not looking for this answer, but...
To the owners and investors of the companies that own Springer Verlag:-
http://www.gic.com.sg/
and:-
http://www.eqt.se/

Ref:-
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6952793.ece

Cheers
--

-- 
linux mailing list
linux@...
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic | 1 Sep 2011 06:23
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [clug] [OT] Open Source model needed for Academic Publishing?

On 31 August 2011 18:06, steve jenkin <sjenkin <at> canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> I thought this a rip-snorter!
> Great critique of the status-quo:
>
> "The Lairds of Learning"
> <http://www.monbiot.com/2011/08/29/the-lairds-of-learning/>
>
> Also at:
>
> "Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist":
>  [Academic publishers charge vast fees to access research paid for by
> us. Down with the knowledge monopoly racketeers.]
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist>
>
> My reformed-academic friend sent me the link.
>
> I'm having flashbacks to the student demonstrations of the 60's and 70's
> against "social injustices" :-)
> No need to go to the barricades just yet...
> The French may, in time honoured tradition, decide to riot and revolt.
>
> The Internet doesn't just Change Everything, it creates whole new
> societies and expectations...

I've just had this bite me: ANU provides me with access to a whole
bunch of papers on Springer, etc. ... but in one case, not the one I
want: I need a paper from a 1996 issue of Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, whereas ANU only has a subscription to 1997+.  After all,
no-one cares about stuff that's over 14 years old!!!
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Mike Carden | 1 Sep 2011 06:36
Picon

Re: [clug] [OT] Open Source model needed for Academic Publishing?

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
<ivan.miljenovic <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> After all,
> no-one cares about stuff that's over 14 years old!!!

Do you mean to say that computer science existed more than 14 years
ago? Pffft. That can't be right.

-- 
MC
--

-- 
linux mailing list
linux <at> lists.samba.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
steve jenkin | 1 Sep 2011 07:42
X-Face
Picon
Picon

Re: [clug] [OT] Open Source model needed for Academic Publishing?

Mike Carden wrote on 1/09/11 2:36 PM:

> 
> Do you mean to say that computer science existed more than 14 years
> ago? Pffft. That can't be right.
> 

You're right, NOTHING important happened in CS before 1996 :-)

Partial & prejudiced list:
[If others indulge, why don't we fork the subject line]

1941-1949: First Generation general-purpose computers.
Ozstralia has "The Last of the First", CSIRAC, due to its slow &
underwhelming bureaucracy. It was put in a wharehouse and forgotten
about, accidentally preserving a major historical item :-)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRAC>

1950-1951: First Commercial Computers sold & used
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEO_(computer)>	claims 1st Application
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIVAC_I>		claims 1st hardware

1960-1964: IBM 360 created. World's First multi-machine Architecture.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/360>

1961-1963: Ivan Sutherland writes "Sketchpad" for his PhD thesis
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sketchpad>

1964-1968: Doug Englebart and SRI develop mouse, hypertext,
collaboration, etc at "Augmentation Research Centre"
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
steve jenkin | 1 Sep 2011 08:34
X-Face
Picon
Picon

Re: [clug] [OT] Open Source model needed for Academic Publishing?

Jason, thanks.
A good comment, hope you don't mind my sharing with the list.

For quite a while I thought Computing/I.T. was driven exclusively by
"Fads, Fashions and Enthusiasms".

Until I tried to list and define them... And failed :-(

Which of your post-1996 languages is *not* a fad??
We will have to wait another 10 years to find out :-(

The *only* difference between a Fad and Something Real/Useful is
eventual acceptance or 'market penetration'.

My thesis is:
 Everything new creates much enthusiasm and quickly becomes a Fad.
 Like evolution, competition in the wild creates a very few 'winners'
  while the rest either die completely or find sheltered nooks
  and limp along in a time-warp... [until something like Y2K!]

My fav. example:
 Plan 9 and the related Inferno.

Smaller, better, faster than almost everything else and significantly
pre-dating Linux.
From the same exceptional team that brought us Unix etc.

But it never caught on...
Linux not only over-took them, but pretty much wiped them off the map...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |

Gmane