Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Principia · 12-17-2002, 07:27 AM

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/17/science/17JOUR.html?8bhp" target="_blank">New Premise in Science: Get the Word Out Quickly, Online</a>

Quote:

A group of prominent scientists is mounting an electronic challenge to the leading scientific journals, accusing them of holding back the progress of science by restricting online access to their articles so they can reap higher profits.

Supported by a $9 million grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the scientists say that this week they will announce the creation of two peer-reviewed online journals on biology and medicine, with the goal of cornering the best scientific papers and immediately depositing them in the public domain.

By providing a highly visible alternative to what they view as an outmoded system of distributing information, the founders hope science itself will be transformed. The two journals are the first of what they envision as a vast electronic library in which no one has to pay dues or seek permission to read, copy or use the collective product of the world's academic research.

"The written record is the lifeblood of science," said Dr. Harold E. Varmus, a Nobel laureate in medicine who is serving as the chairman of the new nonprofit publisher. "Our ability to build on the old to discover the new is all based on the way we disseminate our results."

By contrast, established journals like Science and Nature charge steep annual subscription fees and bar access to their online editions to nonsubscribers, although Science recently began providing free electronic access to articles a year after publication.

The new publishing venture, Public Library of Science, is an outgrowth of several years of friction between scientists and the journals over who should control access to scientific literature in the electronic age. For most scientists, who typically assign their copyright to the journals for no compensation, the main goal is to distribute their work as widely as possible.

"We have very high standards, and it is somewhat costly," said Dr. Donald Kennedy, the editor of Science. "We're dealing in a market whether we like it or not."

Science estimates that 800,000 people read the magazine electronically now, compared with 140,000 readers of the print version. Given the number of downloads at universities like Harvard and Stanford, which buy site licenses for about $5,000 a year, the magazine says people are reading articles for only a few cents each.

In many cases even such small per-article charges to access a digital database can make for substantial income. The Dutch-British conglomerate Reed Elsevier Group, the world's largest academic publisher, posted a 30 percent profit last year on its science publishing activities. Science took in $34 million last year on advertising alone.

But supporters of the Public Library of Science say the point is not how much money the journals make, but their monopoly control over literature that should belong to the public.
[...]

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

pz · 12-17-2002, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Principia:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/17/science/17JOUR.html?8bhp" target="_blank">New Premise in Science: Get the Word Out Quickly, Online</a>

The Dutch-British conglomerate Reed Elsevier Group, the world's largest academic publisher, posted a 30 percent profit last year on its science publishing activities. Science took in $34 million last year on advertising alone.

The general, off-the-record word I've gotten from a number of university librarians is that Elsevier is Evil. Subscription prices have skyrocketed, and the libraries are deeply concerned -- it's always been a struggle to keep their collections up, but now Elsevier has been gouging them deep. There has been a quiet movement to boycott Elsevier, and refuse to submit papers to them...unfortunately, the hotshots of science also have very deep pockets, so the exorbitant price of Elsevier publications has been no obstacle to them.

The Public Library of Science is a great idea, though, and I hope it flies.

Deadbeat · 12-17-2002, 08:55 AM

What an excellent, excellent idea. And it's about time, too.

Clutch · 12-17-2002, 10:07 AM

The devil is in the details. The whole idea of rushing things out to the public lends itself to a lowering of review standards, and could serve to blur the distinction between science and the sort of on-line "publications" that ID-ologists seem limited to. I'd hope that there are excruciating, entirely excessive measures put in place to make standards at least as high, hopefully even higher, than for print journals. That's the only way to fend off the suggestion that it's all about making publication easier, rather than making communication of results easier.

pz · 12-17-2002, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch:
The devil is in the details. The whole idea of rushing things out to the public lends itself to a lowering of review standards, and could serve to blur the distinction between science and the sort of on-line "publications" that ID-ologists seem limited to. I'd hope that there are excruciating, entirely excessive measures put in place to make standards at least as high, hopefully even higher, than for print journals. That's the only way to fend off the suggestion that it's all about making publication easier, rather than making communication of results easier.

You might want to take a look at the <a href="http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org/" target="_blank">web sit for the Public Library of Science.</a> It definitely has some very big names on the editorial board, and I also think it's clear that they are aware that quality is paramount if this is going to get off the ground.

It's also no rush job. They've been working on this for several years now; their petition has roughly 31,000 signatories so far.

Albion · 12-17-2002, 10:39 AM

So this is the same project they've been talking about for several years now? I thought I read a while back that it had hit some roadblocks.

ps418 · 12-18-2002, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz:


The general, off-the-record word I've gotten from a number of university librarians is that Elsevier is Evil. Subscription prices have skyrocketed, and the libraries are deeply concerned -- it's always been a struggle to keep their collections up, but now Elsevier has been gouging them deep.

I dont know if they're evil, but Elsevier certainly overcharges for their journals, at least for individuals. I emailed Elsevier about a year ago, and asked about buying a single back issue of the journal Chemical Geology. The email I got back said the issue was available . . . for $222!

Principia · 12-18-2002, 06:53 AM

Just out of curiosity, how do people here at Infidels not affiliated with an academic institution catch up on scientific literature? Do public libraries typically subscribe to big name journals like Science and Nature?

ps418 · 12-18-2002, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Principia:
Just out of curiosity, how do people here at Infidels not affiliated with an academic institution catch up on scientific literature? Do public libraries typically subscribe to big name journals like Science and Nature?

I'm not affiliated with any academic institution, but I use the library at the local university. I do believe I've seen Science and Nature in public libraries, but not more specialized journals. I'd say its pretty much impossible to keep up with scientific literature without access to a university library.

Nic Tamzek · 12-18-2002, 07:48 PM

Perhaps I'm a dreamer, but I tend to think that if this comes off, it will have big implications in terms of science education and even the evolution debate.

The evolution defender's refrain "read the friggin' lit" would no longer be pointless, since one could provide the links right there and they would be there for all to see. "Transitional fossils? Here are a few thousand papers with pictures in them..."

This depends on the assumption that antievolutionists care about evidence, which ain't always true of course, but it would (for example) make it much tougher for IDists like Wells to get away with their usual crap if the papers that us university types were able to bring up in seconds (Richardson, Majerus, Grant, etc.) were available for all to see.

And besides, the taxpayers have paid for pretty much all of this research already.

I don't think that the peer-review process would necessarily be weakened, journals will still be authority-by-reputation deals. Creationists already have their own journals they publish but it hasn't increased their authority, except that the fact that their stuff is publically available and peer-reviewed science is relatively not tends to make the existence of "real science" much less present to the antievolutionists.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-17-2002, 08:55 AM	#3
Deadbeat Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 1,238	What an excellent, excellent idea. And it's about time, too.

12-17-2002, 10:07 AM	#4
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	The devil is in the details. The whole idea of rushing things out to the public lends itself to a lowering of review standards, and could serve to blur the distinction between science and the sort of on-line "publications" that ID-ologists seem limited to. I'd hope that there are excruciating, entirely excessive measures put in place to make standards at least as high, hopefully even higher, than for print journals. That's the only way to fend off the suggestion that it's all about making publication easier, rather than making communication of results easier.

12-17-2002, 10:39 AM	#6
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	So this is the same project they've been talking about for several years now? I thought I read a while back that it had hit some roadblocks.

12-18-2002, 06:53 AM	#8
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	Just out of curiosity, how do people here at Infidels not affiliated with an academic institution catch up on scientific literature? Do public libraries typically subscribe to big name journals like Science and Nature?

12-18-2002, 07:48 PM	#10
Nic Tamzek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: California Posts: 646	Perhaps I'm a dreamer, but I tend to think that if this comes off, it will have big implications in terms of science education and even the evolution debate. The evolution defender's refrain "read the friggin' lit" would no longer be pointless, since one could provide the links right there and they would be there for all to see. "Transitional fossils? Here are a few thousand papers with pictures in them..." This depends on the assumption that antievolutionists care about evidence, which ain't always true of course, but it would (for example) make it much tougher for IDists like Wells to get away with their usual crap if the papers that us university types were able to bring up in seconds (Richardson, Majerus, Grant, etc.) were available for all to see. And besides, the taxpayers have paid for pretty much all of this research already. I don't think that the peer-review process would necessarily be weakened, journals will still be authority-by-reputation deals. Creationists already have their own journals they publish but it hasn't increased their authority, except that the fact that their stuff is publically available and peer-reviewed science is relatively not tends to make the existence of "real science" much less present to the antievolutionists.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.