Transparency = Open Access = Free Radical
~C4Chaos
(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)
"For centuries, journals have been the means both of disseminating scientific knowledge and building scientific careers. Accordingly, the journals atop the hierarchy draw the highest-quality submissions, which reinforces their lofty reputations, which in turn enhances the status of the scientists who publish there. This positive feedback loop puts the power in the hands of the journals, even though their existence depends entirely on the scientists who write, edit, and serve as reviewers, usually without compensation.... Varmus asks: Shouldn’t this ancient system have changed with the Internet, which allows information to be disseminated cheaply and immediately searched, mined, archived, reviewed, and improved?"
Diverse Chromatin Remodeling Genes Antagonize the Rb-Involved SynMuv Pathways in C. elegans
Photograph and false coloring by Mingxue Cui
PLoS Genetics Volume 2 | Issue 5 | May 2006
I'm not a scientist, but I couldn't agree more! The Public Library of Science (PLOS) is an awesome testament to the power of "free culture." I think integral spiritual commons should embrace the free culture too. There are other better integral "business" models out there, you know. Oh, well.
Access: Public
creative commons
July 2008
This statement is SO right on. Okay, I'm going to try not to “go off” here, at least not too much.
The whole issue of Open Access is so near and dear to my heart. (Until July 1, I am the Journals Librarian at a small college. After July 1 I will be the Electronic Resources Librarian, and I will still be dealing with journals as they exist in their electronic forms.)
I just want to emphasize this statement: even though their existence depends entirely on the scientists who write, edit, and serve as reviewers, usually without compensation…. that the writers of these articles are not paid for their work. The review board, which scrutinizes each article for authenticity and appropriateness to the journal, are not paid. The price for an annual subscription to a peer reviewed journal can range anywhere from a hundred bucks to several thousand. I have never been able to understand exactly why some journals require so much more to operate than others. Frankly, I think it's a racket.
The open access movement has been pushing for authors to retain copyright to the articles they write, even if it is a joint agreement with the peer reviewed publisher. Then the article can be housed in an institutional repository for the academic world to access and use to further research. I think it should go farther. I think the general public ought to be able to access this information inexpensively, if not freely. Who pays, then? I submit that if the price were reasonable, professionals in their fields would maintain subscriptions. I do not believe open access would hurt these publishers in the long run.
True, oh how true. Another thought on the subject- as the internet permitsanyone and everyone to post their articles,online journals would be a lot more carful in reviewing submitted content. This would meen that cases like the recent case of Woo Suk Hwang (who submitted articles of human ESC containing false data), would have a lesser tendency to happen.
Just my 2 cents.
whoah! thanks! i'm an avid supporter of Creative Commons ever since. especially after i've read Free Culture. i believe in open access and its potential to change the landscape on how information is freely shared (free doesn't mean not paid). so i'm excited to see people here who have actual experience in the industry who also share the same vision.
rip, mix, and burn, with chaos, creativity, compassion, and care.
~C (for Creative Commons is a great start)
This just came to my work email today. The page is loaded with great articles. One such article is titled:
'Many areas of research are funded by taxpayers but they do not see the results'
Enjoy!
Naismith, I hear what you are saying, but the reviewing process is different for an editorial board (as in any magazine or newspaper) and a peer review board of a scholarly publication. I do think that more care will be taken by editorial boards, but I don't think that any time soon scholarly authors are going to switch from the prestigious peer review process to something like CC. Why? Because when an article is published in an established juried journal, it automatically has authority. And because many academic institutions require scholarlypublishing as a requirement for tenure or even just “faculty status.” So even if they wanted to chuck it all and go with CC, they would have obstacles.
Why not do both (CC and the scholarly publisher)? Because the publisher prohibits it. So what has to happen, is that the institutions paying the author for his work have to demand of the publishers that a copy of everything written and reviewed for publication be also retained by the institution in a repository. Very few institutions have done this to date, and I believe only one in the U.S., the University of Kansas. (My alma mater, thank you very much!) There may be others. I need to update myself on this.
So, while online publishing is an exciting prospect and ultimately what will happen, it will be some time before the whole system of peer review/ juried articles/ scholarly publication (whatever you want to call it!) is adapted to anything but the current system. And while these publishers do publish on-line, they do so at a high subscription rate.
Interestingly, websites like FreeMedicalJournals.com and HighWire Press already provide these articles, but embargo for 6, 12 or 18 months. Its a start, I guess.
With you on this one. In writing my thesis, I'm continuously looking up articles electronically in the databases of my university. However, since I apparently feel the need to write a somewhat sociological-philosophical thesis for my study of international business, my faculties' subscriptions often don't cover the types of articles I'd like to check out. Real pain in the ass.
Apart from that, I am sometimes slightly afraid that the patents lawyer employed by the I-I has a bit too much of a say in things there. Just my feeling. I can understand (I think) why you'd want to travel that path, but I'm not sure it's always the right one. I could be wrong, but I can't help wondering where things would go if we really dared opening them up.
i feel the same way as you ~D, but in fairness to I-I, there are lots of people who are “copying” the I-I model out there, calling it their own, not fully acknowledging the source, and making money out of it. however, just like you, i'm not sure if putting a TM on “everything” and making it exclusive is the best path. in fact, i think that laying it all out under Creative Commons license (just like what PLoS is doing) will not only speed up the integral cause but also expose the fallacies of the “copy cats.” i mean, paradoxically, it's really hard to copy E=MC^2 and call it your own if everyone out there knows the original source.
my two cents.
Very true, ~C. And I suspect this is just what will happen. All it takes is authors willing to go that route, and it is happening more and more. ~D, it is not really an issue of ”If we really dared opening them up,” it's ”when we finally dare to.” I believe it is inevitable. It's just a matter of the path taken to get to that point. Isn't it great to be here at this time watching it all happen (and maybe being a part of making it happen)?
Hey ~C… At some point, you must have said to I-I/Itegral Naked something along the lines of:
- CC license the IN content, or at least the archival content
- put the damn videos in MPEG-4 format so that anyone can RMB them
- set the stuff free to help the ideas move instead of hoarding/charging for it all
… given that I’m sure you *have* said it, what did they say?
~@timbomb, LOL. yeah i said all those in one way or another. but you can ask them :)