http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/09/the-future-of-academic-publishing/ The sad truth is that we are hobbled by the tyranny of tradition. Researchers are used to publishing papers in traditional journals: this is what we are rewarded for and measured by. Publishers are used to being paid every time they deliver an article to a reader. The rational response to the internet would be for the whole community to transition to a service model: instead of charging for access, publishers would provide services like co-ordinating peer-review, formatting, web-hosting and archiving, and charge for those services. Indeed some publishers do work on that model, notably PLoS (created only in 2003) and BioMed Central (founded in 2000). But the big, established publishers have overwhelmingly clung to the old pay-for-access model. Disastrously, this means that they invest time and money into building elaborate systems for preventing access, then charge for briefly taking those barriers down. It�s a waste of everyone�s time and effort. What this means is that paradoxically publishers� interests are now directly opposed to those of everyone else. Researchers want their papers to be read, everyone else wants to read them; but the publishers� business model is to impose artificial scarcity on papers that could � that want to � replicate freely around the world. Publishers actively work to prevent the free spread of information that patient groups, small businesses and the rest need. They seemingly set themselves to inhibit automated analysis, to ensure that text-mining isn�t possible � in short, to retard the progress of science. Because only when they have made it hard to get hold of papers can they make money by selling access. This was the status quo as 2011 drew to an end: researchers uneasily accepting the world the publishers have imposed, and trying to get work done in a horribly suboptimal environment. And then into that status quo came the RWA: a bill of such wretchedly transparent self- interest that it catalysed researchers� discontent. In effect the RWA was a declaration of war from the publishers, an explicit confession that it�s us against them, that talk of a partnership is just propaganda while their tanks roll down our streets. What the publishers didn�t expect was that researchers would fight back. But in the face of such flagrant hostility, we had to, and we have. The Elsevier boycott has been described in some quarters as a petition. But it�s not. It�s a declaration of independence.
The future of academic publishing
Started by ●February 10, 2012
Reply by ●February 10, 20122012-02-10
HardySpicer <gyansorova@gmail.com> wrote:> http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/09/the-future-of-academic-publishing/> The sad truth is that we are hobbled by the tyranny of tradition. > Researchers are used to publishing papers in traditional journals: > this is what we are rewarded for and measured by. Publishers are used > to being paid every time they deliver an article to a reader. The > rational response to the internet would be for the whole community to > transition to a service model: instead of charging for access, > publishers would provide services like co-ordinating peer-review, > formatting, web-hosting and archiving, and charge for those services. > Indeed some publishers do work on that model, notably PLoS (created > only in 2003) and BioMed Central (founded in 2000).I have started wondering if other parts of everyday life need to adapt to new economic models. There is a new toll system that just started on a bridge in Seattle. No toll booths, but most cars will use a transponder that is picked up as you cross, and automatically charged to your account. For cars without one, they mail a bill based on reading your license plate, and charge a little more to cover the extra work needed. The old model, that roads and bridges were funded by taxes, might be replaced by a toll model, where users pay based on usage. Back to journals, if the more prestegious journals charge more, then they have to work harder to get good papers. Subscribers will expect better papers, and give more credit to authors who get their papers into better journals. But the subscription system, as far as I know, charges all libraries the same rate, independent of the size of the school or otherwise how many read the paper. Researchers at such schools don't pay based on how many articles they read, or how useful the articles are. Like the tax funded bridge, it might be better if the charge was based more on usage.> But the big, established publishers have overwhelmingly clung to the > old pay-for-access model. Disastrously, this means that they invest > time and money into building elaborate systems for preventing access, > then charge for briefly taking those barriers down. It???s a waste of > everyone???s time and effort.As the price increases, fewer libraries purchase the expensive journals, so they increase the price to others to cover the difference.> What this means is that paradoxically publishers??? interests are now > directly opposed to those of everyone else. Researchers want their > papers to be read, everyone else wants to read them; but the > publishers??? business model is to impose artificial scarcity on papers > that could ??? that want to ??? replicate freely around the world. > Publishers actively work to prevent the free spread of information > that patient groups, small businesses and the rest need. They > seemingly set themselves to inhibit automated analysis, to ensure that > text-mining isn???t possible ??? in short, to retard the progress of > science. Because only when they have made it hard to get hold of > papers can they make money by selling access.It does seem that some artificial scarcity is needed, though. That is, enough that better journals get better papers, and readers can, to some extent, use that as a filter. That depends much on the review process, though.> This was the status quo as 2011 drew to an end: researchers uneasily > accepting the world the publishers have imposed, and trying to get > work done in a horribly suboptimal environment.-- glen
Reply by ●February 10, 20122012-02-10
Hi Glen, On 2/10/2012 2:57 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:> HardySpicer<gyansorova@gmail.com> wrote: >> http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/09/the-future-of-academic-publishing/ > >> The sad truth is that we are hobbled by the tyranny of tradition. >> Researchers are used to publishing papers in traditional journals: >> this is what we are rewarded for and measured by. Publishers are used >> to being paid every time they deliver an article to a reader. The >> rational response to the internet would be for the whole community to >> transition to a service model: instead of charging for access, >> publishers would provide services like co-ordinating peer-review, >> formatting, web-hosting and archiving, and charge for those services. >> Indeed some publishers do work on that model, notably PLoS (created >> only in 2003) and BioMed Central (founded in 2000). > > I have started wondering if other parts of everyday life need to > adapt to new economic models. > > There is a new toll system that just started on a bridge in Seattle. > No toll booths, but most cars will use a transponder that is picked > up as you cross, and automatically charged to your account. For cars > without one, they mail a bill based on reading your license plate, > and charge a little more to cover the extra work needed. > > The old model, that roads and bridges were funded by taxes, > might be replaced by a toll model, where users pay based on usage.You have to think about where the value gets added -- and for *whom*. Does the benefit of the road/bridge (taking your example, for now) apply only to the folks traveling across those (or transporting goods across them)? Does it have some (possibly intangible or not easily *measurable*) value to folks whose properties are suddenly more accessible than if the road/bridge were absent? Or, whose transportation costs are otherwise reduced? etc. (Moving on to similar examples...) Does the "new stadium" *only* benefit the groups using the stadium? The fans who attend "performances" there? Does it have any benefit to the surrounding community? Any intangible "prestige" benefits? (Even tougher!...) Should law enforcement be underwritten by criminals and victims? Should anyone NOT in this category have to contribute? If I've safeguarded my property to make me less of a potential victim, should I be released from some of those financial obligations? Etc. (amusing ideas to think *objectively* about, IMO. Think about the same things when it comes to how cell phone usage is billed, email, etc.) Within that mindset:> Back to journals, if the more prestegious journals charge more, > then they have to work harder to get good papers. Subscribers will > expect better papers, and give more credit to authors who get > their papers into better journals.So, there is benefit to the authors *in* those journals as well as the consumers of those journals. Should *authors* be charged a "publication fee"? Should consumers be charged to read the work? What's the *goal* -- besides enabling a third-party to benefit from the work -- and needs -- of others? Are authors anxious to have their works seen (and, thus, eager to PAY for that privilege)? Are consumers/researchers anxious to have access to other folks' work (and pay for *that*)? Who are the publisher's real customers? etc.> But the subscription system, as far as I know, charges all libraries > the same rate, independent of the size of the school or otherwise > how many read the paper. Researchers at such schools don't pay > based on how many articles they read, or how useful the articles are. > > Like the tax funded bridge, it might be better if the charge > was based more on usage.But does that just cause people to come up with ways of disguising their usage? Or, *limiting* it? ("You'd better have a REAL NEED to see this paper cuz it's going to cost us $X for you to take a peek!") Ages ago, the type of machine determined licensing/registration fees. "You've got a big VAX? Oh, that's going to cost you big time!" "Oh, just a dinky PC? That'll be $9.95 -- pay on your way out.">> But the big, established publishers have overwhelmingly clung to the >> old pay-for-access model. Disastrously, this means that they invest >> time and money into building elaborate systems for preventing access, >> then charge for briefly taking those barriers down. It???s a waste of >> everyone???s time and effort. > > As the price increases, fewer libraries purchase the expensive > journals, so they increase the price to others to cover the > difference."Daddy's gotta *eat*...">> What this means is that paradoxically publishers??? interests are now >> directly opposed to those of everyone else. Researchers want their >> papers to be read, everyone else wants to read them; but the >> publishers??? business model is to impose artificial scarcity on papers >> that could ??? that want to ??? replicate freely around the world. >> Publishers actively work to prevent the free spread of information >> that patient groups, small businesses and the rest need. They >> seemingly set themselves to inhibit automated analysis, to ensure that >> text-mining isn???t possible ??? in short, to retard the progress of >> science. Because only when they have made it hard to get hold of >> papers can they make money by selling access. > > It does seem that some artificial scarcity is needed, though. > That is, enough that better journals get better papers, and > readers can, to some extent, use that as a filter. That depends > much on the review process, though.This sounds strikingly similar to the entertainment industry working to keep itself as the middle-man between artist and consumer. Years ago, when someone had to press the vinyl/acetate and publicize the artist or subsidize the production (gambling on the result), this may have had a place. But, you wonder how much of that is necessary, today (when *anyone* can publish and distribute anything for practically no cost -- and, get immediate feedback on how well it is received!) So, what's the value added -- and from whose perspective? That gives you a clue as to who *might* be willing to pay...>> This was the status quo as 2011 drew to an end: researchers uneasily >> accepting the world the publishers have imposed, and trying to get >> work done in a horribly suboptimal environment. > > -- glen
Reply by ●February 10, 20122012-02-10
Don Y <this@isnotme.com> wrote:>> HardySpicer<gyansorova@gmail.com> wrote: >>> http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/09/the-future-of-academic-publishing/>>> The sad truth is that we are hobbled by the tyranny of tradition. >>> Researchers are used to publishing papers in traditional journals: >>> this is what we are rewarded for and measured by. Publishers are used >>> to being paid every time they deliver an article to a reader.(snip, then I wrote)>> I have started wondering if other parts of everyday life need to >> adapt to new economic models.>> There is a new toll system that just started on a bridge in Seattle. >> No toll booths, but most cars will use a transponder that is picked >> up as you cross, and automatically charged to your account. For cars >> without one, they mail a bill based on reading your license plate, >> and charge a little more to cover the extra work needed.>> The old model, that roads and bridges were funded by taxes, >> might be replaced by a toll model, where users pay based on usage.> You have to think about where the value gets added -- and for *whom*.> Does the benefit of the road/bridge (taking your example, for now) > apply only to the folks traveling across those (or transporting > goods across them)?Well, tolls, at least in this case, pay only about 20% of the cost. But like copayments and deductables, they help control who uses a resource. So, taxes still pay for most of the cost. But people keep voting down tax increases, and voting for more candidates who promise tax cuts. They do this, even though they don't want reduced services, such as roads and bridges. In the past, though, the cost of toll collecting was high enough that it wasn't done everywhere it might make sense. (In many cases, much of the toll might cover the collection cost!) But as collection cost decreases, it might make more sense to toll more roads, though maybe not at 100% of the cost. More fair might be a toll that was income dependent, like a progressive tax rate. That might be possible with better electronic toll systems.> Does it have some (possibly intangible or > not easily *measurable*) value to folks whose properties are > suddenly more accessible than if the road/bridge were absent? > Or, whose transportation costs are otherwise reduced? etc.In this case, it is paying for a replacement bridge.> (Moving on to similar examples...)> Does the "new stadium" *only* benefit the groups using the stadium? > The fans who attend "performances" there? Does it have any benefit > to the surrounding community? Any intangible "prestige" benefits?> (Even tougher!...)> Should law enforcement be underwritten by criminals and victims? > Should anyone NOT in this category have to contribute? If I've > safeguarded my property to make me less of a potential victim, > should I be released from some of those financial obligations?As more expensive property has more incentive to criminals, it does make sense for the rich to pay more in taxes for law enforcement. I might not be against paying for some law enforcement through an insurance system, though. That is, similar to the way some outside the city limits property owners pay for fire service. Forget to pay, and they don't put out the fire.> Etc.> (amusing ideas to think *objectively* about, IMO. Think about > the same things when it comes to how cell phone usage is billed, > email, etc.)Personally, I don't like the free phone, subsidized by expensive phone plan system.> Within that mindset:>> Back to journals, if the more prestegious journals charge more, >> then they have to work harder to get good papers. Subscribers will >> expect better papers, and give more credit to authors who get >> their papers into better journals.> So, there is benefit to the authors *in* those journals as > well as the consumers of those journals. Should *authors* > be charged a "publication fee"? Should consumers be charged > to read the work?As I understand it, many journals have a page charge. If you don't pay, it still gets published, but not as fast. Traditionally, as with roads, the cost was paid independent of who used it. Libraries subscribe to the journals that their patrons read. That was the best system before easy electronic access. (Consider the case if you had to mail order each article, and wait weeks to receive it.) With electronic access, though, one could charge a reasonable fee for each use.> What's the *goal* -- besides enabling a third-party to benefit from > the work -- and needs -- of others? Are authors anxious to have > their works seen (and, thus, eager to PAY for that privilege)? > Are consumers/researchers anxious to have access to other folks' > work (and pay for *that*)?Papers are important for much research.> Who are the publisher's real customers? etc.>> But the subscription system, as far as I know, charges all libraries >> the same rate, independent of the size of the school or otherwise >> how many read the paper. Researchers at such schools don't pay >> based on how many articles they read, or how useful the articles are.>> Like the tax funded bridge, it might be better if the charge >> was based more on usage.> But does that just cause people to come up with ways of disguising > their usage? Or, *limiting* it? ("You'd better have a REAL NEED > to see this paper cuz it's going to cost us $X for you to take a > peek!")In the bridge case, there is another bridge, currently not tolled, not so far away, or you can drive around. (It crosses a lake.) People can weight the cost, their time, and the gas to take a longer route.> Ages ago, the type of machine determined licensing/registration fees. > "You've got a big VAX? Oh, that's going to cost you big time!" > "Oh, just a dinky PC? That'll be $9.95 -- pay on your way out."It used to be that computers were leased with usage meters, such that the rent was based on how much it was used. But the size of the machine is not necessarily related to the usage of any one program on that machine. In the case of leased machines, one might be able to charge for software based on usage.>>> But the big, established publishers have overwhelmingly clung to the >>> old pay-for-access model. Disastrously, this means that they invest >>> time and money into building elaborate systems for preventing access, >>> then charge for briefly taking those barriers down. It???s a waste of >>> everyone???s time and effort.>> As the price increases, fewer libraries purchase the expensive >> journals, so they increase the price to others to cover the >> difference.> "Daddy's gotta *eat*..."(snip)>> It does seem that some artificial scarcity is needed, though. >> That is, enough that better journals get better papers, and >> readers can, to some extent, use that as a filter. That depends >> much on the review process, though.> This sounds strikingly similar to the entertainment industry > working to keep itself as the middle-man between artist and > consumer.I have wondered while waiting in line at movie theaters, why the charge is the same for all movies. Well, there are discount theaters that show older movies, but mostly the model doesn't consider that better movies, or longer movies, should cost more.> Years ago, when someone had to press the vinyl/acetate > and publicize the artist or subsidize the production (gambling on > the result), this may have had a place. But, you wonder how much > of that is necessary, today (when *anyone* can publish and distribute > anything for practically no cost -- and, get immediate feedback on > how well it is received!)Well, anyone can publish, but expensive Hollywood movies will have to be funded somehow.> So, what's the value added -- and from whose perspective? That > gives you a clue as to who *might* be willing to pay...The commercial television model, watch free but also watch advertizing, seems to work. Other models might work better.>>> This was the status quo as 2011 drew to an end: researchers uneasily >>> accepting the world the publishers have imposed, and trying to get >>> work done in a horribly suboptimal environment.It does seem that there might be better ways to do much of what our economic system depends on. That better pricing models are now possible, when they weren't before. -- glen
Reply by ●February 10, 20122012-02-10
Hi Glen, On 2/10/2012 6:01 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:>>> I have started wondering if other parts of everyday life need to >>> adapt to new economic models. > >>> There is a new toll system that just started on a bridge in Seattle. >>> No toll booths, but most cars will use a transponder that is picked >>> up as you cross, and automatically charged to your account. For cars >>> without one, they mail a bill based on reading your license plate, >>> and charge a little more to cover the extra work needed. > >>> The old model, that roads and bridges were funded by taxes, >>> might be replaced by a toll model, where users pay based on usage. > >> You have to think about where the value gets added -- and for *whom*. > >> Does the benefit of the road/bridge (taking your example, for now) >> apply only to the folks traveling across those (or transporting >> goods across them)? > > Well, tolls, at least in this case, pay only about 20% of the cost. > > But like copayments and deductables, they help control who uses > a resource. So, taxes still pay for most of the cost. > > But people keep voting down tax increases, and voting for more > candidates who promise tax cuts. They do this, even though they > don't want reduced services, such as roads and bridges.Of course! That's part of what it means to be *human* (the OTHER guy should pay for what *I* want!) :>> In the past, though, the cost of toll collecting was high enough > that it wasn't done everywhere it might make sense. (In many cases, > much of the toll might cover the collection cost!) But as collectionYes. The Northeast/East is known for lots of toll roads, bridges, etc. (The Toll Authority in Chicagoland is a notable midwesten instance). Often the joke was that the toll COLLECTORS were just collecting their *salaries* from passers-by. (At least the roads around chicago are well maintained -- or *were*, last time I was there)> cost decreases, it might make more sense to toll more roads, > though maybe not at 100% of the cost.But think of other places where there are "exceptional", unaccounted costs. E.g., there are frequently cases where folks have to be "rescued", here, someplace out in the wilderness. Or, a campfire that gets out of control and burns a few hundred *thousand* acres. Yet, the costs for "fixing" these problems is never allocated in a reasonable way I.e., campers aren't charged a fee that is designed to recover -- when considered as a group -- anywhere near the EXPECTED costs of the inevitable "unattended campfire". Hikers aren't charged for a permit (nor RECOVERY EXPENSES) as they wander around the wilderness. Etc. We *do* have a "stupid motorist" law on the books that bills people who drive into flooded roadways and need to be "rescued". I don't know how much of the cost of the rescue is actually and accurately passed on, though. (this happens with surprising regularity, *despite* the law!)> More fair might be a toll that was income dependent, like a > progressive tax rate. That might be possible with better > electronic toll systems.Ha! Good luck with *that*! :>>> Should law enforcement be underwritten by criminals and victims? >> Should anyone NOT in this category have to contribute? If I've >> safeguarded my property to make me less of a potential victim, >> should I be released from some of those financial obligations? > > As more expensive property has more incentive to criminals, > it does make sense for the rich to pay more in taxes for law > enforcement. I might not be against paying for some law enforcement > through an insurance system, though.If I own a gun and am WILLING TO USE IT (to defend my property; do my own "policing"), should I get a "credit"? Ah, but then what happens when folks decide that buying a gun is a cheap alternative than subsidizing law enforcement?> That is, similar to the way some outside the city limits > property owners pay for fire service. Forget to pay, and > they don't put out the fire.Yes. But I wonder if that really happens? I.e., the neighbor (who *did* pay) wants his property protected. Does the fire dept wait until the *neighbor's* house is involved? Or, put out the non-paying-customer's fire and charge him *double*? I.e., the point is that each approach leads to different exploits as people try to avoid paying what they "don't feel" they should *have* to pay.>> (amusing ideas to think *objectively* about, IMO. Think about >> the same things when it comes to how cell phone usage is billed, >> email, etc.) > > Personally, I don't like the free phone, subsidized by > expensive phone plan system.I was thinking of this from a different perspective (hence my inclusion of email in the example). Cell phone pricing puts the cost on the cell phone owner. I.e., the cell phone user underwrites the cost of the call -- regardless of its origin (just like email carries more cost for the recipients than the originator -- think spam). In a sense, the cell phone exists for the convenience of the person *calling* it! (ditto email) Imagine if it was the other way around: "Sure, I'll accept this call from a telemarketer/spammer -- *if* he has to bear the cost! (how many of these callers would be more careful about making those contacts?)>> Within that mindset: > >>> Back to journals, if the more prestegious journals charge more, >>> then they have to work harder to get good papers. Subscribers will >>> expect better papers, and give more credit to authors who get >>> their papers into better journals. > >> So, there is benefit to the authors *in* those journals as >> well as the consumers of those journals. Should *authors* >> be charged a "publication fee"? Should consumers be charged >> to read the work? > > As I understand it, many journals have a page charge. If you > don't pay, it still gets published, but not as fast.Oh, so it's not just a question of whether or not your paper is *accepted* for publication (I don't publish anything). Rather, the bar is lower: if you can pay, you get "attention"? So, what's the incentive to pay? Prestige/ego?> Traditionally, as with roads, the cost was paid independent > of who used it. Libraries subscribe to the journals that their > patrons read. That was the best system before easy electronic > access. (Consider the case if you had to mail order each article, > and wait weeks to receive it.) With electronic access, though, > one could charge a reasonable fee for each use.Understood. If I can't find a publication of interest online someplace (often you can find "private copies" squirreled away, someplace; or, contact the author directly), the local (public) library chases down a print copy for me. Often from the local university, etc. While I'd prefer an electronic copy (less physical storage space), its usually not worth buying an article -- only to discover that its not what I want, or need. (e.g., a merit based system would be far better: "Was this article helpful to you?")>> What's the *goal* -- besides enabling a third-party to benefit from >> the work -- and needs -- of others? Are authors anxious to have >> their works seen (and, thus, eager to PAY for that privilege)? >> Are consumers/researchers anxious to have access to other folks' >> work (and pay for *that*)? > > Papers are important for much research.Of course! But, if folks are willing to PAY for publication, they are either exceedingly altruistic (and want to advance the state of the art, out of the kindness of their heart!) *or* want the "recognition" associated with it. (regardless of its research value!)>> But does that just cause people to come up with ways of disguising >> their usage? Or, *limiting* it? ("You'd better have a REAL NEED >> to see this paper cuz it's going to cost us $X for you to take a >> peek!") > > In the bridge case, there is another bridge, currently not tolled, > not so far away, or you can drive around. (It crosses a lake.) > People can weight the cost, their time, and the gas to take a > longer route.Exactly. This is often the case with "toll roads", etc. OTOH, sometimes there is no *practical* alternative. And, no incentive for any alternative to be created!>>> It does seem that some artificial scarcity is needed, though. >>> That is, enough that better journals get better papers, and >>> readers can, to some extent, use that as a filter. That depends >>> much on the review process, though. > >> This sounds strikingly similar to the entertainment industry >> working to keep itself as the middle-man between artist and >> consumer. > > I have wondered while waiting in line at movie theaters, why > the charge is the same for all movies. Well, there are discount > theaters that show older movies, but mostly the model doesn't > consider that better movies, or longer movies, should cost more.I first saw Star Wars (the initial one... #4?) at the $1.25 theater up the street from my apartment. When I had a two-for-one coupon! <grin> Nowadays, I think that market has been replaced by the "direct to DVD" alternative.>>>> This was the status quo as 2011 drew to an end: researchers uneasily >>>> accepting the world the publishers have imposed, and trying to get >>>> work done in a horribly suboptimal environment. > > It does seem that there might be better ways to do much of > what our economic system depends on. That better pricing models > are now possible, when they weren't before.People/agencies that are currently "in the middle" will resist any attempts to cut them *out* of the middle. "You mean we're going to have to *work* for a living??" <shrug> Dunno. Too many interests and consequences for easy analysis/solution.
Reply by ●February 11, 20122012-02-11
Don Y <this@isnotme.com> wrote: (snip)> But think of other places where there are "exceptional", unaccounted > costs. E.g., there are frequently cases where folks have to be > "rescued", here, someplace out in the wilderness. Or, a campfire > that gets out of control and burns a few hundred *thousand* acres. > Yet, the costs for "fixing" these problems is never allocated in > a reasonable wayI suppose it averages out somewhat, but, yes, some people use more than their share of such. But if people were directly charged, then insurance companies would start selling insurance for it. Hopefully, charging more for bigger risks. (snip)>> That is, similar to the way some outside the city limits >> property owners pay for fire service. Forget to pay, and >> they don't put out the fire.> Yes. But I wonder if that really happens? I.e., the neighbor > (who *did* pay) wants his property protected. Does the > fire dept wait until the *neighbor's* house is involved? > Or, put out the non-paying-customer's fire and charge him > *double*?It seems that it really did happen somewhere in Washington (state) not so long ago. The fire department came and watched the house burn down. Personally, though, I still think that was wrong. If one doesn't pay ones car insurance, then they pay the full cost of repair. The fire department should charge the full cost of putting out the fire, instead of the reduced cost for insurance premiums.> I.e., the point is that each approach leads to different > exploits as people try to avoid paying what they "don't feel" > they should *have* to pay.(snip, I wrote)>> As I understand it, many journals have a page charge. If you >> don't pay, it still gets published, but not as fast.> Oh, so it's not just a question of whether or not your > paper is *accepted* for publication (I don't publish anything). > Rather, the bar is lower: if you can pay, you get "attention"?That is what I was told.> So, what's the incentive to pay? Prestige/ego?Well, getting published faster, for one. But if a group was known for not paying, word might leak out. Also, I beleive that research grants tend to include it, and grant agencies expect to get acknowledged in papers. If someone submits a paper, but isn't from a known company or university, and not on a research grant, then they might not be expected to pay.>> Traditionally, as with roads, the cost was paid independent >> of who used it. Libraries subscribe to the journals that their >> patrons read. That was the best system before easy electronic >> access. (Consider the case if you had to mail order each article, >> and wait weeks to receive it.) With electronic access, though, >> one could charge a reasonable fee for each use.> Understood. If I can't find a publication of interest online > someplace (often you can find "private copies" squirreled > away, someplace; or, contact the author directly), the local > (public) library chases down a print copy for me. Often from > the local university, etc.(snip)> Of course! But, if folks are willing to PAY for publication, > they are either exceedingly altruistic (and want to advance the > state of the art, out of the kindness of their heart!) *or* > want the "recognition" associated with it. (regardless of its > research value!)I would say some of both. Most researchers have some altruism, otherwise they likely wouldn't be doing it. (snip)>> I have wondered while waiting in line at movie theaters, why >> the charge is the same for all movies. Well, there are discount >> theaters that show older movies, but mostly the model doesn't >> consider that better movies, or longer movies, should cost more.> I first saw Star Wars (the initial one... #4?) at the $1.25 theater > up the street from my apartment. When I had a two-for-one coupon! > <grin>> Nowadays, I think that market has been replaced by the "direct to > DVD" alternative.There are still some around, but not as many. But even so, why is there no demand pricing for movies at the same theater. Supply and demand doesn't seem to apply. Well, less popular movies often get smaller theaters in a multiplex cinema, but not that much smaller. (snip)>> It does seem that there might be better ways to do much of >> what our economic system depends on. That better pricing models >> are now possible, when they weren't before.> People/agencies that are currently "in the middle" will resist > any attempts to cut them *out* of the middle. "You mean we're > going to have to *work* for a living??"> <shrug> Dunno. Too many interests and consequences for easy > analysis/solution.It might be the only way that the economy gets "fixed." -- glen
Reply by ●February 11, 20122012-02-11
Hi Glen, On 2/10/2012 10:41 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:>>> As I understand it, many journals have a page charge. If you >>> don't pay, it still gets published, but not as fast. > >> Oh, so it's not just a question of whether or not your >> paper is *accepted* for publication (I don't publish anything). >> Rather, the bar is lower: if you can pay, you get "attention"? > > That is what I was told. > >> So, what's the incentive to pay? Prestige/ego? > > Well, getting published faster, for one. But if a group was > known for not paying, word might leak out. Also, I beleive > that research grants tend to include it, and grant agencies > expect to get acknowledged in papers. > > If someone submits a paper, but isn't from a known company or > university, and not on a research grant, then they might not be > expected to pay.So, what about a business model like: - You *pay* to submit a paper. - Folks pay to *read* that paper. - Some portion of the readerships payments is directed *back* to the original author/submitter. {I have no idea as to the actual values or relative magnitudes of these payments. Presumably more readers than submissions!) The "intermediary" (whether a for-profit corporation or a "Union of Concerned Researchers, Inc") takes a cut of each transaction for it's "services" -- providing the forum that makes these papers available, etc. A "submitter" who produces good content sees his initial payment repaid (depends on how popular his paper proves to be) -- and, could even see a "profit" from his effort (always a good motivator! :> ) A "reader" gets access to the content for a reasonable fee -- KNOWING that some portion of his payment is compensating the submitter for his effort (instead of just lining the intermediary's pockets). Submitters who submit poor quality work end up paying out monies to have them "published" but never recoup those monies if their work isn't in demand (or is "fluff"). Submitters get feedback as to what their "market" wants -- based on what it is "buying". Presumably encouraging more research in those same areas. Of course, the elephant in the corner is the fact that submitters are still paying "up front" for something that they may later find wasn't worth the expense. In which case, they would become resentful (rightly so) of having been "duped" by the submission/submitter. E.g., a new (artificial) name could come on the scene to replace a name that has been "worn out" by past bad experiences and the process repeated. Eventually, readers become cynical enough and censor any name that they aren't *already* familiar with, by reputation.>>> I have wondered while waiting in line at movie theaters, why >>> the charge is the same for all movies. Well, there are discount >>> theaters that show older movies, but mostly the model doesn't >>> consider that better movies, or longer movies, should cost more. > >> I first saw Star Wars (the initial one... #4?) at the $1.25 theater >> up the street from my apartment. When I had a two-for-one coupon! >> <grin> > >> Nowadays, I think that market has been replaced by the "direct to >> DVD" alternative. > > There are still some around, but not as many.As has been the demise of the drive-in. I think the last outdoor screens here were dismantled last year.> But even so, why is there no demand pricing for movies at the > same theater. Supply and demand doesn't seem to apply.Matinee pricing to fill seats that would otherwise be empty at a particular time of day...? <shrug> Dunno. I dislike the theater experience. I can patiently wait until I can see it in a more comfortable setting...
Reply by ●February 11, 20122012-02-11
On 2/11/2012 12:41 AM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:> Don Y<this@isnotme.com> wrote:...>> Yes. But I wonder if that really happens? I.e., the neighbor >> (who *did* pay) wants his property protected. Does the >> fire dept wait until the *neighbor's* house is involved? >> Or, put out the non-paying-customer's fire and charge him >> *double*? > > It seems that it really did happen somewhere in Washington > (state) not so long ago. The fire department came and watched > the house burn down.It wasn't exactly like that. First, I think it was Tennessee. Wherever, the state provides personal injury insurance for volunteer firemen but only when they work on contributing households. If they had tried to put out that fire, they would also have been liable for damage to the equipment. Blame the legislators, not the volunteer firemen. ... Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●February 11, 20122012-02-11
On 2/11/12 2:21 AM, Don Y wrote:> > On 2/10/2012 10:41 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: >...>> >> If someone submits a paper, but isn't from a known company or >> university, and not on a research grant, then they might not be >> expected to pay.doesn't sound very flat or egalitarian to me. sorta like the entrenched two-party. there should be a way for an hereto before unknown and unaffiliated Albert Einstein to submit something and have the content at least looked at with no barrier other than the effort to create and transmit the document in the first place.> > So, what about a business model like: > > - You *pay* to submit a paper. > - Folks pay to *read* that paper. > - Some portion of the readerships payments is directed > *back* to the original author/submitter.so who pays the reviewers of the paper? -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Reply by ●February 11, 20122012-02-11
Hi Robert, On 2/11/2012 9:20 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On 2/11/12 2:21 AM, Don Y wrote: >> >> On 2/10/2012 10:41 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: >> > ... >>> >>> If someone submits a paper, but isn't from a known company or >>> university, and not on a research grant, then they might not be >>> expected to pay. > > doesn't sound very flat or egalitarian to me. sorta like the entrenched > two-party. there should be a way for an hereto before unknown and > unaffiliated Albert Einstein to submit something and have the content at > least looked at with no barrier other than the effort to create and > transmit the document in the first place.(Given your comment below, I'm unsure as to who you mean to be "looking at it"...) In the scheme I proposed (below), anyone who wanted to look at it would look at it. If that proves to be a "disappointing experience" for that party, future "readers" would tend to avoid it. I.e., "Market forces" judge the worthiness/value of the submission. I don't do any of the "social networking", youtube, etc. sort of thing. But, it's my impression that a similar approach would come into play. I.e., "something" tells other folks that this (person, video, etc.) is "worth seeing/following" and that leads to increased viewership/readership/"going viral"/etc. ("I got 18 million hits on my 'Design of an efficient LFSR macrocell'!") <grin> I.e., don't you want your peers (as "reader consumers") to decide the worthiness of a particular product (paper)? Wouldn't its "popularity" be a gross indicator of such?>> So, what about a business model like: >> >> - You *pay* to submit a paper. >> - Folks pay to *read* that paper. >> - Some portion of the readerships payments is directed >> *back* to the original author/submitter. > > so who pays the reviewers of the paper?The reviewers are a *third* party not accounted for in the above? In who's interest is the "review" -- that would go a long way to suggesting who pays!
