initial information resources
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Alex Holcombe
Feb 2, 2012, 3:59:06 PM2/2/12
to Publishing of Perception and Attention Research
For info about the Elsevier boycott and related actions, I recommend
you start here: http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Journal_publishing_reform
That wiki links to general motivation explanations, but the details
focus on mathematics journals. We need to do some perception-specific
analyses of journal costs and issues.
Throwing off the chains of an offensive publisher can be fairly
straightforward: the editorial board can resign en masse and start a
replacement journal (you can read about precedents here: http://bit.ly/xKzqvJ)
Making the jump to full open access can be complicated. If one adopts
a pure author-pays model (like Journal of Vision, although it is also
subsidized somewhat by ARVO), then it's pretty simple. But the big
problem with that model is that it tends to exclude researchers who
don't have grants or other funds to pay (although JoV waives the fee
sometimes for poor researchers, or at least used to. Does anyone know
their current policy on that?). So I don't think we'll see much
support for among researchers for another author-pays model,
particularly given that we already have JoV and iPerception.
Some open-access journals are run on a shoestring, with basically no
funds other than those for the web hosting cost, which is often paid
by the editor's university or a scholarly society. This is possible
thanks to the increasing number of open-source publishing platforms,
like Open Journal Systems and Annotum. However, this requires major
dedication of time on the part of one or more academics to do all the
little menial tasks normally done by publisher staff, like getting
manuscripts formatted properly and marshalling them through the
system. This is also not necessarily sustainable.
Some governments and research funders have made an effort to solve the
problem by finding larger-scale ways to fund open access journals.
For example, the UK research councils have agreed to provide dedicated
funds so all their funded researchers can publish open access
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/Pages/outputs.aspx . I believe NSF and
NIH do the same, although I haven't seen confirmation of this. When
these efforts are large and systematic enough, journals have enough
funds to waive fees for unfunded researchers, or at least those from
third-world countries. The PLoS journals do this. By large scale, I
mean that if many universities/funders put their money together, this
can be done. It seems that some universities are trying to organize
this, with the Compact for OA Publishing http://www.oacompact.org/
For more, see the Open Access Directory list of OA journal business
models.
http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_business_models
Finally, one can do an end-run around the journals if all or most of
the researchers in an area post their manuscripts to a digital
repository before publication. This is how many areas of physics now
work (the ArXiv.org), so journal publicaion tends to be an
afterthought for them nowadays. Steven Harnad explains (http://
openaccess.eprints.org/) how this can be a general solution,
encouraged by mandates from universities and funders to do it.
Peter Suber's open access tutorials are also good and authoritative
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
I also suggest you follow these accounts on twitter:
@OpenAccessYay
OA Tracking Project @oatp
My account @ceptional is also open-access heavy
you start here: http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Journal_publishing_reform
That wiki links to general motivation explanations, but the details
focus on mathematics journals. We need to do some perception-specific
analyses of journal costs and issues.
Throwing off the chains of an offensive publisher can be fairly
straightforward: the editorial board can resign en masse and start a
replacement journal (you can read about precedents here: http://bit.ly/xKzqvJ)
Making the jump to full open access can be complicated. If one adopts
a pure author-pays model (like Journal of Vision, although it is also
subsidized somewhat by ARVO), then it's pretty simple. But the big
problem with that model is that it tends to exclude researchers who
don't have grants or other funds to pay (although JoV waives the fee
sometimes for poor researchers, or at least used to. Does anyone know
their current policy on that?). So I don't think we'll see much
support for among researchers for another author-pays model,
particularly given that we already have JoV and iPerception.
Some open-access journals are run on a shoestring, with basically no
funds other than those for the web hosting cost, which is often paid
by the editor's university or a scholarly society. This is possible
thanks to the increasing number of open-source publishing platforms,
like Open Journal Systems and Annotum. However, this requires major
dedication of time on the part of one or more academics to do all the
little menial tasks normally done by publisher staff, like getting
manuscripts formatted properly and marshalling them through the
system. This is also not necessarily sustainable.
Some governments and research funders have made an effort to solve the
problem by finding larger-scale ways to fund open access journals.
For example, the UK research councils have agreed to provide dedicated
funds so all their funded researchers can publish open access
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/Pages/outputs.aspx . I believe NSF and
NIH do the same, although I haven't seen confirmation of this. When
these efforts are large and systematic enough, journals have enough
funds to waive fees for unfunded researchers, or at least those from
third-world countries. The PLoS journals do this. By large scale, I
mean that if many universities/funders put their money together, this
can be done. It seems that some universities are trying to organize
this, with the Compact for OA Publishing http://www.oacompact.org/
For more, see the Open Access Directory list of OA journal business
models.
http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_business_models
Finally, one can do an end-run around the journals if all or most of
the researchers in an area post their manuscripts to a digital
repository before publication. This is how many areas of physics now
work (the ArXiv.org), so journal publicaion tends to be an
afterthought for them nowadays. Steven Harnad explains (http://
openaccess.eprints.org/) how this can be a general solution,
encouraged by mandates from universities and funders to do it.
Peter Suber's open access tutorials are also good and authoritative
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
I also suggest you follow these accounts on twitter:
@OpenAccessYay
OA Tracking Project @oatp
My account @ceptional is also open-access heavy
Casimir
Feb 3, 2012, 2:45:09 PM2/3/12
to Publishing of Perception and Attention Research
This editorial in PLoS Biology may also be of interest, on the
distinction between free and open access, and the OA options offered
by subscription journals:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050285
On Feb 2, 8:59 pm, Alex Holcombe <aoholco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For info about the Elsevier boycott and related actions, I recommend
> you start here:http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Journal_publishin...
> funds so all their funded researchers can publish open accesshttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/Pages/outputs.aspx. I believe NSF and
distinction between free and open access, and the OA options offered
by subscription journals:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050285
On Feb 2, 8:59 pm, Alex Holcombe <aoholco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For info about the Elsevier boycott and related actions, I recommend
> NIH do the same, although I haven't seen confirmation of this. When
> these efforts are large and systematic enough, journals have enough
> funds to waive fees for unfunded researchers, or at least those from
> third-world countries. The PLoS journals do this. By large scale, I
> mean that if many universities/funders put their money together, this
> can be done. It seems that some universities are trying to organize
> this, with the Compact for OA Publishinghttp://www.oacompact.org/
> these efforts are large and systematic enough, journals have enough
> funds to waive fees for unfunded researchers, or at least those from
> third-world countries. The PLoS journals do this. By large scale, I
> mean that if many universities/funders put their money together, this
> can be done. It seems that some universities are trying to organize
>
> For more, see the Open Access Directory list of OA journal business
> models.http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_business_models
> For more, see the Open Access Directory list of OA journal business
>
> Finally, one can do an end-run around the journals if all or most of
> the researchers in an area post their manuscripts to a digital
> repository before publication. This is how many areas of physics now
> work (the ArXiv.org), so journal publicaion tends to be an
> afterthought for them nowadays. Steven Harnad explains (http://
> openaccess.eprints.org/) how this can be a general solution,
> encouraged by mandates from universities and funders to do it.
>
> Peter Suber's open access tutorials are also good and authoritativehttp://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
> Finally, one can do an end-run around the journals if all or most of
> the researchers in an area post their manuscripts to a digital
> repository before publication. This is how many areas of physics now
> work (the ArXiv.org), so journal publicaion tends to be an
> afterthought for them nowadays. Steven Harnad explains (http://
> openaccess.eprints.org/) how this can be a general solution,
> encouraged by mandates from universities and funders to do it.
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages