Paywall politics

Was fortunate in the military/post-doc (residency), able to get what I needed. Don't know if it is still the case there.

Not sure they shelled out whatever $$$ it took to get access, or if paywall keepers gave the military a free or discounted pass, but if not available library resources seemed to procure all requests.

 

I would not fiercely defend scientific publishers, either for subscription journal models or for inflating prices on course-required textbooks.

Don't know what alternative leads to maintenance of publishing quality.

Just a few other comments. Mostly reheated leftovers.

Open-access publishing transfers costs to authors. Range of USD$1000 to $5000 covers most journals; a few may be higher or lower. OA does not entirely remove 'taxpayer pays twice' aspect. Funding funds research and then pays publication costs.

Authors will rarely decline direct email requests for free pdfs. It is not illegal (see fair use). Cited above mentions a cancer victim wanting to read about it. I am sure that email requests including such words would be fulfilled quickly.

Public and university libraries are good places for grazing because they pay for journal subscriptions. In you go with USB memory stick and get busy. Often another aspect of taxpayer paying twice, with the exception that folks too lazy to go there have paid and are sofa-trapped from getting what they've already paid for.

High subscription costs in rich countries sometimes subsidize lower costs in poor countries. You may not personally feel well-served by such policies, but 3rd world researchers appreciate it.

Finally, of no particular interest to most readers, is that outside reviewers for journals work for free. As a member of that group I am guilty of coveting publishers' money bucket. But that's what we signed up for... To the extent that tax money pays such peoples' salary, and while reviewing one cannot do anything else, taxpayers pay for that as well.

 

Some (journal article authors) link to pdfs of paywalled articles on their (institutional or personal) websites. But with authors actually getting successfully sued by publishers for copyright infringement, this practice seems unlikely to spread.

Exceptions -

Older articles seem unlikely to be lawsuit targets with thesis being that publishers have already squeezed most of potential revenue out of those products.

Researchers in countries where US or Euro publishers are unlikely to prevail in courts. The wild, wild west. Yee-haw.

==

BTW authors of book chapters often do not have pdfs to hand out. But also note that if your library pays a broad subscription fee to a publisher (Springer Verlag for example ) some of their books can be downloaded in their entirety.

Your humble servant may have told poor-country visitors to a research institution in this country to graze extensively while here. Take the goodies back home and do whatever with them. While this might affect taxpayers in this country, PriusChatters won't care. Yee-haw.

 

Sci-Hub is (or was) in Russia, with what appears to be a hacking model.

Also in Russia is academia.ru In US is ResearchGate. These have a different model - authors post their papers to cite for free download. Don't know of anybody being sued at either site but I guess it could happen. More likely perhaps is publisher reminding author of copyright release they signed as condition for publishing.

Signing is not optional . Some publishers are more squeezy than other perhaps.

 

While the reviewers work for free, the people organizing them, working as the go between them and the authors, and maintaining their library do not. While the physical printing of papers is reduced, servers, electricity, and bandwidth aren't free.

It's kind of like a birth certificate or other personal government document. They pertain to you, you pay taxes, but there are fees for a copy if you need one.

 

Number of journals being published is growing rapidly. Probably the number of printed pages is growing much more slowly. How does computer hosting and serving a page (for years or longer) compare with the print run of that page? I have no idea.

Publishing industry has costs, to state the obvious. I think that large publishers' profits are growing. Should be knowable in most cases.

Several journals I am very familiar with do all their typesetting and layout in India. Not objecting to that; it is simply a cost-cutting measure. Might not be polite to name then but I don't think it's really secret.

Another trend, not obvious (or important?) to casual observers is inline-only publication of supplementary information (or some similar name). Unlike printed main text, there is very generous size allowance - far more than 10 megabytes - in fact they are not typically stated so one could just pile stuff in and see if the editor objects.

Other aspect of supplementary information is that they are not formally reviewed. So one might hold that material in lower esteem I guess.

I'm just spouting off here on an industry I may know better than average reader. Not contributing to solution of initially stated problem.

 

Not all US government publications are available at no cost. if I provided a list, it would be incomplete. This might be considered, while calling upon science publishers to abandon their current financial model.

 

Scientific journals have paid editors. Financial details are not known to me, and I'd be surprised if cold emails to members of editorial boards got answered. Yet. those are probably not among largest costs for publishers.

Publishers attend national and international scientific meetings with staff and large displays in the 'vendor area'. Pay registration fee and see them. Get free candies, pens or tote bags. Bring a plausible book outline and they will buy you dinner to discuss it.

Just trying to add insight into the industry. Still not claiming to solve problem of how government-funded research (most of it is) should come freely to interested readers. Which it mostly already is, except for (your) sloth.

 

Was that too accusative? Should I not have said that?

Anyway, sloths have essentially perfected the art of slow. I'd say they deserve praise for that - but if you give it only slowly that probably would work for them. Human slowness is (perhaps) atypical and does not play to our many other strengths.

 

MANY scientists have championed the idea that publicly funded research should be available to all and not locked away in pricey journals. Although this “open access” ethos has become more popular in recent years, most researchers’ work remains fenced off by an online paywall. That may change with a radical European initiative unveiled earlier this month.

Eleven European countries, including Britain, France and the Netherlands, have signed up to what is called “Plan S”. This requires scientists who benefit from those countries’ national-research funding organisations to publish their work only in open-access journals on freely accessible websites by 2020. That would in turn prevent papers from appearing in around 85% of periodicals, including some of the most esteemed, such as Nature and Science.
​

European countries demand that publicly funded research be free - Scientific publishing

 

I might dispute that 85% as paywalled journals are increasingly offering option for open access. As stated above, this means authors or their institutions pay in $1000 to $5000 range.

In a few years, Nature and Science and some small publishing houses may become islands in a sea of open access.

Small quote from link@11:

"International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers, which represents 145 publishers, believes this could reduce the level of peer review that journals could afford"

Afford? I really don't understand that. It seems to suggest that peer reviewers somewhere are being paid, and unpaying them would downgrade review quality. Would be sad to learn that peer reviewers somewhere are being paid, because I and many others are not. We can't be, because, according to scripture, pay to reviewers causes us to lose objectivity.

Please give that a moment of thought. A hundred (or thousand?) dollars paid would be enough to cause abandonment of principles like "speak only the truth" and "do not argue beyond your data".

Gawd, somebody supposes that peer reviewers can be cheaply bought. I find that insulting.

 

Look. In words with origins lost to time, "do your own damn research". Choose 5 "pricey" journals. Their open websites show what has been published lately and by whom. Choose an article from each and ask corresponding author of each, by email, for a free pdf. Don't say who you are or why you want it, just 'give me that'. I don't even care if you read them.

Share your success rates here. Ignore my success rates, because maybe my email address smells academic.

Let your results inform less-motivated readers' opinions on these touted paywalls.

But, guess what? Sometimes corresponding author's emails are not disclosed. Those with skills enough to find cat videos can get past that tiny barrier.

 

This reminds me of the complaint that the Union of Concerned Scientists is a money raising organization. Well, duh, the work done isn't free to do, and while tax payer money may have paid for the research, that doesn't mean it paid for the dissemination of the results.

Remember, there is no free lunch.

 

Indeed.
This is a ridiculous argument, like a lot of others these days it seems.

So, try this on for size:
We (your average consumer) pays for EVERYTHING in the end, so maybe everything should be free.

 

Two other perspectives on Sci-Hub:

Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone | Science | AAAS

Guest Post: Think Sci-Hub is Just Downloading PDFs? Think Again - The Scholarly Kitchen

==
It seems there are at least two matters on the table for discussion here.

1. Are fee-based journals (they may be either for-profits or non-profits) the correct or only correct model for scientific publishing?

2. Is Sci-Hub (or similar activities) an appropriate response to fee-based journals?

My own tirades that average citizens can gain access to much scientific literature, piecewise, for their own use, are separate things. Or mostly separate. One can surely appreciate that Average citizens in poor countries may not have access to libraries with extensive journal subscriptions. They may have email addresses that look suspicious to authors' anti-spam, and so 'request' emails go to folders never opened. My touted cure lacks global reach.

Even if it had global reach it would not moot the two matters above. They remain unresolved.

 

Retraction does not always happen. Not inclined to reveal names, but I was pretty steamed in grad school that some person had published same words in two different journals.

This was highlighted by choral simultaneous recitations of both texts. Ah the drama...

 

Often the case that articles appearing in low-end journals have previously been rejected higher up the ladder. Authors have tendencies too aim too high, or not realize where research of a particular quality really fits in. It wastes many peoples' time.

Another personal quibble that applies to several Asian countries is authorship inflation. Seems clear to me that one is not an author unless one did at least some of the work or writing. Around here, that rule can be applied very loosely.