Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Faster and Open Access to Scientific Results

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the idea-worth-spreading dept.

Biotech 50

Tim O'Reilly has a post about how the prominent scholarly journal Nature has recently launched an open-access service for pre-publication research and presentations. In Nature Precedings, all content is released under a Creative Commons Attribution License, and can be commented and voted on. The service will cover research in biology, chemistry, and earth science, much like arXiv.org does for physics, mathematics, and computer science.

cancel ×

50 comments

GNAA BEGINS SALE OF DECAPITATION INSURANCE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595687)

GNAA BEGINS SALE OF DECAPITATION INSURANCE
GNAA BEGINS SALE OF DECAPITATION INSURANCE
Zeikfried - Reuters, Saudi Arabia

The brutal slayings of Paul Johnson, the young Jew Nick Berg, and local Starcraft champion Kim Sun-il, only serve to exemplify that while so-called moderates preach Islam as a religion of peace, normal god-fearing citizens are not blind to the brutal truth, Islam wants to lop off your shit liberally.

"But these poor bastards were working abroad!" you cry, your several chins flailing wildly as a mixture of spittle and congealed fat sprays from your blackened lips like a gaijin Tubgirl. But you couldn't be more wrong, Gay Nigger studies indicate the muslims are, in fact, stealing your land, woman, and anal virginity before your very eyes. The situation is indeed dire, as indicated by a recent #GNAA straw poll showing that your average Joe Negro is a mere 58 metres away from a filthy sand nigger, ready willing and able to decapitate you and encode your fate into a shitty .wmv

How may we counter this? How can we protect our terrified brothers, sisters, and lovers from this reprehensible neck decimating towelhead menace? The answer is simple you wretched cretins, as of the 19th of June, award winning self-help group the Gay Nigger Association of America begins the sale of Decapitation Insurance to all American, Korean, and British citizens and expatriates not willing to contribute to Wil Wheatons latest marathon masturbation session.

But rather than provide this service to the select few, the GNAA understands that your menial jobs are now being performed for one tenth of the cost by an equally skilled Indian, so we have provided a range of contracts scaled to suit your needs.

  • For just $50 per month: Captured by Islamists? About to utterly fail it at life? Worry no more, for with our GNAA patented tracking device (inserted anally - replaced once a fortnight) you can call for assistance with a stealthy squeeze of the buttocks. In the unlikely event that this takes longer than anticipated our probe is programmed to gently stimulate your prostate to prevent unnecessary panic.
  • For just $75 per month: Sadly our response teams are often distracted by widespread sodomy and the dulcet tones of Emerson Lake and Palmer, and as a result may not be able to save you from the junktouch of death. But fear not, for an extra 25 dollars a month we will throw in a made-to-measure GNAA sponsored cast-iron neckbrace, proven to stop a round from a Kalashnikov at 20 paces. Also, feel free to laugh majestically as their cries of "ALLAHU AKBAR!" are drowned out by the in-built speaker system, designed to pump out 140 decibels of "I am a Viking" by renowned pie-huffing Swedish guitar rapist Yngwie J Malmsteen.
  • For Just $100 per month: Round-the-clock protection for you and your friends and family can be yours. Your potential executioners will quake in fear of our GNAA dogs of war, fresh from their victories over 4chan, efnet #politics, and gaiaonline, as they shield your prone jugular with their very lives and dongs. The service is second to none, and each contract is hand signed by GNAA president Timecop himself. The first 500 will also recieve a free jar of holy nigger seed, eagerly provided by GNAA GAMES chairman Zeikfried Tuvai.

But don't just take our word for it, GNAA sponsored clairvoyant Madame Jank DuTouche has contacted Paul Johnsons head from beyond the ethereal veil of death to bring you this recommendation:

"The moons axis over Jupiter brings it into allignment with the constellation Orion and the Planet Anus. After inhaling several ounces of crack, I followed this up with my tarot reading of 'The Jester', 'Death', 'Captain B Dick', '4 swords' and a 'double headed anal dildo'.
This told me but one thing, Paul Johnson endorses the Gay Nigger Association of Americas drive for a gay and Decapitation free universe."

Not to be outdone, Kim Sun-il's head released the following statement:
"kekeke"

So what the fuck are you imbeciles waiting for, sign up with GNAA Insurance today, or be Nick Berg'd into an unpatriotic due grave!



About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. You can download the movie [idge.net] (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post [wikipedia.org] on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website.
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link [irc] if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us [mailto]
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Al-Punjabi
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_indian@gnaa.us [mailto]
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2004 Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.us]

Sounds Cool (-1, Offtopic)

WarpSnotTheDark (997032) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595705)

I don't know what it is, but I imagine it's dandy. I just wanted to post first. Let's see if it worked. :)

Vote on it? (3, Funny)

houghi (78078) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595743)

... and can be commented and voted on ...


I hope they have something about gravity, because I would love to see what happens if the majority voted against it.

(No, I do not RTFA)

Re:Vote on it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595949)

Probably the same thing that happens when people "vote" against evolution.

<crickets>

Re:Vote on it? (2, Funny)

misanthrope101 (253915) | more than 7 years ago | (#19596169)

But surely the facts that I'm skeptical of the germ theory, and that I think the science behind plate tectonics is murky, and I think the jury is still out on the atomic theory, should carry some weight in the scientific community? Sigh. I guess asking the tough questions isn't allowed. You'd think science would profit from honest debate, but "scientists" seem to prefer ignoring problems with the conventional theories. Can't rock the boat, lest you lose your funding. They should just follow the evidence wherever it leads, and if that leads past the limitations of materialistic science, so be it. But not everyone, it seems, has the intellectual integrity to acknowledge the Invisible Pink Unicorn, um, I mean not everyone is willing to recognize the ever-present hand of a designer.

How Useful Is It? (1)

queenb**ch (446380) | more than 7 years ago | (#19597511)

Most research is published by academics. Academics tend to work at universities. Universities usually tie promotions and career advancement to the number of publications. 300 citatations = Full Professor or some such thing. I don't know how willing they'd be to publish there if they don't get a citation out of it.

2 cents,

QueenB.

Re:How Useful Is It? (3, Informative)

Seiruu (808321) | more than 7 years ago | (#19598221)

Being published in Open Access Journals apparently gives a higher chance of being cited. Not that strange, considering it's easier to access.

Across many fields, journal articles made openly available on the Internet are more heavily cited than those that remain behind subscription barriers, evidence that open-access articles have a greater impact on research. This chart shows results from a 10-year tracking of citations. Shown is the ratio of citations of open-access articles to citations of closed-access articles published in the same issue of a given journal, averaged by discipline. (Data from Hajjem, Harnad and Gingras 2005.)

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDet ail/assetid/55131#55165 [americanscientist.org]

Re:How Useful Is It? (1)

philipgar (595691) | more than 7 years ago | (#19605103)

It may make lesser known publications more well known, and get more citations, but it likely won't make a difference on important publications. The internet in general has made it so that the size of most bibliographies is huge (in my field 20-30 citations in a 10 page paper is common). However, despite increased access, good papers are still the ones most cited. These important works will be cited regardless of how hard it is to find (although these papers can generally be found at any university or company). The whole idea of opening up the scientific community to the rest of the world isn't necessarily a good thing. As it stands I barely have time to answer questions to people in my field doing important work. If you want me to now have to answer to the rest of the world, forget it (not that they'd care as my work, like most research is too specific for them to grasp).

All these open access journals will end up doing is causing more crap to get published. This means there is more stuff to look through when deciding what work is relevant to yours and worth citing.

In honesty the costs of journals and conferences isn't so unreasonable. They have to do a lot of work to publish these things (even if just online). And yes they technically own the copyrights on the papers, but most publishers (at least those from IEEE and ACM) are pretty lax. I am allowed to post my papers online, I just have to put up a disclaimer saying this isn't the official version. And no one is policing my email to see if I'm sending my papers to other people. As things stand there are many things that get published that really shouldn't be (not original work, not good work, or just written too poorly to be acceptable). In particular finding papers that aren't original work (especially if they don't cite the original work) is extremely annoying. This just makes literature search more complicated. Lessening standards and allowing for "open journals" will likely make this worse.

As for the peer reviewers who are unpaid.... Reviewing papers is part of a researchers job (at least in a university). It's expected of people who will be submitting their own papers. However there are many other costs that must be taken into account.

Phil

Re:How Useful Is It? (1)

Seiruu (808321) | more than 7 years ago | (#19606161)

It may make lesser known publications more well known, and get more citations, but it likely won't make a difference on important publications. The internet in general has made it so that the size of most bibliographies is huge (in my field 20-30 citations in a 10 page paper is common). However, despite increased access, good papers are still the ones most cited.
While I can see the logic in that, it's also true that simply because papers aren't as groundbreaking, or 'of extreme important to others in the field', doesn't mean it's not sound science that others won't be able to build their work on. And we both know that kind of journal bias is going on, among other things. I believe OA repositories and OA journals aren't claiming that they have stuff of equal quality given the same frequency, but simply stuff that's also sound science which can also be very useful to others in the field. So it may not have as many groundbreaking pieces as often or even nearly as often as commercial high profile journal, but it's of acceptable quality, and it's in greater numbers. That should count for something. In a way, it's science moving forward, just in more and smaller steps.

And IT has the habit of improving the efficiency of things. Especially in terms of information distribution. It won't be long before we find a way to have good access to all sorts of scientific work of good quality without going broke paying for it.

These important works will be cited regardless of how hard it is to find (although these papers can generally be found at any university or company).
I don't know. If your university/company isn't subscribed to those journals, you have to get pretty creative if you wish to get the authentic document, and not legally at that either. Granted, with the internet being the way it is, it's a lot easier nowadays to get important information of most documents (abstract, conclusions etc). But still, to get the entire article isn't that easy, especially not for students. Then there's the issue of other countries not being able to pay for checking out sound science.

All these open access journals will end up doing is causing more crap to get published. This means there is more stuff to look through when deciding what work is relevant to yours and worth citing.
Is a valid concern. In its defence: OA Journals are really no different than commercial journals in the sense that they also require Peer Review. And some can be non profit but there are also plenty that are just for profit. It's just overall cheaper because their profit margins are set lower.

In honesty the costs of journals and conferences isn't so unreasonable.
It kind of is...lots of universities are having trouble keeping up with the same budget for the same quantity/quality (i.e. they're not). Lots of countries are having the same issues as well.

This just makes literature search more complicated. Lessening standards and allowing for "open journals" will likely make this worse.
For those who're used to getting everything from high profile journals, it's going to be a bit of a hassle to wade through all of that to find something of similar quality. For those who've never had access to such high profile journals in the first place, it's a blessing in which they can advance their own work as well. I'm cool with that.

lightening introduction to open access (3, Informative)

Chris_Keene (87914) | more than 7 years ago | (#19599855)

In a nutshell.
For many years researchers (academics) carry out some research, write up the findings and try and get the results published in the the most prestigious journal as possible (there are tens of thousands of journals now available), on submitting to a journal, a paper is peer reviewed. Peer-review is carried out by other academics (normally for free), they will either reject, make corrections or just (rarely) simply accept an article for publication in a journal.

For years this was fine. Then the web happened. (well the web was originally designed for communicated research). Journals became online journals, requiring authentication to prove you are part of a paying institution. Academics could access them from anywhere, print their own copy, access them the same time as others etc. The advantages were huge. But something else happened, journal prices increased way out of proportion with inflation, sometimes 10% a year. End result, libraries had to cancel them.

So two points:
One: Your article, the result of years of research, can only be read be a very small number of people who work at Universities (and other research organisations) which can afford to subscribed to the journal (and not even Harvard can subscribe to them all). Your work is hidden to the vast population of the world. Even when it was tax payers money paying for it

Two: The key to academic publishing is the peer review, it's the step that ensures quality. That is done by other academics for free (and overseen by an editor(s) also normally for free).

Hang on, your University, and Research Funding body (such as the nsf) have paid for months/years of research, which you have written up, peer reviewed by others for free, and now a journal - which charges huge amounts for access - takes the copyright, pays you nothing, pays the peer reviewers nothing, formats and proof-reads it, and then sells it to Universities (basically the very people who supplied the content) for huge amount of cash. Universities rely on journals and have to pay what ever the price. Meanwhile academics are not allowed to send their own research to their peers, colleagues and students because the publisher now owns the copyright. It is (cliché alert) a licence to print money.

Open access (making research free to all) comes in two forms:
- open access journals, which are freely available on the web (either working at no cost, costs covered by a sponsor or by charging institutions to submit articles).
- Author deposits their article on to their institution's website, namely in to an Institutional Repository (or a subject specific website such as ArcXiv), as well as submitting it to a journal. This means the article is always freely available online.

The advantages of making research (normally publicly funded) free to all, are numerous and hard to exaggerate. Hobby scientists, school children, the press, the third world, and smaller universities have access to research that they just could not afford to access in the past (and of course, unlike freely available research, subscription only research can not easily be googles).

The main two software systems for Institutional Repositories are Dspace (MIT/HP) and Eprints (Southampton, UK).

Nature, they are a pain, they are one of the biggest journals, and they of course know it. If we (my university) were to subscribe to Nature online, we would have to cancel hundreds of other important journals, probably more. We can just not afford it.

Science databases (5, Informative)

the_kanzure (1100087) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595767)

Here's an important list of science databases [archive.org] . Don't forget CiteSeer, PubMed Central, Google Scholar, Science Direct, American Chemical Society, Institute of Physics, IEEE, EBSCO Host, etc. Also, an older discussion [slashdot.org] might be useful, and this one [slashdot.org] and online science information portals [slashdot.org] .

My favorite is Scirus (scirus.com) (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19596077)

Although I use it in combination with Google Scholar. Sometimes one has something the other doesn't, and vice-versa.

At last (2, Funny)

niceone (992278) | more than 7 years ago | (#19596037)

A way to get first post at Nature. And possibly be modded -1 troll.

just the prepublications? (5, Interesting)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 7 years ago | (#19596069)

Isn't that what Arxiv.org has been doing for ages already?

In germany there is an UNESCO backed project trying to open scientific information as a whole [open-access.net]

I personally would be glad if scientific publishing would open up. Of course, someone has to do the editorial work, but currently many journals actually dare to ask money for publishing with them, ask thousands of dollars for including color pictures, and to subscribe to them is not cheap as well. This unfortunately gives the smaller universities a huge disadvantage, even when the people working there might be very good. Also, I suggest that peer review gets some working through, by either always opening up the names of the reviewers, or anonymizing the article. As it is now, many articles get good or bad reviews based mainly on personal views, or on the fact that the reviewer wants to publish the same subject and has an interest in delaying it. With these things fixed, science would get a step in the right direction becoming the honest thing it should be.

Re:just the prepublications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19596197)

Isn't that what Arxiv.org has been doing for ages already?

You couldn't even read the whole summary? The last sentence:

The service will cover research in biology, chemistry, and earth science, much like arXiv.org does for physics, mathematics, and computer science.

Btw, in some fields (educational psychology, for example) it is standard for reviews to be anonymous, though you can often guess who it is if you know the topic well.

Re:just the prepublications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19596239)

Isn't that what Arxiv.org has been doing for ages already?

You could've at least read the summary...

The service will cover research in biology, chemistry, and earth science, much like arXiv.org does for physics, mathematics, and computer science.

Re:just the prepublications? (4, Informative)

aibob (1035288) | more than 7 years ago | (#19596295)

Isn't that what Arxiv.org has been doing for ages already?
But this service is specifically intended for fields which are not covered by Arxiv.org. Quoting http://precedings.nature.com/about [nature.com]

We do not accept submissions from fields in the physical sciences that are are already well served by preprint servers such as arXiv.org.

Re:just the prepublications? (1)

Seiruu (808321) | more than 7 years ago | (#19596521)

No big deal really.

ArXiv is not the only OA repository/journal around.

Check out http://www.plos.org/ [plos.org] for biology and medicine topics.

There's really nothing special about opening up such a repository, except that it's Nature doing it, and it's sort of a hybrid model to "compete" with existing OA sources.

Re:just the prepublications? (1)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 7 years ago | (#19597605)

Check out http://www.plos.org/ [plos.org] for biology and medicine topics.

I love PLoS Biology, but it also costs $2500 [plos.org] to publish in it. Nature Precedings seems more intended for the sort of rapid-fire result publication which wouldn't be economical or feasible with an actual peer-reviewed journal.

Re:just the prepublications? (1)

Seiruu (808321) | more than 7 years ago | (#19598071)

Good point.

Actually, I've always wondered whether Open Access isn't a bit too extreme as an alternative towards commercial scholarly publishing outlets.

I can completely understand their view of it being "too costly for universities" and how it's not entirely "fair" for scientists to pay for something other scientists have worked for just because journals act as the mediators, but to be completely "free of charge" for users while charging the author(s) for publishing is financially even worse for the scientist(s) in question. That's not an incentive to go OA Journals. I wish they simply found a middle way for it, perhaps charge author(s) a bit, and also charge users a bit. Might even be financially sustainable, instead of losing cash like what's happening with PloS and BioMed.

Ah well, more food for thought for my master thesis anyway.

Re:just the prepublications? (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#19598849)

I wouldn't mind some sort of middle ground like that, provided there were some stipulations -- no exclusivity agreements from journals that charge access fees, and some sort of common OA repository for all articles which are based on research funded by tax dollars. I find it a little obnoxious/offensive that my tax dollars fund scientific research that I then have to buy back from a publishing company at exorbitant cost if I want to, you know, actually use or see. I'm not going so far as to say that all publicly-funded research has to be in the public domain (I've seen that argument made, and it has its own merits, but it's a different discussion) but if the public pays for it to get done, it shouldn't end up as the exclusive intellectual property of some for-profit publishing company.

There's definitely room for for-profit journals, in order to provide peer review and provide "prestige outlets" that encourage high-quality research, but there's also a market for repositories that just make stuff available to the public and other researchers. (Meaning, of course, that there's no guarantee of quality or that it represents consensus.)

Beyond that, a mandatory OA-repository submission would help improve accountability to the public of their scientific funding. Want to know what someone did with a particular grant? Run a search on it and find out. Even if it didn't make the cut for Nature or Lancet, you'd still be able to see what they were doing.

We have to be careful not to upset the balance within academics that keeps quality (generally) high, but at the same time the entire process could use a lot more transparency, both to other researchers (perhaps the ones without the cash for expensive subscription services, including many students) and to the public.

Re:just the prepublications? (1)

JanneM (7445) | more than 7 years ago | (#19602795)

to be completely "free of charge" for users while charging the author(s) for publishing is financially even worse for the scientist(s) in question.

Most research is funded and includes funds for this phase, including money for conferences and journal publication - some journals charge both the author (a per-page fee, and extra for every image or illustration) and reader, in case you didn't know that. PLOS do reduce or waive the fee for people that do not have funding, so it's not like good research would stay unpublished because of it.

I know that as a working scientist, unless I'm looking for one specific paper - and normally I'm really not, just any recent papers about some particular subject - I will tend to go with the ones I have reasonably easy access to, and those are the ones notching up another citation, while those behind heavy paywalls and that forbid the authors to put them online will not.

Re:just the prepublications? (2, Informative)

munpfazy (694689) | more than 7 years ago | (#19602025)

>Isn't that what Arxiv.org has been doing for ages already?

That was my thought. I'm happy to see they've made it clear that they're not competing with arxive.org. (Not that they'd stand a chance in hell of winning if they tried now.)

Of course, arxiv has the serious advantage that it's *not* directly associated with a commercial journal. That seems like it could be a serious handicap.

For example, last I knew, Science explicitely granted authors the freedom to publish preprints (but not, sadly, post-prints) only on publicly funded, non-profit sites. Anyone want to guess that the odds that they'll change that policy in order to give Nature a more robust preprint site?

According to the Sherpa/RoMEO stats, only about 60% of journals allow archiving of post submission content, and a full 30% don't allow any self archiving at all. Among thosethat do, there an array of strange conditions: personal or institution specific hosting only, non-profit database archiving only, etc. http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php?stats=yes [sherpa.ac.uk]

It's probably true that in order to change those policies, one needs to establish a preprint culture within disciplines that lack it, which requires well administered and adequately advertised servers. Is Nature the organization best placed to succeed at establishing them? Probably not. (Although they may be the only organization trying to do so which is large enough to have a realistic chance at success.)

Re:just the prepublications? (1)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603333)

But this service is specifically intended for fields which are not covered by Arxiv.org.
The reason there are fields not covered by arXiv.org or a similar preprint server is not that there aren't preprint server, it's the heinous copyright restrictions that are typical in some fields. Some journals will require that you certify that the work will not be made available in electronic form or they may require that you sign all distribution rights over to them. Such Journals do exist in astronomy, too. I don't submit articles to them if that precludes uploading to arXiv.org.

Many organizations have their own "$15 an article or $2 per page" preprint servers, and are unwilling to give up the revenue stream from desperate graduate students trying to finish their theses.

So now Nature has a preprint server.... Is this going to convince the "International Insititute for Llama Research" to give up their pay-per-view copyright policy?

Universities are Partly to Blame (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#19597083)

This unfortunately gives the smaller universities a huge disadvantage, even when the people working there might be very good

Most universities base political progress within the organization, at least in science, largely on the number and prestigiousness of journal articles published by an author/researcher/scientist.

If publishing in Nature and Science is going to get you a nice raise, a full professorship, tenure, chairmanship, etc. then that's what people are going to do. Is that different in small universities? If not, they need to do some introspection.

This scheme is also under pressure from women in science who have to balance their biological clock with their career ambitions, therefore the system is already seen as broken from a sexism perspective. Unfortunately, the replacement system is still in the requirements phase.

Re:Universities are Partly to Blame (1)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 7 years ago | (#19631165)

I was probably unclear. My point was not related to the preprint server, but with the question: How are you going to keep up with your literature of you don't have access to a broad range of journals and have to pay 20 euro per individual article ir you really want to have it. From the same money you also have to go to conferences, or get students. This is based on personal experience: I went from a place with access to almost every journal in the field to a place where they don't have even the basic APS journals. You can still get the articles one way or another, but it seriously slows you down and gives you a disadvantage compared to someone of the same skill level working at a high league university with a huge (electronic) library.

Also, some company-owned journals ask up to several hunderd euro per publication, even more if you add color. This will make it impossible to publish there, but sometimes these are the main journals of your field. Remember, you don't get a Nature out of nothing, you have to build up a reputation of good work in the field first.

Point is, the current high costs of access to scientific information give an unfair disadvantage for those working at the less rich institutions or countries. This is harsh reality but not in the spirit of sciencce, and also not good for the advancement of science.

wonderful (5, Informative)

iHasaFlavour (1118257) | more than 7 years ago | (#19596227)

Anything like this is great, really great.

I'm writing up my phd, and for months (years if you actually include research time), I had to beg/borrow access to pay per bloody paper portals, or hunt around for non locked up copies of papers. Even then I have often had to rely on abstracts and what other people cite papers for as a guide to what I myself can cite, it's not easy.
I guess it would be if I were more monied, but I'm not. Yes my uni has subs to some portals, but not them all, and usually not the ones I find in the middle of the night after searching for hours.

Anything that makes new research more readily available is great news in my book.

Re:wonderful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19597031)

Uhm, where exactly are you getting a Ph.D that doesn't have access to all of these journals/portals? At my uni, we have everything I've ever heard of available. I'd seriously think about the quality of the 'university' you are attending.

Re:wonderful (3, Insightful)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 7 years ago | (#19597373)

This won't eliminate that process (at least yet). These are not a suitable replacement for citations of peer-reviewed journals, and as a member of the scientific community, I would expect worthwhile submission through this system to be processed through the formal peer-reviewed system.

this system is good for at least two reasons, in my mind :

1. eliminates abstract citations, which are nearly worthless because they're not archived : i.e. citing conversation, manuscripts in progress, "results not shown."
2. can save time for the authors if the rest of the community thinks the study is a waste of time by modding down articles. Mind you, this will probably not deter scientists trying to pad their publication lists.

However, I'm in favor of having publicly available peer-reviewed journals. This is a necessary first step to that -- the only requirement now is the participation of "peers" and credibility of the journals. (chicken and the egg problem)

Re:wonderful (1)

helicologic (845077) | more than 7 years ago | (#19597979)

Dude, just ask the primary author to send you a reprint. How hard is that?

Re:wonderful (2, Informative)

Seiruu (808321) | more than 7 years ago | (#19597997)

Journals own the copyright of your paper (once it's been peer reviewed and approved).

So you're technically not allowed to do that.

Re:wonderful (1)

helicologic (845077) | more than 7 years ago | (#19598141)

Back when I was publishing papers in journals like Theoretical Computer Science and The Journal of Logic Programming, they always sent me a big stack of reprints that I could do whatever I wanted with. I got requests (often from researchers in the 3rd world or eastern Europe) and would just send them one. Maybe they don't do that any more?

Re:wonderful (4, Insightful)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 7 years ago | (#19598453)

You're correct, but most of us don't care. Until the journals write my papers for me, the public's right to access that information and my own right to dictate what to do with my content, as the author, trumps the journals' right to restrict access in the name of profit. When we receive neither compensation for nor rights to our own work, the intellectual property system is broken.

As scientists, it is our mission to advance our fields. A necessary precondition to this is enabling access to our work for the widest audience possible, so other scientists may build upon or refine our methods. I would argue that any "scientist" holding back results in the name of personal gain is not a scientist at all.

Re:wonderful (1)

Seiruu (808321) | more than 7 years ago | (#19599031)

I agree with that vision. However, the reality is that once scientists option to publish in a commercial journal, they've already made the decision to "sell their souls" as opposed to other ways to share their results to the scientific community. That being the case, it wouldn't make sense for them to endanger their relation with the commercial publishing world by doing something like violating their copyright agreements with said commercial publishers.

is CS different? (2, Interesting)

AnonymousCactus (810364) | more than 7 years ago | (#19596267)

It's important to note that the primary way of relating new work in computer science is through peer-reviewed conference proceedings, which tend to be a bit faster. Is there a reason to use a service like this if you're a computer scientist?

Also, will people be concerned about releasing docs to something informal like this? There are already issues with people "stealing" ideas or perhaps arriving at the same idea independently. A service like this may make the distinction even harder to characterize. I've known people to scoop others by posting a tech report on their web page, which are incredibly difficult to search. This would at least make that better.

Re:is CS different? (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 7 years ago | (#19599487)

note that the primary way of relating new work in computer science is through peer-reviewed conference proceedings

My experience with conferences has been that they're for-profit, and beyond that, don't really care for anything else; and the only reason most `researchers' don't care is 'cause their institution is paying for the thing, and the more you publish, the more important you appear (even if you publish obvious barely readable crap). Of course there are exceptions...

Re:is CS different? (1)

philipgar (595691) | more than 7 years ago | (#19605191)

CS work is very different than other fields. Conferences are held by the major organizations (IEEE and ACM), and most all of them are peer reviewed full papers. Other fields accept papers into a conference based on abstracts and you submit the paper afterward. In computer science/engineering things are very different.

As the field is growing so fast, we can't wait for journals to get the final version of a paper (additionally this would result in too many groups doing the same work simultaneously). Conferences additionally provide a chance for researchers in the same field to meet up and discuss their work. This is extremely valuable to the community as a whole.

After conference papers are accepted, many are later changed into a journal paper, however this is done later, and a "after the fact" thing where the conference paper is augmented with a little bit of additional work (that wouldn't be worthy of a new paper, and wasn't thought about at the time of the original work), and submitted to the journal.

Phil

open science ? imagine that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19596549)

science isn't really science unless published.

Open Access is already widespread in certain areas (5, Informative)

RasmusW (56000) | more than 7 years ago | (#19596749)

While it's certainly very nice that the big journals like Nature take steps towards offering Open Access to (some of) their material, it has already been a growing trend in certain research areas for the past, say, five years or so. I do research in the field of Bioinformatics/Molecular Biology and except for high-profile stuff that could go into Science or Nature, I simply will not publish anything in a journal that is not Open Access.

The journal being Open Access is of tremendous importance to the researcher as it makes it _much_ more likely, that your paper will actually be found and read by other scientists. I know this from my own literature searches: hits found the PubMed [nih.gov] database links to the journal webpage, and if no Open Access version is available, it really have to look like a promising paper, before I spend my time ordering through the University Library.

Also, it should be noted that an ever increasing number of Open Access journal exists in the areas of Life Science in general - for example all the BMC journals [biomedcentral.com] , the PLoS journals [plos.org] and even journals from "old school" publishers such as Oxford University Press (e.g. Nucleic Acids Research [oxfordjournals.org] ) have gone Open Access. Also an increasing number of traditional journal now offer an Open Access option, where your pay to make your specific paper availably under Open Access.

Re:Open Access is already widespread in certain ar (1)

seasunset (469481) | more than 7 years ago | (#19597473)

I somewhat disagree with your vision of things.

I have just finished a MSc in bioinformatics (I looked at your page, and I am going in the "opposite" direction, from CS to Biology) and it seems to me that biologists are very closed with regards to, say, marker data. At least the ones that I know take it as a competitive advantage to lock data as much as possible.

From my MSc I have published only on closed journals (Bioinformatics and Molecular Ecology Notes) and people around mostly (like 90%+) publish on closed access pubs (Molecular Ecology, Genetics, ...).

Note that I am fully for open data and open access (If i had the money I would have targeted BMC Bioinformatics before Bioinformatics even with the lower IF), and that I am very frustrated with how things are closed.

I would like it to be more as you say... But I see a different reality.

Re:Data availability (3, Informative)

RasmusW (56000) | more than 7 years ago | (#19597923)

The way I see it most journals (even the closed access ones) actually require that you make your data available. This is especially true for DNA microarray studies, where you will be required to deposit the data in a public database - for example ArrayExpress [ebi.ac.uk] or the Gene Expression Omnibus [nih.gov] at NCBI. Personally I see the publication of the data as a very important way to drive citation of your papers. When I link to data on the department webserver, I group the data into specific directories depending on the area of research - that way a person look for data from one particular paper will also find data and reference to our other papers within that area (for example see: Probe Design datasets [cbs.dtu.dk] and Cell Cycle datasets [cbs.dtu.dk] ).

Regarding the fee for Open Access publication: In my personal experience this has not really been a problem - performing the experimental work behind the datasets has always been the expensive part and the Open Access fee has been paid using the same grant as the one paying of the experiment. For non-experimental papers ("pure" Bioinformatics) the department or the University pays the fee (of cause it may not be as easy everywhere - I work at the Technical University of Denmark).

It should also be notes that for some new grants your are actually required to publish your finding in an Open Access journal (I think this may the true for the EU grants, but I am not completely sure).

Re:Open Access is already widespread in certain ar (1)

edsyc (1088833) | more than 7 years ago | (#19598777)

The problem with only publishing in open access journals is that they may not be considered the "best" in some fields. In my field, the most respected journals still cost money. I'd like to think that the quality of my work matters more than the journal in which it appears, but I know plenty of colleagues who would look at where I published and never read the article itself. Maybe this won't be such a big deal for me after tenure...

That said, I would love to see all journals become open access. The publishers make a killing off of research they didn't perform.

Needs better rating system (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19598513)

Nature Precedings needs to have a good rating system for open, community-based review to work well. Currently submitted articles can be voted for, but that does not tell one how many would have voted against it.

With open preprint systems, being able to find useful and reliable ideas and data in articles is perhaps more important than being able to submit one. This becomes apparent as the number of articles increase when searching can return hundreds and thousands of articles. One can't go through all of them, and a few 'bad' articles can easily cause frustration and distrust in the quality of the submissions.

But if search criteria can include objective measures of articles' qualities, then one can indeed easily find valuable material. Nature Precedings should therefore opt for a point-based rating system where different aspects of articles can be appraised.

Thus, instead of just letting one vote for an article, one should be allowed to rate its different aspects on, say, a 1-5 scale. Such aspects can include:

- clarity
- originality
- novelty
- presence and quality of experimental data
- logical procession
- depth
- proper referencing

In effect, this would be a proper peer-review system.

The ratings, both their average and their spread, should be displayed alongside articles.

Looks a lot like Scirate (1)

arhines (620963) | more than 7 years ago | (#19599073)

Precedings is aesthetically almost identical to Dave Bacon's Scirate [scirate.com] . They're both good designs, but I can't help but wonder if Nature took some inspiration from Scirate in their design process.

YES! fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19600429)

rivalry. While would take about 2 megs of ram runs sadness And it was Tired arguments the rain..we can be about bylaws would mar BSD's it. Do not share Later seen in Recruitment, but Philosophies must WASTE OF BITS AND channel #GNAA on the above is far ink splashes across sure that I've moans and groans Of progress. or make loud nOises to the crowd in Reasons why anyone could save it balance is struck, *BSD is dying It is in posting a GNAA a fact: FreeBSD its readers and ultimately, we OpenBSD. How many [anti-slash.org] you all is to let exempl1fied by between each BSD balance is struck, Lay down paper personal rivalries and has instead contributed code they're gone Came simple solution there are happen. 'At least anyone that thinks

About bloody time! (3, Insightful)

quixote9 (999874) | more than 7 years ago | (#19601939)

Journals charging for scientific content is piracy, in the real sense of the word. Consider:

--almost all scientific work that appears in journals like Nature or Science has been done on government grants. You already paid once.

--page charges are included in most grant funding. The author pays the journal so much per page of his/her article to cover the journal's costs. The journal not only doesn't pay the author(s), it RECEIVES payment from the author. You, once again, have paid for that.

--The journal then charges you for the content. That's the third time you're paying for it.

The amount they charge is non-trivial. $30 / per electronic copy in Nature's case, for instance. The cost to them is whatever that space on their server costs. A tenth of a cent, perhaps? (The other aspects of their costs they've already been paid for a couple of times.)

It's about bloody time they published ALL their articles under CC. The commenter who said scientific work is about open and free access has it absolutely right. Anything less than that is indeed not science.

Re:About bloody time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19604091)

A government grant does not give the general public access to the information obtained through scientific research. When an artist receives money from the National Endowment for the Arts, his artwork is not the property of the general public, nor should researchers bear a responsibility to release data. Governments research grants provide funding for areas of society that increase quality of living without necessarily returning a financial profit. Just because money has been provided by the government to purchase equipment and finance facilities does not mean that that researcher is indebted to the government. Should children born from parents receiving welfare by the property of the general public? No, nor should scientific achievements.

Robert Chiacchia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19604953)

Robert Chiacchia is piece of crap... a no good loser, and is employed by animal testing labs (even lab rats won't do some things). Robert Chiacchia is a short little dude, which isn't a bad thing, it's his trying to compensate that is so anoying. Algae is more productive than this excuse of a human being. I am stumped to try a come up with one good quality about him... I'd rather share an apartment with Jeffery Dalmer than him. Do you get the idea? This Robert Chiacchia is one sad little fart.

science, politics, business, theology (1)

rozz (766975) | more than 7 years ago | (#19619055)

science - we need faster and faster access to knowledge
politics&business - we need longer copyrights/patents/trademarks/etc
theology - we need no knowledge whatsoever

  someone pls help me, it's soooo hard to choose the best one
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...