Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Open access to federally funded research - Whitehouse petition
30 views
Skip to first unread message
James Beck
May 23, 2012, 9:55:02 PM5/23/12
to
A petition to:
Require free access over the Internet to scientific journal articles
arising from taxpayer-funded research.
We believe in the power of the Internet to foster innovation,
research, and education. Requiring the published results of
taxpayer-funded research to be posted on the Internet in human and
machine readable form would provide access to patients and caregivers,
students and their teachers, researchers, entrepreneurs, and other
taxpayers who paid for the research. Expanding access would speed the
research process and increase the return on our investment in
scientific research.
The highly successful Public Access Policy of the National Institutes
of Health proves that this can be done without disrupting the research
process, and we urge President Obama to act now to implement open
access policies for all federal agencies that fund scientific
research.
http://wh.gov/6TH
Require free access over the Internet to scientific journal articles
arising from taxpayer-funded research.
We believe in the power of the Internet to foster innovation,
research, and education. Requiring the published results of
taxpayer-funded research to be posted on the Internet in human and
machine readable form would provide access to patients and caregivers,
students and their teachers, researchers, entrepreneurs, and other
taxpayers who paid for the research. Expanding access would speed the
research process and increase the return on our investment in
scientific research.
The highly successful Public Access Policy of the National Institutes
of Health proves that this can be done without disrupting the research
process, and we urge President Obama to act now to implement open
access policies for all federal agencies that fund scientific
research.
http://wh.gov/6TH
Paul J Gans
May 23, 2012, 10:23:11 PM5/23/12
to
are resisting not just because they'd be more or less out
of business, but because they feel that they add value by
setting up peer review. Without peer review articles would
be much less valuable.
But if one looks below the surface there are other things
going on. The idea above is based in part on the notion
that since the government paid for the work, it has the
right to specify how that work is disseminated.
Of course this idea does NOT apply to commercial development
of products based on publically financed research. A possible
reason for this is that real money is involved.
A worse problem in the access of research information is the
fact that many publishers require libraries to buy "bundles"
of journals, including many for which they have no use. This
raises the overall costs to libraries by large amounts. Many
working scientists would like to see this ended as well.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Richard Norman
May 23, 2012, 10:45:33 PM5/23/12
to
journal publishers say on the issue. I don't mean commercial
publishers like Pergamon, Elsevier, or Springer. I mean those truly
premier journals put out by scientific societies. How do they
maintain the budget to keep the journals alive?
Dan Espen
May 23, 2012, 11:02:21 PM5/23/12
to
--
Dan Espen
Bill
May 23, 2012, 11:47:38 PM5/23/12
to
On May 24, 9:23 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
I think somebody has to pay and I prefer the evolving pay-to-publish
model over the older pay-to-read model. The government grants that
fund the research just need to include a line to cover the
substantially higher page charges that you have to pay to publish in
open access journals. It used to be that page charges were just a few
hundred bucks, now it's not uncommon for us to pay two or three
thousand to publish in an open access journal.
model over the older pay-to-read model. The government grants that
fund the research just need to include a line to cover the
substantially higher page charges that you have to pay to publish in
open access journals. It used to be that page charges were just a few
hundred bucks, now it's not uncommon for us to pay two or three
thousand to publish in an open access journal.
Mike Dworetsky
May 24, 2012, 3:24:53 AM5/24/12
to
do not have page charges, while others charge a lot for authors to publish.
Usually this is through grant funding, or through institutions such as
universities.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Attila
May 24, 2012, 3:59:28 AM5/24/12
to
Paul J Gans wrote:
<snip>
I've been involved in academic publishing since 1968 as an author,
editor, and (peer) reviewer. I have never received one "centesimo" for
this work except for royalties for a book I authored in the Tutorial
Essays in Cognitive Science Series. I have never heard of any publisher
involved in "setting up peer review". At most they may name an academic
editor of a journal but the rest is up to her or him and typically the
editor is not paid, nor are the associate editors, authors, reviewers,
etc. Whilst it may be true that peer reviewed articles are more
valuable, though this is not always obvious, this factor has little or
nothing to do with the publlishers and accordingly cannot be used an
excuse for charging.
<snip>
>
> There is a serious debate going on about this. Publishers
> are resisting not just because they'd be more or less out
> of business, but because they feel that they add value by
> setting up peer review. Without peer review articles would
> be much less valuable.
<snip>
> There is a serious debate going on about this. Publishers
> are resisting not just because they'd be more or less out
> of business, but because they feel that they add value by
> setting up peer review. Without peer review articles would
> be much less valuable.
I've been involved in academic publishing since 1968 as an author,
editor, and (peer) reviewer. I have never received one "centesimo" for
this work except for royalties for a book I authored in the Tutorial
Essays in Cognitive Science Series. I have never heard of any publisher
involved in "setting up peer review". At most they may name an academic
editor of a journal but the rest is up to her or him and typically the
editor is not paid, nor are the associate editors, authors, reviewers,
etc. Whilst it may be true that peer reviewed articles are more
valuable, though this is not always obvious, this factor has little or
nothing to do with the publlishers and accordingly cannot be used an
excuse for charging.
Burkhard
May 24, 2012, 4:33:55 AM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 3:23 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
Our own journal is open access and peer reviewed - we spend around 33k
peer year for keeping it running. Most refereed conferences organise
their peer review on their own, and I never go tany money for
reviewing articles (as opposed to reviews for books, which still works
out below the minimum wage)
and with electronic publishing, we get more and often better form sof
"post publication peer review", a route PLos 1 is going (minimal pre
publication review, and then comment sections.
>
> But if one looks below the surface there are other things
> going on. The idea above is based in part on the notion
> that since the government paid for the work, it has the
> right to specify how that work is disseminated.
>
True to some extend, but is that not reasonable? At the moment, the
government pays for the research. Then pays for the peer review (to
the extend that academics are publicly funded at least) and then it
buys back at premium costs that very research so it can be used for
teaching in publicly funded universities, by the very people who did
the research in the first ace. Something is wrong here.
> James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >A petition to:
> >Require free access over the Internet to scientific journal articles
> >arising from taxpayer-funded research.
> >We believe in the power of the Internet to foster innovation,
> >research, and education. Requiring the published results of
> >taxpayer-funded research to be posted on the Internet in human and
> >machine readable form would provide access to patients and caregivers,
> >students and their teachers, researchers, entrepreneurs, and other
> >taxpayers who paid for the research. Expanding access would speed the
> >research process and increase the return on our investment in
> >scientific research.
> >The highly successful Public Access Policy of the National Institutes
> >of Health proves that this can be done without disrupting the research
> >process, and we urge President Obama to act now to implement open
> >access policies for all federal agencies that fund scientific
> >research.
> >http://wh.gov/6TH
>
> There is a serious debate going on about this. Publishers
> are resisting not just because they'd be more or less out
> of business, but because they feel that they add value by
> setting up peer review. Without peer review articles would
> be much less valuable.
True, but is the organisation of peer review really that expensive?
> >A petition to:
> >Require free access over the Internet to scientific journal articles
> >arising from taxpayer-funded research.
> >We believe in the power of the Internet to foster innovation,
> >research, and education. Requiring the published results of
> >taxpayer-funded research to be posted on the Internet in human and
> >machine readable form would provide access to patients and caregivers,
> >students and their teachers, researchers, entrepreneurs, and other
> >taxpayers who paid for the research. Expanding access would speed the
> >research process and increase the return on our investment in
> >scientific research.
> >The highly successful Public Access Policy of the National Institutes
> >of Health proves that this can be done without disrupting the research
> >process, and we urge President Obama to act now to implement open
> >access policies for all federal agencies that fund scientific
> >research.
> >http://wh.gov/6TH
>
> There is a serious debate going on about this. Publishers
> are resisting not just because they'd be more or less out
> of business, but because they feel that they add value by
> setting up peer review. Without peer review articles would
> be much less valuable.
Our own journal is open access and peer reviewed - we spend around 33k
peer year for keeping it running. Most refereed conferences organise
their peer review on their own, and I never go tany money for
reviewing articles (as opposed to reviews for books, which still works
out below the minimum wage)
and with electronic publishing, we get more and often better form sof
"post publication peer review", a route PLos 1 is going (minimal pre
publication review, and then comment sections.
>
> But if one looks below the surface there are other things
> going on. The idea above is based in part on the notion
> that since the government paid for the work, it has the
> right to specify how that work is disseminated.
>
government pays for the research. Then pays for the peer review (to
the extend that academics are publicly funded at least) and then it
buys back at premium costs that very research so it can be used for
teaching in publicly funded universities, by the very people who did
the research in the first ace. Something is wrong here.
Burkhard
May 24, 2012, 4:37:23 AM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 3:45 am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 02:23:11 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 02:23:11 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
in the UK: they argue they need the journals to cross subsidize other
desirable activities by the societies.From my own experience, running
a peer reviwed (onine) journa is not costly - here is ours, open
access and free submission:
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/
While I commiserate with the societies, we should not artificially
maintain an outdated business model, they just need to find new ways
to add value
Mike Dworetsky
May 24, 2012, 6:01:42 AM5/24/12
to
review is the main way in which journals check submissions for quality and
appropriateness. Reviewers often suggest useful improvements to the
authors, which may include assistance with English, or when rejecting a
paper provide specific reasons for doing so, including incorrect conclusions
from data, faults in the data reduction, pseudoscience, etc. The main cost
for publishers is a fancy head office, printing, and distribution, and these
days, maintenance of a web site. Oh, yes--and making profits.
The value of peer-reviewing is mainly in the initial screening and
correction phase. It is the first step, not the last, in validating and
duplicating results to see if they stand the test of further scrutiny. I've
never been paid for it either.
Steven L.
May 24, 2012, 8:29:03 AM5/24/12
to
"Dan Espen" <des...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ic396qc...@home.home:
For example, the unclassified research papers from USAMRIID (where they
do defense against CBW) can be downloaded free.
http://www.usamriid.army.mil/publicationspage.cfm
So can the papers from the U.S. Army War College.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/
-- Steven L.
James Beck
May 24, 2012, 8:41:59 AM5/24/12
to
On May 23, 11:02 pm, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
What 'military research' do you think appears in scholarly journals
now?
now?
Dan Espen
May 24, 2012, 10:13:10 AM5/24/12
to
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> writes:
> "Dan Espen" <des...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:ic396qc...@home.home:
>
>> James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> > A petition to:
>> >
>> > Require free access over the Internet to scientific journal articles
>> > arising from taxpayer-funded research.
>> >
>> > We believe in the power of the Internet to foster innovation,
>> > research, and education. Requiring the published results of
>> > taxpayer-funded research to be posted on the Internet in human and
>> > machine readable form would provide access to patients and caregivers,
>> > students and their teachers, researchers, entrepreneurs, and other
>> > taxpayers who paid for the research. Expanding access would speed the
>> > research process and increase the return on our investment in
>> > scientific research.
>> >
>> > The highly successful Public Access Policy of the National Institutes
>> > of Health proves that this can be done without disrupting the research
>> > process, and we urge President Obama to act now to implement open
>> > access policies for all federal agencies that fund scientific
>> > research.
>> >
>> > http://wh.gov/6TH
>>
>> Military research too?
>
> If it's not classified, why not.
Obviously (at least to me),
> "Dan Espen" <des...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:ic396qc...@home.home:
>
>> James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> > A petition to:
>> >
>> > Require free access over the Internet to scientific journal articles
>> > arising from taxpayer-funded research.
>> >
>> > We believe in the power of the Internet to foster innovation,
>> > research, and education. Requiring the published results of
>> > taxpayer-funded research to be posted on the Internet in human and
>> > machine readable form would provide access to patients and caregivers,
>> > students and their teachers, researchers, entrepreneurs, and other
>> > taxpayers who paid for the research. Expanding access would speed the
>> > research process and increase the return on our investment in
>> > scientific research.
>> >
>> > The highly successful Public Access Policy of the National Institutes
>> > of Health proves that this can be done without disrupting the research
>> > process, and we urge President Obama to act now to implement open
>> > access policies for all federal agencies that fund scientific
>> > research.
>> >
>> > http://wh.gov/6TH
>>
>> Military research too?
>
> If it's not classified, why not.
I brought up military research because I was thinking
of classified research.
The basic idea sounds good, but addressing the details
is important.
--
Dan Espen
Burkhard
May 24, 2012, 11:57:03 AM5/24/12
to
disaster responses, and quite a lot of biomedical research - wasn't
there recently a lot of fuss abut the publication of a study on
engineering flu viruses, and its military/terrorism potential?
Dan Espen
May 24, 2012, 12:43:39 PM5/24/12
to
it was partly funded by NIH:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2138805/Bird-flu-Science-journal-publishes-details-deadly-virus-cause-global-pandemic.html
http://tinyurl.com/7rcwqyd
But it fits into a category of things that should not AUTOMATICALLY
be published just because it was taxpayer funded.
--
Dan Espen
air
May 24, 2012, 1:14:38 PM5/24/12
to
On May 23, 10:23 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
It's more than a business model issue. Agreed that the current system
is exploitative of peer reviewers' and editors' time and of libraries'
budgets and that a more efficient system could certainly be employed.
However, until academic institutions change their attitude towards
what constitutes a 'worthy publication' for those seeking academic
advancement (i.e. boatloads of folks) it will be challenge to get to
that alternative system.
-air
is exploitative of peer reviewers' and editors' time and of libraries'
budgets and that a more efficient system could certainly be employed.
However, until academic institutions change their attitude towards
what constitutes a 'worthy publication' for those seeking academic
advancement (i.e. boatloads of folks) it will be challenge to get to
that alternative system.
-air
Paul J Gans
May 24, 2012, 2:42:47 PM5/24/12
to
will likely vanish. Authors submit (or could submit) articles
reading for publication on the net and indeed that already happens.
A visit to <arxiv.net> will show it in operation.
Such a visit will also show the problems with the system. There is
a board of editors but the articles are not "peer reviewed".
In the present system the major real costs are those of editing.
Review and the nominal editing are all done by donated time on
the part of working scientists in the field. Nevertheless that today
is organized by a staff paid by the publishers. That's the sticking
point of open publication. There is no present substitute for it.
Paul J Gans
May 24, 2012, 2:53:41 PM5/24/12
to
Attila <jdka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Paul J Gans wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> There is a serious debate going on about this. Publishers
>> are resisting not just because they'd be more or less out
>> of business, but because they feel that they add value by
>> setting up peer review. Without peer review articles would
>> be much less valuable.
><snip>
>I've been involved in academic publishing since 1968 as an author,
>editor, and (peer) reviewer. I have never received one "centesimo" for
>this work except for royalties for a book I authored in the Tutorial
>Essays in Cognitive Science Series. I have never heard of any publisher
>involved in "setting up peer review". At most they may name an academic
>editor of a journal but the rest is up to her or him and typically the
>editor is not paid, nor are the associate editors, authors, reviewers,
>etc.
Yup. I've just posted about this. In some cases the publisher provides
>Paul J Gans wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> There is a serious debate going on about this. Publishers
>> are resisting not just because they'd be more or less out
>> of business, but because they feel that they add value by
>> setting up peer review. Without peer review articles would
>> be much less valuable.
><snip>
>I've been involved in academic publishing since 1968 as an author,
>editor, and (peer) reviewer. I have never received one "centesimo" for
>this work except for royalties for a book I authored in the Tutorial
>Essays in Cognitive Science Series. I have never heard of any publisher
>involved in "setting up peer review". At most they may name an academic
>editor of a journal but the rest is up to her or him and typically the
>editor is not paid, nor are the associate editors, authors, reviewers,
>etc.
staff for the editor to keep track of the flow of papers, but it isn't
technical staff.
Back in the Good Old Days (tm) publishers had to mark up papers
prepratory to printing them. They still do a bit of that but the
need for it has dwindled with authors now able to produce what used
to be called "camera ready" copy.
>Whilst it may be true that peer reviewed articles are more
>valuable, though this is not always obvious, this factor has little or
>nothing to do with the publlishers and accordingly cannot be used an
>excuse for charging.
Paul J Gans
May 24, 2012, 2:55:43 PM5/24/12
to
away...
Paul J Gans
May 24, 2012, 2:57:10 PM5/24/12
to
Paul J Gans
May 24, 2012, 3:00:10 PM5/24/12
to
James Beck
May 24, 2012, 2:41:58 PM5/24/12
to
various times and places in history, Google maps would have been an
illegal disclosure of sensitive military information. In the case of
the engineered flu viruses, at least two expert panels reviewed the
studies *before* publication. The relevant question is the probability
that some bit of pre-reviewed, published research might someday become
militarily useful, and that risk is the same either way.
In the US, federal grant-funded research is already subject to pre-
publication review. At CIA, that function is covered by the
Publications Review Board. DIA has an a separate Office of Security
Review, but presumably they also use the PRB (although that
information is redacted in the public version of the regulation). At
one time, DARPA contractually required pre-publication review of
almost everything, but these days they vet the proposals and issue
more exemptions. NSABB reviews papers in the biosciences, and so
forth.
The petition asks for open access to published results of grant-funded
research, and results are already subject to pre-publication review
and approval for publication. This is a non-issue.
Dan Espen
May 24, 2012, 3:35:45 PM5/24/12
to
research to be posted on the Internet..."
Sounds like a good idea to me then.
--
Dan Espen
Free Lunch
May 24, 2012, 8:45:11 PM5/24/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 02:23:11 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com>
wrote in talk.origins:
a journal article? I would think that many of these articles are worth
solid study for a day or two to verify what is being done and consider
the related notes. Even at a crappy freelance rate, it seems that they
need to pay as much as a thousand dollars per referee per article.
Free Lunch
May 24, 2012, 8:46:06 PM5/24/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 08:24:53 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky"
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Aren't institutional rates higher than general/
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Bill
May 24, 2012, 9:06:17 PM5/24/12
to
On May 25, 1:42 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
But open access does not mean "not peer-reviewed." We don't get paid
to do peer review, we just do it because we do it. The costs are in
editing and organizing the reviewing and editing. Somebody has to pay
for it (to prop up the system) and it is the government either way.
Either the university will charge overhead on its grants to help
maintain its library and journal subscriptions, or the government will
factor the cost of higher page charges into grants. The advantage of
the "pay-to-publish" system over the "pay to read" is that more
people around the world have access under the "pay to publish" system,
and that seems like a very good thing to me.
to do peer review, we just do it because we do it. The costs are in
editing and organizing the reviewing and editing. Somebody has to pay
for it (to prop up the system) and it is the government either way.
Either the university will charge overhead on its grants to help
maintain its library and journal subscriptions, or the government will
factor the cost of higher page charges into grants. The advantage of
the "pay-to-publish" system over the "pay to read" is that more
people around the world have access under the "pay to publish" system,
and that seems like a very good thing to me.
Paul J Gans
May 24, 2012, 9:10:05 PM5/24/12
to
the military. It is about classified research done for the
military and not published in the open literature at all.
This includes much research on encryption and bioweapons research
and the like.
But as he said, this doesn't appear anyway and is not what is
being talked about.
Paul J Gans
May 24, 2012, 9:12:32 PM5/24/12
to
Paul J Gans
May 24, 2012, 9:15:14 PM5/24/12
to
might well render the peer review system suspect.
Free Lunch
May 24, 2012, 10:31:43 PM5/24/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 01:15:14 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com>
So why are there commercial journals? Why aren't all journals sponsored
by science organizations since the entire operation (with the possible
exception of the editor) appears to be voluntary?
by science organizations since the entire operation (with the possible
exception of the editor) appears to be voluntary?
Mike Dworetsky
May 25, 2012, 3:41:26 AM5/25/12
to
to members of learned societies, usually does little to offset the cost of
production and postage. They roughly break even on that, with maybe a small
profit. Their overall income is largely from the institutional subs,
including electronic versions.
This is different from the journals published by companies, which usually
have higher personal subscription costs (and very few subscribers, as a
result).
Rodjk #613
May 25, 2012, 9:32:46 AM5/25/12
to
On May 23, 9:23 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
I have thought this was a part of the denier fixation with criticizing
science:
Scientist hide their work, you cannot get original data to see what
they are doing, and thus it is part of the conspiracy by godless
communist scientist to turn the US into socialism by promoting global
warming.
In all seriousness, that is one of the criticisms of scientist that I
have heard: they publish in journals that the public cannot get to and
they don't show the data they work with so their work can't be
checked.
I see the long thread and discussion, so am aware that there is some
more to the topic than I thought. But I figured this was a good time
to bring up the point and find out if it is ridiculous.
Rodjk #613
> --
> --- Paul J. Gans
This is interesting.
> --- Paul J. Gans
I have thought this was a part of the denier fixation with criticizing
science:
Scientist hide their work, you cannot get original data to see what
they are doing, and thus it is part of the conspiracy by godless
communist scientist to turn the US into socialism by promoting global
warming.
In all seriousness, that is one of the criticisms of scientist that I
have heard: they publish in journals that the public cannot get to and
they don't show the data they work with so their work can't be
checked.
I see the long thread and discussion, so am aware that there is some
more to the topic than I thought. But I figured this was a good time
to bring up the point and find out if it is ridiculous.
Rodjk #613
Richard Norman
May 25, 2012, 10:15:37 AM5/25/12
to
original papers. There are a tremendous number of public libraries
that have the journals and let people read them and many university
library will allow the general public access, also. You can usually
also pay for the papers on-line. You can also write to the authors
asking for a copy. The question here is _free_ access which is a very
different story.
Access to the original raw data is another story. The papers do
contain processed data on which the work is based. The usual way of
checking is simply to repeat the experiment or see whether the result
is consistent with other related results done by others. If the work
is at all important, that is done. If the work is based on
unrepeatable data, as in rare fossil finds, the authors generally
allow qualified visitors to examine the originals. That does not mean
open house when the general public is free to wander in and paw the
material.
James Beck
May 25, 2012, 10:47:49 AM5/25/12
to
raw data.
Rodjk #613
May 25, 2012, 2:59:15 PM5/25/12
to
I don't think the critique that I mentioned was legitimate.
The point of the critique is to make the claim loudly and repeatedly
that climate scientist hide their data, thereby continuing the idea
that scientist are conspiring against the public.
That the public has little idea of what scientist do beyond what they
saw in "Independence Day" is what allows the denier nonsense to
continue.
My rant: ask people to name a working scientist.
As them to name a legitimate scientific academy or organization.
Tell them they cannot count NASA.
I would bet most people, probably 8 of 10, cannot do either.
And for 'working scientist' I would bet Stephen Hawkins would be the
one most often named.
People have no idea about scientists, who they are, what they do or
even where to find scientific information.
Rodjk #613
James Beck
May 25, 2012, 4:14:08 PM5/25/12
to
Nor is peer review all that great; there are perverse incentives in
all fields.
By the time they complete the doctorate, most economists know (but
some are seemingly quick to forget) that achieving a Paretian optimum
requires meeting all of the optimal conditions simultaneously.
Although it is still possible to reach optimality in a subset of
conditions in a partially constrained system, it is generally (as in
'always') no longer desirable to do so, so that the attainment of
second best implies departure from all of the Paretian conditions.
Once you do that, there is no a priori way to determine whether
meeting a particular constraint or subset of constraints will increase
welfare, decrease it, or leave it unchanged. In economics, this is
known as the General Theorem of Second Best (Lipsey and Lancaster, The
Review of Economic Studies, 1956-57). By implication, posting the link
to the petition should be interpreted as an expression of my
preference not to pay twice for the same work.
Although I did not find your counter arguments persuasive, and it is
counterintuitive to think that paying twice for the same work is in my
interest, that intuition may be wrong (and, by the way for much the
same reason that the system resists unbundling the journal
subscriptions--to drive up the price). Along with defense/police,
education, infrastructure, pensions, and healthcare, underinvestment
in research is one of the primary forms of market failure ex ante.
Consequently, however counterintuitive it may seem, under the
prevailing conditions it may be in my interest to pay through the nose
for research I think I want in order to subsidize research I think I
don't want, or don't know about.
On the other hand, I also object to the prevailing conditions; I think
all peer-reviewed research and a good deal of research that is
currently held in the form of state sponsored, proprietary monopoly
should be freely available in both digital and permanently archived
print formats. In addition, I think we should have many, many more
citation-based prizes for research subsequently found to have been
seminal or important. As in all forms of market failure, but
particularly in research, it is not possible to contract optimally ex
ante. Achieving second best will require active, collective
intervention. Personally, I think that avoiding a huge future die-off
will require the widest possible dissemination of our good ideas,
data, and research methods.
Paul J Gans
May 25, 2012, 9:48:24 PM5/25/12
to
One answer is that the commercial ones started up long before many
of the society journals.
Paul J Gans
May 25, 2012, 10:32:06 PM5/25/12
to
to hear about it.
>By the time they complete the doctorate, most economists know (but
>some are seemingly quick to forget) that achieving a Paretian optimum
>requires meeting all of the optimal conditions simultaneously.
>Although it is still possible to reach optimality in a subset of
>conditions in a partially constrained system, it is generally (as in
>'always') no longer desirable to do so, so that the attainment of
>second best implies departure from all of the Paretian conditions.
>Once you do that, there is no a priori way to determine whether
>meeting a particular constraint or subset of constraints will increase
>welfare, decrease it, or leave it unchanged. In economics, this is
>known as the General Theorem of Second Best (Lipsey and Lancaster, The
>Review of Economic Studies, 1956-57). By implication, posting the link
>to the petition should be interpreted as an expression of my
>preference not to pay twice for the same work.
>Although I did not find your counter arguments persuasive, and it is
>counterintuitive to think that paying twice for the same work is in my
>interest, that intuition may be wrong (and, by the way for much the
>same reason that the system resists unbundling the journal
>subscriptions--to drive up the price).
the present system except to repeat what some of the for-profit
publishers say.
I do not know why you imply that I am in favor of the current
system.
>Along with defense/police,
>education, infrastructure, pensions, and healthcare, underinvestment
>in research is one of the primary forms of market failure ex ante.
especially Republicans, do not agree with it. They would claim
that if it was important, the market would take care of it.
>Consequently, however counterintuitive it may seem, under the
>prevailing conditions it may be in my interest to pay through the nose
>for research I think I want in order to subsidize research I think I
>don't want, or don't know about.
availabiity of money for biomedical research has pushed many
people into doing research involving biomedical terms, even if
what they are doing isn't related to that at all.
>On the other hand, I also object to the prevailing conditions; I think
>all peer-reviewed research and a good deal of research that is
>currently held in the form of state sponsored, proprietary monopoly
>should be freely available in both digital and permanently archived
>print formats.
>In addition, I think we should have many, many more
>citation-based prizes for research subsequently found to have been
>seminal or important.
complex but two of them are that the most fundamental papers
are often not recognized as fundamental for a long time after
they are written. Consider Hugh Everett, who in 1957 proposed
what is now called the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum
mechanics that is only now being widely discussed.
The other reason is, strangely, fashion. It becomes fashionable
to quote certain researchers, even though their work is not
necessarily worthy of that much attention.
>As in all forms of market failure, but
>particularly in research, it is not possible to contract optimally ex
>ante. Achieving second best will require active, collective
>intervention. Personally, I think that avoiding a huge future die-off
>will require the widest possible dissemination of our good ideas,
>data, and research methods.
as subjects such as relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution
are taboo in many regions, we are on our way to becoming the
richest third world nation in history.
The journal problem comes up now not for any theoretical reasons, but
simply because library funding is being cut drastically. Without going
into the details that means that money for journal subscriptions in much
less than it was. And so libraries are cutting subscriptions to "little
used" journals.
That pressure has led many to question the propriety of for profit
institutions charging what many feel are out of line prices for
journals.
Hence the pressure being brought by many scientists to get the system
changed. Pressure on congress to require open publication is but
one aspect of it.
Burkhard
May 26, 2012, 5:24:23 AM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 2:48 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >On Fri, 25 May 2012 01:15:14 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com>
> >wrote in talk.origins:
> >>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>>On Thu, 24 May 2012 02:23:11 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com>
> >>>wrote in talk.origins:
>
> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >On Fri, 25 May 2012 01:15:14 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com>
> >wrote in talk.origins:
> >>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>>On Thu, 24 May 2012 02:23:11 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com>
> >>>wrote in talk.origins:
>
des scavans and the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,
both launched simultaneously in 1665. In the 17th century, you get
hundreds of new journals, all driven by societies and not by
commercial publishers.
The dynamics behind the explosion of commercial journals must be
different. One is simply the ever increasing number of academics, and
the therefore increasing number of outputs, which the society journals
simply could not cater for any longer. another is their greater
reach, as a result of marketing, as citation counts became important
metrics, anyone who could provide international reach and large
numbers of subscribers (and if forced so by bundling) had an
advantage. The other is that commercial publishers very quickly allow
new, specialised journals to emerge, which on the rational side
reflects the ever increasing specialisation, on the more irrational
side the desire of academics (again as a result of institutional
incentives) to have created a "paradigm" (T Kuhn, may you be tortured
forever in academic hell, marking in eternity first year method
courses exam scripts written by dyspractic students) - and the way to
do this is to launch your own journal with the name of your new sub-
field in the title.
0 new messages