tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post6158014442375924589..comments2024-02-13T21:22:02.522-08:00Comments on RRResearch: Announcing ScienceLeaksRosie Redfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06807912674127645263noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-22938802074894400552011-01-27T14:09:15.056-08:002011-01-27T14:09:15.056-08:00Conratulations!!! This is a REAL work of a science...Conratulations!!! This is a REAL work of a science socialnetwork, particularly for countries where subscriptions are budget impossible to dream buying. Best regards to ALL who are helping to live in a world that learns to share info&knowledge for the future of human kind.<br />Haidy Arreola harreola@uadec.edu.mx<br />Universidad Autonoma de Coahuila - MexicoHaidy Arreolahttp://www.infosal.uadec.mx/cienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-12928274429714056802011-01-10T10:09:26.288-08:002011-01-10T10:09:26.288-08:00I agree. If these articles can be purchased for $2...I agree. If these articles can be purchased for $2-3 or less, it makes sense to have anyone in the public who wants that information to pay for themselves, rather than indiscriminately spend thousands of dollars of tax money for each and every publication resulting from government-funded research.<br /><br />In fact, I would be a bit outraged to see rather obscure publications published in OA journals that charges $2000 per shot, thinking that our hard-earned money is spent on just to make these papers freely accessible even though there's no demand. A lot of papers are meant to be read by few specialists only (which is perfectly legitimate) and not by the general public. Advocating complete OA without concern for the cost to taxpayers is rather irresponsible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-3549393869786172512011-01-09T23:47:33.330-08:002011-01-09T23:47:33.330-08:00I think an important issue is not that we have to ...I think an important issue is not that we have to pay, but how much. If we have to pay for anything we think twice about whether we really need it. We value more what we pay for. But $15-$30 is too much to pay for someone like me who runs an independant consultancy but still wants to do valid research. Like iphone aps and itunes songe, if papers were available for $2-3 then publishers would probably make more revenue - not less, because more people would buy them.Writing Clear Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11218403295230681196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-88565357217627028972011-01-09T00:36:40.200-08:002011-01-09T00:36:40.200-08:00I have mixed feelings about open access from both ...I have mixed feelings about open access from both a PI's and a taxpayer's perspective.<br /><br />While in an ideal world, all articles based on taxpayers' money should be freely accessible. But in reality, it is not cheap to publish these articles on an open-access basis -- typically thousands of dollars per article. Now, as a PI with limited funding, I don't want to waste $3000 to publish a technical and specialized paper that <10 people would actually read from top to bottom. As a taxpayer, I would strongly be against paying flat ~$3000 for all publications resulting from federally funded research simply because of the economical standpoint.<br /><br />Sure, few thousand bucks of tax money may be well spent to give open access to an article that describes a new breast cancer therapy, but I would argue that very small fraction of the open access articles out there<br />is actually of any worth to the public (ie taxpayers) to justify the<br />cost.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-59079948442690367822011-01-06T20:37:26.691-08:002011-01-06T20:37:26.691-08:00The physics/maths community has arxiv.org. The ide...The physics/maths community has <a href="arxiv.org" rel="nofollow">arxiv.org</a>. The idea is that before submitting to a journal you post a preprint on arxiv, and it is thus free of journal copyright idiocy.<br /><br />Sadly, there are still many articles that don't get posted there.÷0https://www.blogger.com/profile/05091621473285611720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-35450081691680038712011-01-06T16:10:15.219-08:002011-01-06T16:10:15.219-08:00@Ike. You make a very good point. If everyone c...@Ike. You make a very good point. If everyone can freely download papers from Science Leaks why would cash strapped institutions maintain their subscriptions?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-39347615325033813332011-01-05T13:25:15.744-08:002011-01-05T13:25:15.744-08:00Basically, the issue is that journals rely on univ...Basically, the issue is that journals rely on university library subscriptions to offset printing and staffing costs. Most journals (science and nature excepted) do not make any money off of advertising. If university libraries dropped their subscriptions, they'd have financial difficulties.<br /><br />One obvious option is for the national science foundations to set aside a limited amount of money for these needs for a certain number of journals, who agree to an open-access model in exchange.<br /><br />Some journals, of course, are just clubs for researchers who use them to increase their publication counts. Academic nepotism, in other words. Such journals may very well select pals of the submitting author as reviewers, ensuring quick acceptance.<br /><br />Hence, good scientists need to develop a critical eye when it comes to reading papers - for example, the first question to ask is this: "Is the materials and methods section a model of clarity? Can this experimental approach be reconstructed given the information presented?"<br /><br />If the answers are no, chuck it in the trash and move on to the next one - or get ready to dig through the references for hours, and make lots of phone calls - at the end of which you typically discover that it was garbage, after all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-75292327243694390622011-01-04T22:05:57.113-08:002011-01-04T22:05:57.113-08:00Under US Copyright laws, work carried out by emplo...Under US Copyright laws, work carried out by employees of the US government (i.e. NASA) are not eligible for copyright protection. Thus, Science has no right to claim copyright on the arsenic paper, and it would (or at least should) not be illegal to post the paper.<br /><br />But the real way to combat the absurd fact that publicly funded research is not available to the people who paid for it is to demand that all government scientists, and those receiving federal support, publish their papers in open access journals.<br /><br />And all you haters out there who think that journal editors will lose their jobs if subscriptions disappear need to educate yourself about open access publishing.Michael Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11420588482549476634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-4100745631924272522011-01-04T19:06:21.663-08:002011-01-04T19:06:21.663-08:00With some journals the authors can pay around $800...With some journals the authors can pay around $800 to $1,000 to allow immediate public release. If the author(s) have chosen not to do this then they are responsible for their paper being locked for a 12 months, not the journal. If you are taking the moral high ground on this issue can we be assured you have never published in a journal that didn't allow full and immediate public access?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-44758532238961759922011-01-04T18:40:45.303-08:002011-01-04T18:40:45.303-08:00Your analysis of the arsenic paper was thoughtful ...Your analysis of the arsenic paper was thoughtful and appropriate. Establishing ScienceLeaks is the opposite. <br /><br />For one thing you clearly haven't thought through the legal ramifications. Assuming your site is a success and 1,000 papers end up being downloaded everyday. If these cost between $15 to $30 that obviously equates to the 'theft' of between $15k and $30k of copyright material. If we assume the site is not closed down, this would be approaching a million Dollars worth over the course of a year. <br /><br />I'm not a lawyer but I'm assuming the penalty for this will be pretty severe - perhaps even a Felony? <br /><br />Consequently, I don't think this is a good solution to the issue. I'm assuming you didn't think this through very well, otherwise my conclusion would be you have enjoyed your proverbial 15 minutes in the limelight and are now trying to remain a bit longer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-54522897148621508922011-01-04T11:11:37.139-08:002011-01-04T11:11:37.139-08:00I'm posting this comment for Ginger because Bl...I'm posting this comment for Ginger because Blogger rejected her attempts to post it herself (it contained links, which I suspect are a Blogger no-no):<br /><br />Dear Dr. Redfield:<br /> <br />Thanks for your interest in communicating science broadly. I'm writing on behalf of the nonprofit American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), publisher of the journal Science.<br /> <br />First, we're glad that you reminded us to keep the Science article by Felisa Wolfe-Simon and colleagues freely accessible to the public via the Science Web site. The article and a related news piece remain free to the public, now without registration. <br /><br />Secondly, I'd like to provide general information on how AAAS broadly disseminates peer-reviewed research.<br /> <br />A subscription to Science costs less than $3 per issue ($149 annually, or much less for students, teachers, and emeritus faculty), and it helps to support programmatic "good works" related to science diplomacy, science in service of human rights, science policy, and public engagement with science and technology. Non-members can purchase individual articles for $15. <br /> <br />Also, our award-winning ScienceNOW news content is always freely available. Research articles are available to the public on the Science Web site after 12 months. Authors are free to post their articles on their own or publicly supported Web sites, and of course, everyone in an institution with a site license has immediate access to everything we publish.<br /> <br />In addition, we participate in a number of efforts to disseminate research content for free to developing regions. These efforts include:<br /> <br />1) HINARI, the Health InterNetwork: Access to Research Initiative, http://www.healthinternetwork.org;<br />2) OARE, the Online Access to Research in the Environment initiative, http://www.oaresciences.org/en/;<br />3) AGORA, the Access to Global Online Resources in Agriculture initiative; and<br />4) SciDev.Net, an Internet-based network, http://www.scidev.net.<br /> <br />I hope this information proves useful, and thank you again for helping to stimulate scholarly discourse.<br /> <br />Ginger Pinholster<br />Director, Office of Public Programs<br />American Association for the Advancement of ScienceRosie Redfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06807912674127645263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-78007830957627204062011-01-03T16:30:36.923-08:002011-01-03T16:30:36.923-08:00even though I was and still am a big supporter of ...even though I was and still am a big supporter of your arsenic battle, I do agree with previous commenters that you need to step back on this initiative. You must consider the legal issues and find a better platform. Ultimately, it would have been great to have a post pointing out the resources already exhisting on Internet to get free papers instead ( some have been mentioned in the comments).<br /><br />Would be great of you to step back on this. Particularly since, as it is now, it seems more a move to stay in the spotlight than a very well planned action. good luck in any case.<br /><br />c.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-13485658340897138622011-01-03T12:12:29.164-08:002011-01-03T12:12:29.164-08:00According to the Google Books settlement, it is OK...According to the Google Books settlement, it is OK for a big corporation to steal copyrighted material, even print and sell copies of it, without the permission of the author.<br /><br />I am not happy about this settlement.<br /><br />But since it stands as an example of the brave new world of legislation-by-novel-civil-case-law and few have objected, it's absurd to say that corporations should be able to take copyrighted material by individuals without permission, but individuals should not be able to take copyrighted material of corporations without permission. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, let the principle apply to everyone or to no one.Tom Painenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-24197232337749889692011-01-03T07:26:47.673-08:002011-01-03T07:26:47.673-08:00I don't mind paying. I get subscriptions to th...I don't mind paying. I get subscriptions to the journals. It supports jobs and the scientific economy. If this results in putting people out of work, because the income that supported them is lost due to stealing, then I would recommend that people pay for the article.DWHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-34630004893205885802011-01-02T23:34:56.765-08:002011-01-02T23:34:56.765-08:00I was looking for some one to reference PLOS but h...I was looking for some one to reference PLOS but here it is: a public repository of scientific papers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-91388162279323181382011-01-02T22:56:07.228-08:002011-01-02T22:56:07.228-08:00Nature also has an open-access option:
http://www...Nature also has an open-access option:<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/press_releases/naturecommunications.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-35185903854612795392011-01-02T15:29:46.518-08:002011-01-02T15:29:46.518-08:00If costs for publication shift to granting agencie...If costs for publication shift to granting agencies as part of line-item funding through grants, then editors shouldn't lose their jobs over the shift in culture. Science is done by the people, paid for by the people in large part, and should be made available for the people, not tucked away behind ludicrously expensive paywalls. I celebrated the advent of PLoS because of their open access policy. Liberte, egalite, fraternite for all, not only those who have access through a university library. The freest exchange of scientific thought will come with freely available scientific findings and discourse.EJ Willinghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07333507287598525182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-63833144431095440652011-01-02T13:45:56.044-08:002011-01-02T13:45:56.044-08:00Most would now agree that closed access publishing...Most would now agree that closed access publishing is an inconvenience at best, and scientifically damaging at worst; just ask the NLP community for evidence. Direct action like ScienceLeaks is great, although I would also advocate boycott; see for example; <br />http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2008/02/06/openaccess_is_t.htmlWill Spoonerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14607881047191542610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-18230239250909148822011-01-02T13:41:19.437-08:002011-01-02T13:41:19.437-08:00Everyone should just add the essence of the articl...Everyone should just add the essence of the articles they read and share via Wikipedia. <br /><br />Then link to some original publication in the footnote.Michael K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09944074432887250415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-68120730742282510412011-01-02T13:33:21.025-08:002011-01-02T13:33:21.025-08:00.. forgot to add that the response time for gettin..... forgot to add that the response time for getting manuscript via above room is usually an hour or two, rarely over 24.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-44529695522978556262011-01-02T13:30:29.041-08:002011-01-02T13:30:29.041-08:00There is a friendfeed room called References Wante...There is a friendfeed room called References Wanted. Description:"This is a room to document the harm caused by closed/toll-access publication by collecting hard data to answer the frequent anti-OA attack "everyone has all the access they need already". Post here citations to journal articles you'd like to read/need for your work, but can't get without paying a fee. And don't forget there's a neat tool available for emailing authors to ask for a reprint or the address of a self-archived copy http://hublog.hubmed.org/archives/001385.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-7554774687144893592011-01-02T12:18:15.627-08:002011-01-02T12:18:15.627-08:00well done.well done.Víctor Raggiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05921573589761525970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-7620397783293245672011-01-02T10:39:04.265-08:002011-01-02T10:39:04.265-08:00Isn't PLoS a "serious" attempt to re...Isn't PLoS a "serious" attempt to redress this issue? And if it is, why not register your protest by participating there, or even duplicating their effort?<br /><br />Also, while I'm a big believer in the internet helping those who help themselves, your project strikes me as poorly researched, and the traction it's getting due more to your use of the buzz work "leaks" than to any particular novelty.<br /><br />As pointed out in these comments, better tools have already been implemented to similar ends. Specifically reddit. tumblr would also work better than blogger. Also, anonymity online is a myth unless you're a highly skilled hacker.Edwardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04295927435118827266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-9088046371584865332011-01-02T10:34:16.255-08:002011-01-02T10:34:16.255-08:00@deevybee I guess that you didn't read my poin...@deevybee I guess that you didn't read my point of clarification about "reviewers" vs. "editors"<br /><br />Also, a site like ScienceLeaks undermines the livelihood of the editors who work on these journals. They all have gone through the rigorous and lengthy process of obtaining a PhD and gaining expertise in their field. They sift through a shitload of crappy science to find the gems and then work with the scientists to turn their unintelligible gobbledygook into something intelligible. <br /><br />Now, how much is that worth? Nothing, as a site like ScienceLeaks purports? <br /><br />In my mind, it's just like the devaluation of journalists who go through much of the same process. <br /><br />Information might be free but making sense of it isn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-60934970132009099212011-01-02T10:06:06.871-08:002011-01-02T10:06:06.871-08:00Dear old anonymous!
the editors typically work for...Dear old anonymous!<br />the editors typically work for free as well - or for peanuts.deevybeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15118040887173718391noreply@blogger.com