×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nearly All Particle Physics Research To Be Open Access

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the elsevier-overlords-quaking-in-terror dept.

Education 27

ananyo writes with great news for particle physicists and those interested in the field everywhere: "The entire field of particle physics is set to switch to open-access publishing, a milestone in the push to make research results freely available to readers. Particle physics is already a paragon of openness, with most papers posted on the preprint server arXiv. But peer-reviewed versions are still published in subscription journals, and publishers and research consortia at facilities such as the Large Hadron Collider have previously had to strike piecemeal deals to free up a few hundred articles. After six years of negotiation, the Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics is now close to ensuring that nearly all particle-physics articles — about 7,000 publications last year — are made immediately free on journal websites. Upfront payments from libraries will fund the access and the contracts will be renegotiated in 2016. The idea of all this maneuvering is to minimize the hassle for the scientists themselves and ensure that every paper is open access. The alternative is the 'author pays' model, where the researchers pay to publish. But that would require all authors to comply — a difficult rule to enforce. The new deal, however, also preserves publishers' profits — for now."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

27 comments

If thy did the same for climate sciences... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41452407)

kinda makes one wonders; how sciences can thrive and grow without political influences

Re:If thy did the same for climate sciences... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41452567)

tsk, tsk. Taking shots at climate science. See... this is why we must stop Anonymous Coward.

I wish every subject did this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41452453)

I'm shouldn't have to pay £30 for a book to learn to play guitar in this day and age, when books about the subject have existed since 1600.

Re:I wish every subject did this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41452705)

These are research papers, not introductory textbooks. Physics textbooks are still sold the usual way, and a complete ripoff given that most of the physics you learn in the introductory texts hasn't really changed in the past century.

Re:I wish every subject did this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457803)

While some of the fundamental physics hasn't changed in the last century, a lot of the applications and examples have changed considerably. And the teaching methods and conciseness of some of the math and language has improved quite a bit. That said, the repeated editions of books that change questions only to force people to buy the same edition are a rip off and scam.

Re:I wish every subject did this. (4, Insightful)

crgrace (220738) | about a year and a half ago | (#41452727)

Then don't pay £30. Get it from a library. That's why they're there.

Re:I wish every subject did this. (1)

crgrace (220738) | about a year and a half ago | (#41452769)

Virtually all fields have a lot of introductory (and advanced) information online for free from various sources, from guitar instruction, to particle physics, to electrical engineering. If you're interested in self-learning, there isn't any need to buy anything (besides an internet connection).

Re:I wish every subject did this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41452987)

Have you ever met anyone who learned to play the guitar from a book? Serious question.

Re:I wish every subject did this. (1)

HybridST (894157) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457369)

As a guitar teacher I have met many of these travesties. It often takes *months* of work and correction to break the terrible playing-position and rhythmic faults. I've also seen a few book-schooled players who learned to play execute wrapped-thumb-tapped basslines while plucking melody and harmony in counterpoint but those are the pleasant exceptions.

I have yet to see a book which teaches the entire skillset of the true essentials of the instrument. I might have to remedy that myself.

All in all this is a good thing, but ... (4, Informative)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year and a half ago | (#41452765)

... it strikes me as unnecessarily playing ball with the journal publishers. I'd rather see OA simply enforced by the funding agencies. In my field, bioinformatics, the bulk of the funding in the US and UK comes from four sources: NIH (US government), MRC (UK government), HHMI (US private foundation), and Wellcome Trust (UK private foundation). All of them have open access policies for publications prepared with their money, and they don't much care how you do it: you can post the article in a public repository regardless of how it was published, publish in an OA journal--for which the funding agency will generally pay the publication fee--or publish in a traditional journal and make sure the publisher makes a copy freely available. You can bet the publishers grumble about that last one, but they've mostly gone along with the requirement, because the alternative is saying "we won't publish papers describing research funded by ___," and if they did that they'd cease to exist.

Re:All in all this is a good thing, but ... (1)

ananyo (2519492) | about a year and a half ago | (#41462717)

It's true that all the organizations you anme have OA mandates BUT, crucially, none mandate that you make the research publicly accessible from the minute the paper is published. I believe the NIH policy is actually 12 MONTHS after publication - that is of limited use to scientists.
http://publicaccess.nih.gov/ [nih.gov]
So these agencies are actually pandering to publishers even more (in some respects) than this consortium is - libraries will continue to have to buy subscriptions so that their scientists can access the literature from day one (vital in biomed and probably most other fields too).
With the deal described in the source, the costs are transparent - so it's very likely that, when the contracts come up for negotiation in 3 years or so, there will be pressure on publishers to reduce profits...

Re:All in all this is a good thing, but ... (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year and a half ago | (#41464925)

I don't actually have a big problem with the waiting period, although I prefer the 6-month policy of the other agencies to the 12-month policy of NIH. It's not true that year-old publications are "hardly of use to scientists"; e.g., looking at the reference list on a paper I submitted just last month, I find that out of 38 papers referred to, only 6 were published in 2011 or 2012, and half of those were published in OA journals. YMMV, of course, but I don't consider this an undue burden. I admit that I may be biased by being in academia, and thus having access to the newest stuff if I need it.

Ideally I'd like to see all journals run like JMLR [mit.edu], or like the BE Press journals were before they were sold to de Gruyter [digitopoly.org], but we're not there yet, and I'm not at all sanguine that this approach will move us in that direction. We'll see.

Great but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41453355)

Great but Muslim countries must not have access to scientific publications, in any domains

Re:Great but... (2)

reve_etrange (2377702) | about a year and a half ago | (#41453491)

Go back to Roman numerals, see how you like that.

Re:Great but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41453777)

I have no problem with Hindu numerals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu-Arabic_Numerals ..
Etymology

The Hindu-Arabic numerals were invented in India and thus called "Hindu numerals" by Persian mathematician Khowarizmi. They were later called "Arabic" numerals by Europeans, because they were introduced in the West by Arabs of North Africa.[3]

So the so-called arabic numerals are Hindu ! :)

They don't have to give up profit (3, Informative)

reve_etrange (2377702) | about a year and a half ago | (#41453537)

Open access journals like BioMed Central, PLoS, Oxford's OA journals, etc. all prove a OA business model can be successful (and profitable) if structured well.

Also by charging authors ~$1k per publication. But keep in mind that subscription fee journals typically charge hundreds of dollars for color and extra pages (e.g. most IEEE Transactions journals charges $300 per page over 8).

Re:They don't have to give up profit (1)

ananyo (2519492) | about a year and a half ago | (#41462753)

But keep in mind that subscription fee journals typically charge hundreds of dollars for color and extra pages (e.g. most IEEE Transactions journals charges $300 per page over 8).

Many journals do that though - not just subscription based journals.
eg
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/cid/for_authors/charges.html [oxfordjournals.org]
"Open Access charges are in addition to any page charges and color charges that might apply. "

but... (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#41453725)

But are they going to allow patents on certain subatomic particle arrangements? It worked for DNA. Good luck with that, lol. Sue the core of the sun!! SUE THE SUN, DAMN IT!

Why aren't ALL teachers already doing this? (0)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a year and a half ago | (#41454021)

Why can't teachers for each subject get together every year andcoordinate the subject in textbooks?

Textbooks should be freely available to all (digitally) with NO copyright so that ALL can learn. It is insane to copyright facts, and their presentation when it is being used to educate the general populace. The *basis* of civilization is founded the core principle of sharing. Sharing goods, sharing knowledge, etc.

Welcome to 1999. (3, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41459515)

As a physicist, my reaction to this article is ... huh?

Among physicists, putting all your papers on arxiv.org has been standard since about 1999. I basically *never* need to go anywhere but arxiv for anything published in this century. The only exception I can think of is papers published in Nature, which always seem to be paywalled and not available on arxiv. I assume Nature is very stone-age and forces authors not to post on arxiv. But anyway, Nature isn't really a big venue for physics publications. I teach at a community college, so I have no access to subscription-based journals. Whenever a paper is paywalled, I need to drive to the nearest 4-year university and photocopy it. This basically only happens when I'm looking up golden oldies from decades ago.

What would be news would be if other fields besides math and physics started to do this.

Re:Welcome to 1999. (1)

ananyo (2519492) | about a year and a half ago | (#41462817)

You are incorrect about Nature policy on Arxiv:
http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/confidentiality.html [nature.com]
"Contributions being prepared for or submitted to a Nature journal can be posted on recognized preprint servers (such as ArXiv or Nature Precedings), and on collaborative websites such as wikis or the author's blog"

The problem with ArXIv is that papers have yet to be formally peer-reviewed. It's certainly true that physicists post there and you can find (nearly) all papers there in some form - but many papers posted there don't make it past peer review. So that's why this is important.
But you know all that as you RTFS:
"Particle physics is already a paragon of openness, with most papers posted on the preprint server arXiv. But peer-reviewed versions are still published in subscription journals, and publishers and research consortia at facilities such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have previously had to strike piecemeal deals to free up a few hundred articles."

Re:Welcome to 1999. (1)

bcrowell (177657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470939)

The problem with ArXIv is that papers have yet to be formally peer-reviewed. It's certainly true that physicists post there and you can find (nearly) all papers there in some form - but many papers posted there don't make it past peer review.

Why is that a "problem with arxiv?"

So that's why this is important.

I don't see the link between the first quote and the second quote.

Re:Welcome to 1999. (1)

ananyo (2519492) | about a year and a half ago | (#41488869)

This allows free access to peer reviewed literature for free. ArXiv does not.
Not sure I can be clearer than that...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...