Re Scientific publishing is a rip-off. We fund the research – it should be free | George Monbiot | Opinion | The Guardian

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Mary Shaw <mary.shaw () gmail com>
> Date: September 15, 2018 at 1:58:54 AM GMT+9
> To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re Scientific publishing is a rip-off. We fund the research – it should be free | George Monbiot | 
> Opinion | The Guardian
>
> In another development in the movement to make scientific results broadly available, European funding agencies are 
> moving toward open publication.
>
> European science funders ban grantees from publishing in paywalled journals
>
> Frustrated with the slow transition toward open access (OA) in scientific publishing, 11 national funding 
> organizations in Europe turned up the pressure today. As of 2020, the group, which jointly spends about €7.6 billion 
> on research annually, will require every paper it funds to be freely available from the moment of publication. In a 
> statement, the group said it will no longer allow the 6- or 12-month delays that many subscription journals now 
> require before a paper is made OA, and it won't allow publication in so-called hybrid journals, which charge 
> subscriptions but also make individual papers OA for an extra fee. 
>
> The move means grantees from these 11 funders—which include the national funding agencies in the United Kingdom, the 
> Netherlands, and France as well as Italy's National Institute for Nuclear Physics—will have to forgo publishing in 
> thousands of journals, including high-profile ones such as Nature, Science, Cell, and The Lancet, unless those 
> journals change their business model. "We think this could create a tipping point," says Marc Schiltz, president of 
> Science Europe, the Brussels-based association of science organizations that helped coordinate the plan. "Really the 
> idea was to make a big, decisive step—not to come up with another statement or an expression of intent."
>
> The announcement delighted many OA advocates. [[snip]]
>
> But traditional publishers are not pleased. [[snip]]
>
> [[snip]]
>
> Under Plan S, as it's called, authors need to retain the copyright on their papers and publish them under an open 
> license. The plan will cap the fees paid for publication in OA journals at a yet-to-be-determined level. Publication 
> in hybrid journals—of which Springer Nature operates more than 1700 and Elsevier more than 1850—will be phased out 
> under the plan because such journals have not proved to be the transition model that many hoped they would be, 
> Schiltz says. In fact, he adds, "We now pay more" because the author publication fees come on top of the subscription 
> price. (The Springer Nature statement says hybrid journals  do "support the transition towards full open access"; 
> under special "read and publish" agreements, they allow 70% of authors in four European countries to make their 
> research available immediately.)
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/european-science-funders-ban-grantees-publishing-paywalled-journals
>
>
>
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:39 PM Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Begin forwarded message:
> > >
> > > From: "Jess H. Brewer" <jess () jick net>
> > > Subject: Re: [IP] Scientific publishing is a rip-off. We fund the research – it should be free | George Monbiot | 
> > > Opinion | The Guardian
> > > Date: September 14, 2018 11:36:12 JST
> > > To: dave () farber net
> > > Cc: Randall Head <rvhead40 () gmail com>
> > > Reply-To: jess () jick net
> > >
> > > Most federal governments now require all work funded by the government to be published in "Open Access Journals" 
> > > (OAJ) which charge the AUTHORS to publish their work, rather than charging the READERS to view it.  This sounds 
> > > great, but it has resulted in an exponentially growing new industry of "vanity presses" that will publish ANYTHING 
> > > for a price.  
> > >
> > > Meanwhile essentially every paper written in physics is immediately available for free from http://arXiv.org -- 
> > > what is missing there is the PEER REVIEW that generates semi-reliable advice about which of those papers are WORTH 
> > > reading.  
> > >
> > > The solution is outlined at http://opeer.org
> > >
> > > -- Jess
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 09/12/2018 11:57 PM, Dave Farber wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/13/scientific-publishing-rip-off-taxpayers-fund-research
> > > > >
> > > > > Scientific publishing is a rip-off. We fund the research – it should be free | George Monbiot
> > > > > Thu 13 Sep 2018
> > > > > Those who take on the global industry that traps research behind paywalls are heroes, not thieves
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Illustration: Eva Bee
> > > > > Never underestimate the power of one determined person. What Carole Cadwalladr has done to Facebook and big data, 
> > > > > and Edward Snowden has done to the state security complex, Alexandra Elbakyan has done to the multibillion-dollar 
> > > > > industry that traps knowledge behind paywalls. Sci-Hub, her pirate web scraper service, has done more than any 
> > > > > government to tackle one of the biggest rip-offs of the modern era: the capture of publicly funded research that 
> > > > > should belong to us all. Everyone should be free to learn; knowledge should be disseminated as widely as 
> > > > > possible. No one would publicly disagree with these sentiments. Yet governments and universities have allowed the 
> > > > > big academic publishers to deny these rights. Academic publishing might sound like an obscure and fusty affair, 
> > > > > but it uses one of the most ruthless and profitable business models of any industry.
> > > > >
> > > > > The model was pioneered by the notorious conman Robert Maxwell. He realised that, because scientists need to be 
> > > > > informed about all significant developments in their field, every journal that publishes academic papers can 
> > > > > establish a monopoly and charge outrageous fees for the transmission of knowledge. He called his discovery “a 
> > > > > perpetual financing machine”. He also realised that he could capture other people’s labour and resources for 
> > > > > nothing. Governments funded the research published by his company, Pergamon, while scientists wrote the articles, 
> > > > > reviewed them and edited the journals for free. His business model relied on the enclosure of common and public 
> > > > > resources. Or, to use the technical term, daylight robbery.
> > > > >
> > > > > As his other ventures ran into trouble, he sold his company to the Dutch publishing giant Elsevier. Like its 
> > > > > major rivals, it has sustained the model to this day, and continues to make spectacular profits. Half the world’s 
> > > > > research is published by five companies: Reed Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, Wiley-Blackwell and the 
> > > > > American Chemical Society. Libraries must pay a fortune for their bundled journals, while those outside the 
> > > > > university system are asked to pay $20, $30, sometimes $50 to read a single article.
> > > > >
> > > > > While open-access journals have grown rapidly, researchers still have to read the paywalled articles in 
> > > > > commercial journals. And, because their work is assessed by those who might fund, reward or promote them 
> > > > > according to the impact of the journals in which they publish, many feel they have no choice but to surrender 
> > > > > their research to these companies. Science ministers come and go without saying a word about this rip-off.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ‘Robert Maxwell called his discovery “a perpetual financing machine”.’ Photograph: Terry O'Neill/Hulton 
> > > > > Archive/Getty Images
> > > > > After my cancer diagnosis this year, I was offered a choice of treatments. I wanted to make an informed decision. 
> > > > > This meant reading scientific papers. Had I not used the stolen material provided by Sci-Hub, it would have cost 
> > > > > me thousands. Because I, like most people, don’t have this kind of money, I would have given up before I was 
> > > > > properly informed. I have never met Elbakyan, and I can only speculate about alternative outcomes had the 
> > > > > research I read not swayed my decision. But it is possible that she has saved my life.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like people in many countries where scholarship is poorly funded, Elbakyan discovered that she could not complete 
> > > > > her neuroscience research without pirated articles. Outraged by the journals’ padlock on knowledge, she used her 
> > > > > hacking skills to share papers more widely. Sci-Hub allows free access to 70m papers, otherwise locked behind 
> > > > > paywalls.
> > > > >
> > > > > She was sued in 2015 by Elsevier, which won $15m in damages for copyright infringement, and in 2017 by the 
> > > > > American Chemical Society, resulting in a $4.8m fine. These were civil cases, concerning civil matters. While the 
> > > > > US courts have characterised her activities as copyright violation and data theft, to me her work involves the 
> > > > > restoration to the public realm of property that belongs to us and for which we have paid. In the great majority 
> > > > > of cases, the research reported has been funded by taxpayers. Most of the work involved in writing the papers, 
> > > > > reviewing and editing them is carried out at public expense by people at universities. Yet this public asset has 
> > > > > been captured, packaged and sold back to us for phenomenal fees. Those who pay most are publicly funded 
> > > > > libraries. Taxpayers must shell out twice: first for the research, then to see the work they have sponsored. 
> > > > > There might be legal justifications for this practice. There are no ethical justifications.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alexandra Elbakyan lives in hiding, beyond the jurisdiction of the US courts, and moves Sci-Hub between domains 
> > > > > as it gets taken down. She is by no means the only person to have challenged the big publishers. The Public 
> > > > > Library of Science, founded by researchers who objected not only to the industry’s denial of public access but 
> > > > > also its slow, antiquated and clumsy modes of publishing that hold back scientific research, has demonstrated 
> > > > > that you don’t need paywalls to produce excellent journals. Advocates like Stevan Harnad, Björn Brembs, Peter 
> > > > > Suber and Michael Eisen have changed the public mood. The brilliant online innovator Aaron Swartz sought to 
> > > > > release 5m scientific articles into the public domain. Facing the possibility of decades in a US federal prison 
> > > > > for this selfless act, he took his life.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now libraries feel empowered to confront the big publishers. They can refuse to renew contracts with companies as 
> > > > > their users have another means of getting past the paywall. As the system has begun to creak, government funding 
> > > > > agencies have at last summoned the courage to do what they should have done decades ago, and demand the 
> > > > > democratisation of knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > Last week, a consortium of European funders, including major research agencies in the UK, France, the Netherlands 
> > > > > and Italy, published their “Plan S”. It insists that, from 2020, research we have already paid for through our 
> > > > > taxes will no longer be locked up. Any researcher receiving money from these funders must publish her or his work 
> > > > > only in open-access journals.
> > > > >
> > > > > The publishers have gone ballistic. Springer Nature argues that this plan “potentially undermines the whole 
> > > > > research publishing system”. Yes, that’s the point. The publishers of the Science series maintain that it would 
> > > > > “disrupt scholarly communications, be a disservice to researchers, and impinge academic freedom”. Elsevier says, 
> > > > > “If you think information shouldn’t cost anything, go to Wikipedia”, inadvertently reminding us of what happened 
> > > > > to the commercial encyclopedias.
> > > > >
> > > > > Plan S is not perfect, but this should be the beginning of the end of Maxwell’s outrageous legacy. In the 
> > > > > meantime, as a matter of principle, do not pay a penny to read an academic                 article. The ethical 
> > > > > choice is to read the stolen material published by Sci-Hub.
> > > > >
> > > > > • George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist
> > > > >
> > > > > Since you’re here…
> > > > >
> > > > > … we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across 
> > > > > the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our 
> > > > > journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, 
> > > > > investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our 
> > > > > perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Guardian is editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free from commercial 
> > > > > bias and not influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No one edits our Editor. No one 
> > > > > steers our opinion. This is important because it enables us to give a voice to the voiceless, challenge the 
> > > > > powerful and hold them to account. It’s what makes us different to so many others in the media, at a time when 
> > > > > factual, honest reporting is critical.
> > > > >
> > > > > If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure. For 
> > > > > as little as $1, you can support the Guardian – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.
> >
> > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now         



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-a538de84&post_id=20180914145104:1FEB9158-B84F-11E8-9B6B-D3D773B8C868
Powered by Listbox: https://www.listbox.com