http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/09/the-future-of-academic-publ...

The sad truth is that we are hobbled by the tyranny of tradition.
Researchers are used to publishing papers in traditional journals:
this is what we are rewarded for and measured by. Publishers are used
to being paid every time they deliver an article to a reader. The
rational response to the internet would be for the whole community to
transition to a service model: instead of charging for access,
publishers would provide services like co-ordinating peer-review,
formatting, web-hosting and archiving, and charge for those services.
Indeed some publishers do work on that model, notably PLoS (created
only in 2003) and BioMed Central (founded in 2000).

But the big, established publishers have overwhelmingly clung to the
old pay-for-access model. Disastrously, this means that they invest
time and money into building elaborate systems for preventing access,
then charge for briefly taking those barriers down. It’s a waste of
everyone’s time and effort.

What this means is that paradoxically publishers’ interests are now
directly opposed to those of everyone else. Researchers want their
papers to be read, everyone else wants to read them; but the
publishers’ business model is to impose artificial scarcity on papers
that could – that want to – replicate freely around the world.
Publishers actively work to prevent the free spread of information
that patient groups, small businesses and the rest need. They
seemingly set themselves to inhibit automated analysis, to ensure that
text-mining isn’t possible – in short, to retard the progress of
science. Because only when they have made it hard to get hold of
papers can they make money by selling access.

This was the status quo as 2011 drew to an end: researchers uneasily
accepting the world the publishers have imposed, and trying to get
work done in a horribly suboptimal environment. And then into that
status quo came the RWA: a bill of such wretchedly transparent self-
interest that it catalysed researchers’ discontent. In effect the RWA
was a declaration of war from the publishers, an explicit confession
that it’s us against them, that talk of a partnership is just
propaganda while their tanks roll down our streets.

What the publishers didn’t expect was that researchers would fight
back. But in the face of such flagrant hostility, we had to, and we
have. The Elsevier boycott has been described in some quarters as a
petition. But it’s not. It’s a declaration of independence.

I have started wondering if other parts of everyday life need to
adapt to new economic models.

There is a new toll system that just started on a bridge in Seattle.
No toll booths, but most cars will use a transponder that is picked
up as you cross, and automatically charged to your account. For cars
without one, they mail a bill based on reading your license plate,
and charge a little more to cover the extra work needed.

The old model, that roads and bridges were funded by taxes,
might be replaced by a toll model, where users pay based on usage.

Back to journals, if the more prestegious journals charge more,
then they have to work harder to get good papers. Subscribers will
expect better papers, and give more credit to authors who get
their papers into better journals.

But the subscription system, as far as I know, charges all libraries
the same rate, independent of the size of the school or otherwise
how many read the paper. Researchers at such schools don't pay
based on how many articles they read, or how useful the articles are.

Like the tax funded bridge, it might be better if the charge
was based more on usage.

As the price increases, fewer libraries purchase the expensive
journals, so they increase the price to others to cover the
difference.

It does seem that some artificial scarcity is needed, though.
That is, enough that better journals get better papers, and
readers can, to some extent, use that as a filter. That depends
much on the review process, though.

-- glen

Hi Glen,

On 2/10/2012 2:57 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

You have to think about where the value gets added -- and for *whom*.

Does the benefit of the road/bridge (taking your example, for now)
apply only to the folks traveling across those (or transporting
goods across them)?  Does it have some (possibly intangible or
not easily *measurable*) value to folks whose properties are
suddenly more accessible than if the road/bridge were absent?
Or, whose transportation costs are otherwise reduced?  etc.

(Moving on to similar examples...)

Does the "new stadium" *only* benefit the groups using the stadium?
The fans who attend "performances" there?  Does it have any benefit
to the surrounding community?  Any intangible "prestige" benefits?

(Even tougher!...)

Should law enforcement be underwritten by criminals and victims?
Should anyone NOT in this category have to contribute?  If I've
safeguarded my property to make me less of a potential victim,
should I be released from some of those financial obligations?

Etc.

(amusing ideas to think *objectively* about, IMO.  Think about
the same things when it comes to how cell phone usage is billed,
email, etc.)

Within that mindset:

So, there is benefit to the authors *in* those journals as
well as the consumers of those journals.  Should *authors*
be charged a "publication fee"?  Should consumers be charged
to read the work?

What's the *goal* -- besides enabling a third-party to benefit from
the work -- and needs -- of others?  Are authors anxious to have
their works seen (and, thus, eager to PAY for that privilege)?
Are consumers/researchers anxious to have access to other folks'
work (and pay for *that*)?

Who are the publisher's real customers?  etc.

But does that just cause people to come up with ways of disguising
their usage?  Or, *limiting* it?  ("You'd better have a REAL NEED
to see this paper cuz it's going to cost us $X for you to take a
peek!")

Ages ago, the type of machine determined licensing/registration fees.
"You've got a big VAX?  Oh, that's going to cost you big time!"
"Oh, just a dinky PC?  That'll be $9.95 -- pay on your way out."

"Daddy's gotta *eat*..."

This sounds strikingly similar to the entertainment industry
working to keep itself as the middle-man between artist and
consumer.  Years ago, when someone had to press the vinyl/acetate
and publicize the artist or subsidize the production (gambling on
the result), this may have had a place.  But, you wonder how much
of that is necessary, today (when *anyone* can publish and distribute
anything for practically no cost -- and, get immediate feedback on
how well it is received!)

So, what's the value added -- and from whose perspective?  That
gives you a clue as to who *might* be willing to pay...

(snip, then I wrote)

Well, tolls, at least in this case, pay only about 20% of the cost.

But like copayments and deductables, they help control who uses
a resource. So, taxes still pay for most of the cost.

But people keep voting down tax increases, and voting for more
candidates who promise tax cuts. They do this, even though they
don't want reduced services, such as roads and bridges.

In the past, though, the cost of toll collecting was high enough
that it wasn't done everywhere it might make sense. (In many cases,
much of the toll might cover the collection cost!) But as collection
cost decreases, it might make more sense to toll more roads,
though maybe not at 100% of the cost.

More fair might be a toll that was income dependent, like a
progressive tax rate. That might be possible with better
electronic toll systems.

In this case, it is paying for a replacement bridge.

As more expensive property has more incentive to criminals,
it does make sense for the rich to pay more in taxes for law
enforcement. I might not be against paying for some law enforcement
through an insurance system, though.

That is, similar to the way some outside the city limits
property owners pay for fire service. Forget to pay, and
they don't put out the fire.

Personally, I don't like the free phone, subsidized by
expensive phone plan system.

As I understand it, many journals have a page charge. If you
don't pay, it still gets published, but not as fast.

Traditionally, as with roads, the cost was paid independent
of who used it. Libraries subscribe to the journals that their
patrons read. That was the best system before easy electronic
access. (Consider the case if you had to mail order each article,
and wait weeks to receive it.) With electronic access, though,
one could charge a reasonable fee for each use.

Papers are important for much research.

In the bridge case, there is another bridge, currently not tolled,
not so far away, or you can drive around. (It crosses a lake.)
People can weight the cost, their time, and the gas to take a
longer route.

It used to be that computers were leased with usage meters, such
that the rent was based on how much it was used.

But the size of the machine is not necessarily related to the
usage of any one program on that machine. In the case of leased
machines, one might be able to charge for software based on usage.

(snip)

I have wondered while waiting in line at movie theaters, why
the charge is the same for all movies. Well, there are discount
theaters that show older movies, but mostly the model doesn't
consider that better movies, or longer movies, should cost more.

Well, anyone can publish, but expensive Hollywood movies will
have to be funded somehow.

The commercial television model, watch free but also watch
advertizing, seems to work. Other models might work better.

It does seem that there might be better ways to do much of
what our economic system depends on. That better pricing models
are now possible, when they weren't before.

-- glen

Hi Glen,

On 2/10/2012 6:01 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

Of course!  That's part of what it means to be *human* (the OTHER
guy should pay for what *I* want!)  :>

Yes.  The Northeast/East is known for lots of toll roads, bridges, etc.
(The Toll Authority in Chicagoland is a notable midwesten instance).
Often the joke was that the toll COLLECTORS were just collecting
their *salaries* from passers-by.

(At least the roads around chicago are well maintained -- or *were*,
last time I was there)

But think of other places where there are "exceptional", unaccounted
costs.  E.g., there are frequently cases where folks have to be
"rescued", here, someplace out in the wilderness.  Or, a campfire
that gets out of control and burns a few hundred *thousand* acres.
Yet, the costs for "fixing" these problems is never allocated in
a reasonable way

I.e., campers aren't charged a fee that is designed to recover -- when
considered as a group -- anywhere near the EXPECTED costs of the
inevitable "unattended campfire".  Hikers aren't charged for a permit
(nor RECOVERY EXPENSES) as they wander around the wilderness.  Etc.

We *do* have a "stupid motorist" law on the books that bills
people who drive into flooded roadways and need to be "rescued".
I don't know how much of the cost of the rescue is actually
and accurately passed on, though.

(this happens with surprising regularity, *despite* the law!)

Ha!  Good luck with *that*!  :>

If I own a gun and am WILLING TO USE IT (to defend my property;
do my own "policing"), should I get a "credit"?  Ah, but then
what happens when folks decide that buying a gun is a cheap
alternative than subsidizing law enforcement?

Yes.  But I wonder if that really happens?  I.e., the neighbor
(who *did* pay) wants his property protected.  Does the
fire dept wait until the *neighbor's* house is involved?
Or, put out the non-paying-customer's fire and charge him
*double*?

I.e., the point is that each approach leads to different
exploits as people try to avoid paying what they "don't feel"
they should *have* to pay.

I was thinking of this from a different perspective (hence
my inclusion of email in the example).  Cell phone pricing
puts the cost on the cell phone owner.  I.e., the cell phone
user underwrites the cost of the call -- regardless of its
origin (just like email carries more cost for the recipients
than the originator -- think spam).  In a sense, the cell
phone exists for the convenience of the person *calling* it!
(ditto email)

Imagine if it was the other way around:  "Sure, I'll accept this
call from a telemarketer/spammer -- *if* he has to bear the cost!
(how many of these callers would be more careful about making
those contacts?)

Oh, so it's not just a question of whether or not your
paper is *accepted* for publication (I don't publish anything).
Rather, the bar is lower:  if you can pay, you get "attention"?

So, what's the incentive to pay?  Prestige/ego?

Understood.  If I can't find a publication of interest online
someplace (often you can find "private copies" squirreled
away, someplace; or, contact the author directly), the local
(public) library chases down a print copy for me.  Often from
the local university, etc.

While I'd prefer an electronic copy (less physical storage space),
its usually not worth buying an article -- only to discover that
its not what I want, or need.

(e.g., a merit based system would be far better:  "Was this
article helpful to you?")

Of course!  But, if folks are willing to PAY for publication,
they are either exceedingly altruistic (and want to advance the
state of the art, out of the kindness of their heart!) *or*
want the "recognition" associated with it.  (regardless of its
research value!)

Exactly.  This is often the case with "toll roads", etc.  OTOH,
sometimes there is no *practical* alternative.  And, no incentive
for any alternative to be created!

I first saw Star Wars (the initial one... #4?) at the $1.25 theater
up the street from my apartment.  When I had a two-for-one coupon!
<grin>

Nowadays, I think that market has been replaced by the "direct to
DVD" alternative.

People/agencies that are currently "in the middle" will resist
any attempts to cut them *out* of the middle.  "You mean we're
going to have to *work* for a living??"

<shrug>  Dunno.  Too many interests and consequences for easy
analysis/solution.

(snip)

I suppose it averages out somewhat, but, yes, some people use more
than their share of such. But if people were directly charged, then
insurance companies would start selling insurance for it. Hopefully,
charging more for bigger risks.

(snip)

It seems that it really did happen somewhere in Washington
(state) not so long ago. The fire department came and watched
the house burn down.

Personally, though, I still think that was wrong. If one doesn't
pay ones car insurance, then they pay the full cost of repair.
The fire department should charge the full cost of putting out
the fire, instead of the reduced cost for insurance premiums.

(snip, I wrote)

That is what I was told.

Well, getting published faster, for one. But if a group was
known for not paying, word might leak out. Also, I beleive
that research grants tend to include it, and grant agencies
expect to get acknowledged in papers.

If someone submits a paper, but isn't from a known company or
university, and not on a research grant, then they might not be
expected to pay.

(snip)

I would say some of both. Most researchers have some altruism,
otherwise they likely wouldn't be doing it.

(snip)

There are still some around, but not as many.

But even so, why is there no demand pricing for movies at the
same theater. Supply and demand doesn't seem to apply.

Well, less popular movies often get smaller theaters in a
multiplex cinema, but not that much smaller.

(snip)

It might be the only way that the economy gets "fixed."

-- glen

Hi Glen,

On 2/10/2012 10:41 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

So, what about a business model like:

- You *pay* to submit a paper.
- Folks pay to *read* that paper.
- Some portion of the readerships payments is directed
   *back* to the original author/submitter.

{I have no idea as to the actual values or relative magnitudes
of these payments.  Presumably more readers than submissions!)

The "intermediary" (whether a for-profit corporation or a
"Union of Concerned Researchers, Inc") takes a cut of each
transaction for it's "services" -- providing the forum
that makes these papers available, etc.

A "submitter" who produces good content sees his initial
payment repaid (depends on how popular his paper proves
to be) -- and, could even see a "profit" from his effort
(always a good motivator!  :> )

A "reader" gets access to the content for a reasonable
fee -- KNOWING that some portion of his payment is
compensating the submitter for his effort (instead of
just lining the intermediary's pockets).

Submitters who submit poor quality work end up
paying out monies to have them "published" but never
recoup those monies if their work isn't in demand
(or is "fluff").

Submitters get feedback as to what their "market"
wants -- based on what it is "buying".  Presumably
encouraging more research in those same areas.

Of course, the elephant in the corner is the fact that
submitters are still paying "up front" for something
that they may later find wasn't worth the expense.
In which case, they would become resentful (rightly
so) of having been "duped" by the submission/submitter.

E.g., a new (artificial) name could come on the scene
to replace a name that has been "worn out" by past
bad experiences and the process repeated.  Eventually,
readers become cynical enough and censor any name that
they aren't *already* familiar with, by reputation.

As has been the demise of the drive-in.  I think the last
outdoor screens here were dismantled last year.

Matinee pricing to fill seats that would otherwise be
empty at a particular time of day...?

<shrug>  Dunno.  I dislike the theater experience.  I can
patiently wait until I can see it in a more comfortable setting...

On 2/11/2012 12:41 AM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

   ...

It wasn't exactly like that. First, I think it was Tennessee. Wherever,
the state provides personal injury insurance for volunteer firemen but
only when they work on contributing households. If they had tried to put
out that fire, they would also have been liable for damage to the
equipment. Blame the legislators, not the volunteer firemen.

   ...

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On 2/11/12 2:21 AM, Don Y wrote:

doesn't sound very flat or egalitarian to me.  sorta like the entrenched
two-party.  there should be a way for an hereto before unknown and
unaffiliated Albert Einstein to submit something and have the content at
least looked at with no barrier other than the effort to create and
transmit the document in the first place.

so who pays the reviewers of the paper?

--

r b-j                  r...@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Hi Robert,

On 2/11/2012 9:20 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

(Given your comment below, I'm unsure as to who you mean to
be "looking at it"...)

In the scheme I proposed (below), anyone who wanted to look at it
would look at it.  If that proves to be a "disappointing experience"
for that party, future "readers" would tend to avoid it.

I.e., "Market forces" judge the worthiness/value of the submission.

I don't do any of the "social networking", youtube, etc. sort of
thing.  But, it's my impression that a similar approach would
come into play.  I.e., "something" tells other folks that this
(person, video, etc.) is "worth seeing/following" and that leads
to increased viewership/readership/"going viral"/etc.

("I got 18 million hits on my 'Design of an efficient LFSR macrocell'!")

<grin>

I.e., don't you want your peers (as "reader consumers") to decide
the worthiness of a particular product (paper)?  Wouldn't its
"popularity" be a gross indicator of such?

The reviewers are a *third* party not accounted for in the above?

In who's interest is the "review" -- that would go a long way
to suggesting who pays!

(snip, I wrote)

That is what I was trying to say. Someone from a rich corporation
or university with lots of government grants would be expected to
pay, but unknown and unaffiliated people wouldn't.

Grants normally require that they be acknowledged. Now, it might
be that someone from a well known and well funded place submits
a paper unrelated to their paid work.

(snip)

Maybe as discounts on future submissions, instead of
direct payments.

If you allow paid reviews, then the review becomes questionable.
That is, is the payment for a good review? (Note Consumer Reports
policy of not accepting advertizing or donated products for testing.)

Certainly there are good and bad reviewers, either paid or not.

-- glen

(snip, I wrote)

It may have happened more than once, or maybe I remember wrong.

Yes, I don't blame the firefighters, they have to follow the rules.
(Volunteer or paid.) It makes more sense to me, though, for
the rules to be put out the fire and charge the ownwer the
appropriate full cost.

Easiest if the owner is there, and signs an agreement to pay,
but likely could be done as a lien in any case.

-- glen

On 2/11/2012 3:43 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

I agree, and I hope the law has been changed by now. In the case I knew
about, the property owner had made is contribution for years (as I do)
but on that year, he forgot (as I have done). One impetus to getting the
regulation revised is the liability resulting from someone having been
improperly omitted from the "good to go" list.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On 2/11/12 3:43 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

i think it was Wisconsin.  and the burning home owner was begging them
to put it out.  but he neglected to pay his fee that year.  the fire
dept came out because the neighboring house was covered.

--

r b-j                  r...@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On 2/11/12 11:24 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

no, you're right.  it's Tennessee:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-burns-whil...

--

r b-j                  r...@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On 2/11/2012 9:24 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

Actually, a neighbor's house, here (street behind us and two
doors over) burned to the ground (literally, nothing left standing)
while the fire department "watched".  Brought out all sorts of
equipment -- portable high power floodlights, two trucks, etc. -- and
watched!  (as did most of us neighbors)

In this case, however, it was because the woman who owned the
home was a pack rat.  After getting her out of the house,
firefighters decided it was too dangerous to go back inside
(apparently, *hallways* were full of stacked newspapers,
magazines, etc.).

So, they protected the surrounding homes (knocking a chimney
off of one home with the force of the water hoses!) and
waited for the fire to burn itself to completion.

The *real* chuckle came when the loss was *blamed* on the fire
department!  No, not because they sat and watched.  Rather,
because they had been called to the home, earlier, to put out
a fire in her car (battery shorted out or somesuch).  But,
didn't remove the car from the carport *or* verify that the
fire was truly out.

So, when it restarted a while later...

They ended up paying for the house to be rebuilt.  Really cool
to see an "identical" house reappear on the previous *slab*!

[A friend of ours coincidentally bought the "replacement house".
He didn't believe us when we told him the story, originally.
Of course, now that his neighbors have confirmed it, ... ]

In TN the issue wasn't as simple as liability. The incident was in a
county (rural) and the county voted to make it pay by choice About 85%
payed. The owner admitted to the local paper not paying and stated he
didn't expect he would ever see a fire at his place. I know of a place
in WV where similar event took place and as I understand it the trend
is growing in rural areas.

It's not quite that bad where I am yet, but we had a school collapse
after a snow and we were already had 2 replacement school buildings in
the pipeline. For awhile we had kids going to school in shifts because
we didn't have enough buildings.

Of course we're not so short of cash we can't dig up Main street. I
wasn't at the meeting but I imagine something like this:

councilman 1: You know, we don't have hardly any traffic problems around
here.

councilman 2: Why don't we dig up our 3 lane Main street and make it 2
lane, after all it's the only way to get from one end of town to the
other.

When the project started, they tore out two lanes and went to a single
lane. Then of course the work was delayed and slowed because - you
guessed it - traffic.

John Wayne - "Life is hard. Life is damn hard when you're stupid"

On 12/02/2012 05:18, stan wrote:
..

This sounds like a good description of a dark place, in which everyone
is "looking out for number one" (in the Bible Belt, presumably):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_long_spoons

Richard Dobson

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:24:44 -0800 (PST), HardySpicer

  [Snipped by Lyons]

Hi HardySpicer,
  Your post was beautifully written.  Good job!

[-Rick-]