Comments on: Publishers Against the Dissemination of Research http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2012/01/09/publishers-against-the-dissemination-of-research/ Whatever It Is, I'm Against It Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:01:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5 By: At the bench http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2012/01/09/publishers-against-the-dissemination-of-research/comment-page-1/#comment-87116 At the bench Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:43:03 +0000 http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/?p=1220#comment-87116 Maybe scientists reviewing for Elsevier should start writing up contracts for peer review that reflect the value of their time and expertise: $500 per manuscript reviewed, with $250 up front and the rest due within 30 days of their sending the review to the publisher sounds about right. It’s a mystery why they donate their services to profitable corporations.

]]>
By: Mark http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2012/01/09/publishers-against-the-dissemination-of-research/comment-page-1/#comment-82058 Mark Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:56:48 +0000 http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/?p=1220#comment-82058 Coordinating the flow of a few emails seems like insufficient cause to allow publishers to convert public property for private gain. If the public paid for the knowledge then the public own it!

]]>
By: Kenneth Pfaff http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2012/01/09/publishers-against-the-dissemination-of-research/comment-page-1/#comment-80335 Kenneth Pfaff Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:23:18 +0000 http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/?p=1220#comment-80335 I have just contacted the Representative for my area and Senators to vote against form of this bill. For shame.

]]>
By: Randal Powell http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2012/01/09/publishers-against-the-dissemination-of-research/comment-page-1/#comment-79916 Randal Powell Tue, 10 Jan 2012 03:05:16 +0000 http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/?p=1220#comment-79916 There are so many sneaky, Orwellian bills being pushed through Congress these days, that it’s hard to keep up with them.

]]>
By: Stevan Harnad http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2012/01/09/publishers-against-the-dissemination-of-research/comment-page-1/#comment-79889 Stevan Harnad Tue, 10 Jan 2012 02:20:52 +0000 http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/?p=1220#comment-79889 See:
“Research Works Act H.R.3699:
The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again”

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.html

EXCERPT:

The US Research Works Act (H.R.3699): “No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity that — (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher of such work; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer of such an actual or prospective author, assent to network dissemination of a private-sector research work.”

Translation and Comments:

“If public tax money is used to fund research, that research becomes “private research” once a publisher “adds value” to it by managing the peer review.”

[Comment: Researchers do the peer review for the publisher for free, just as researchers give their papers to the publisher for free, together with the exclusive right to sell subscriptions to it, on-paper and online, seeking and receiving no fee or royalty in return].

“Since that public research has thereby been transformed into “private research,” and the publisher’s property, the government that funded it with public tax money should not be allowed to require the funded author to make it accessible for free online for those users who cannot afford subscription access.”

[Comment: The author's sole purpose in doing and publishing the research, without seeking any fee or royalties, is so that all potential users can access, use and build upon it, in further research and applications, to the benefit of the public that funded it; this is also the sole purpose for which public tax money is used to fund research.]”

H.R. 3699 misunderstands the secondary, service role that peer-reviewed research journal publishing plays in US research and development and its (public) funding.

It is a huge miscalculation to weigh the potential gains or losses from providing or not providing open access to publicly funded research in terms of gains or losses to the publishing industry: Lost or delayed research progress mean losses to the growth and productivity of both basic research and the vast R&D industry in all fields, and hence losses to the US economy as a whole.

What needs to be done about public access to peer-reviewed scholarly publications resulting from federally funded research?

The minimum policy is for all US federal funders to mandate (require), as a condition for receiving public funding for research, that: (i) the fundee’s revised, accepted refereed final draft of (ii) all refereed journal articles resulting from the funded research must be (iii) deposited immediately upon acceptance for publication (iv) in the fundee’’s institutional repository, with (v) access to the deposit made free for all (OA) immediately (no OA embargo) wherever possible (over 60% of journals already endorse immediate gratis OA self-archiving), and at the latest after a 6-month embargo on OA.

It is the above policy that H.R.3699 is attempting to make illegal…

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.html

]]>
By: Elena http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2012/01/09/publishers-against-the-dissemination-of-research/comment-page-1/#comment-79863 Elena Tue, 10 Jan 2012 02:01:07 +0000 http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/?p=1220#comment-79863 ack! I have not seen this legislation! Gonna check it out though and contact my congress folk.

]]>
By: I Like Books http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2012/01/09/publishers-against-the-dissemination-of-research/comment-page-1/#comment-79774 I Like Books Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:54:20 +0000 http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/?p=1220#comment-79774 You forgot to mention that, in many cases, they pay to get the article published.

]]>
By: KL http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2012/01/09/publishers-against-the-dissemination-of-research/comment-page-1/#comment-79720 KL Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:16:42 +0000 http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/?p=1220#comment-79720 The funniest part is they act like the researchers/writers get paid for any of this. Whether an article is in a paid or free journal, those who write the articles don’t get paid. They don’t get paid to write, they don’t get paid to review, and, in most cases, they’re paying a hefty fee to either subscribe to the journal, or be a member of the professional association who publishes it.

I do feel, however, that the Annoyed Librarian misses an important point in this argument: faculty (or research staff) cannot just not publish their research. Some institutions are rather opposed to open access journals, and some view certain journals with differing levels of respect. Thus already tenured faculty may be able to pick and choose where they publish, but those still seeking tenure may have fewer options, at least if they want to get tenure.

]]>
By: Bonnie Powers http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2012/01/09/publishers-against-the-dissemination-of-research/comment-page-1/#comment-79629 Bonnie Powers Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:28:37 +0000 http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/?p=1220#comment-79629 Decisions and trends like this don’t bode well for the library as publisher model, either, which I think is an exciting direction that libraries could take in the future following the model of Douglas County Libraries in Colorado.

]]>
http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2012/01/09/publishers-against-the-dissemination-of-research/feed/
lj.libraryjournal.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2013-20
17121
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:PSJJJJ3D7OQ2WNO5HVU74BCXAIGQ22CF
<urn:uuid:7c9e78ab-bb93-420b-9f1c-d1c69516e6e9>
2013-06-20T10:38:02Z
216.70.86.237
sha1:ZLP6FAWCTDNYYF5KA3ZRJWHHRX2A2BBK
<urn:uuid:2b7faa58-79db-4db0-b30a-dc478c0551bd>
http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2012/01/09/publishers-against-the-dissemination-of-research/feed/
response
<urn:uuid:61222f6f-3bd4-497b-9df1-f4d4ac1d38cf>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-60-113-184.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2013-20
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for Spring 2013
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf