4 of 4
4
scientific publishing rip-off? 
Posted: 12 October 2012 06:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  647
Joined  2011-04-10

Related, on book scanning, à la Google:

Court rules book scanning is fair use, suggesting Google Books victory [Judge rules for Google’s library partners in lawsuit brought by Authors Guild], is the headline from an arstechnica article, excerpt below:

The Author’s Guild has suffered another major setback in its fight to stop Google’s ambitious book-scanning project. The Guild lost a key ally when Google settled with a coalition of major publishers last week. Now a judge has ruled that the libraries who have provided Google with their books to scan are protected by copyright’s fair use doctrine....

HathiTrust Statement on Authors Guild v. HathiTrust Ruling, October 12, 2012, excerpt:

On October 10, 2012 Judge Harold Baer, Jr. of the U.S. Southern District of New York court ruled in our favor on Authors Guild, Inc. et al. v. HathiTrust et al. We are pleased that the court has recognized the importance of the work that libraries are performing to preserve the scholarly record and provide information and services to communities of scholars....

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2013 05:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  647
Joined  2011-04-10

Grist for the mill:

http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1430

NASA paywalls first papers arising from Curiosity rover, I am setting them free
By Michael Eisen | Published: September 26, 2013

The Mars Curiosity rover has been a huge boon for NASA – tapping into the public’s fascination with space exploration and the search for life on other planets. Its landing was watched live by millions of people, and interest in the photos and videos it is collecting is so great, that NASA has had to relocate its servers to deal with the capacity.

So what does NASA do to reward this outpouring of public interest (not to mention to $2.5 billion taxpayer dollars that made it possible)? They publish the first papers to arise from the project behind a Science magazine’s paywall:…

There is some controversy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2013 03:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2985
Joined  2007-02-26

Surely if NASA raises some money through the sale of these papers, it will _reduce_ the taxpayer burden.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2013 04:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2777
Joined  2007-01-31

Publication in scientific journals does not earn any royalties for the authors.  NASA will not earn anything from publication of these results in Science.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2013 06:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4599
Joined  2007-01-03

Nor is it NASA’s decision where to publish the papers. That decision is made by the authors. And, paywall or not, Science is just about the most prestigious journal a scientist can be published in.  So the authors, while not earning any money from the decision, do benefit in terms of their career.

This epitomizes the problem with academic publishing in a nutshell. A hugely expensive project, 100% funded by the taxpayer. And the only people making money off it is a publisher who had squat to do with it—they didn’t pay for the research; they didn’t pay for the writing; they didn’t pay for the peer reviewers; and the salaries they did pay were subsidized by universities. Meanwhile, the cost of journals like Science is bankrupting libraries, forcing them to cut their acquisitions in order to line the pockets of publishing execs and stockholders.

There really needs to be a law that any scientific papers that are the result of a publicly funded project must be made freely available to the public.

And that blogger is wrong about copyright law. Yes, works of the federal government are in the public domain, but these are works of the authors, not the government. What he states should be the law, but it isn’t. (And he could get in a lot of trouble for posting the copyrighted material.)

[ Edited: 29 September 2013 06:50 PM by Dave Wilton ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 12:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1206
Joined  2007-04-28

Another academic hoax here.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 03:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4599
Joined  2007-01-03

Mark Liberman at Language Log has a good rundown, with a lot of good links.

The issue is not, as Science would claim, a problem with open access. It’s with the practice of charging author fees, which is not limited to open access journals, and problems inherent in peer review. One of the linked articles notes that Science has one of the highest rates of retracted articles in the academic publishing industry. So they suffer from the same problem.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4