robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote: (snip, I 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.That is what I was trying to say. Someone from a rich corporation or university with lots of government grants would be expected to pay, but unknown and unaffiliated people wouldn't. Grants normally require that they be acknowledged. Now, it might be that someone from a well known and well funded place submits a paper unrelated to their paid work. (snip)>> 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.Maybe as discounts on future submissions, instead of direct payments.> so who pays the reviewers of the paper?If you allow paid reviews, then the review becomes questionable. That is, is the payment for a good review? (Note Consumer Reports policy of not accepting advertizing or donated products for testing.) Certainly there are good and bad reviewers, either paid or not. -- glen
The future of academic publishing
Started by ●February 10, 2012
Reply by ●February 11, 20122012-02-11
Reply by ●February 11, 20122012-02-11
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: (snip, I wrote)>> 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.It may have happened more than once, or maybe I remember wrong. Yes, I don't blame the firefighters, they have to follow the rules. (Volunteer or paid.) It makes more sense to me, though, for the rules to be put out the fire and charge the ownwer the appropriate full cost. Easiest if the owner is there, and signs an agreement to pay, but likely could be done as a lien in any case. -- glen
Reply by ●February 11, 20122012-02-11
On 2/11/2012 3:43 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:> Jerry Avins<jya@ieee.org> wrote: > > (snip, I wrote) >>> 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. > > It may have happened more than once, or maybe I remember wrong. > > Yes, I don't blame the firefighters, they have to follow the rules. > (Volunteer or paid.) It makes more sense to me, though, for > the rules to be put out the fire and charge the ownwer the > appropriate full cost. > > Easiest if the owner is there, and signs an agreement to pay, > but likely could be done as a lien in any case.I agree, and I hope the law has been changed by now. In the case I knew about, the property owner had made is contribution for years (as I do) but on that year, he forgot (as I have done). One impetus to getting the regulation revised is the liability resulting from someone having been improperly omitted from the "good to go" list. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●February 12, 20122012-02-12
On 2/11/12 3:43 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:> Jerry Avins<jya@ieee.org> wrote: > > (snip, I wrote) >>> 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.i think it was Wisconsin. and the burning home owner was begging them to put it out. but he neglected to pay his fee that year. the fire dept came out because the neighboring house was covered. -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Reply by ●February 12, 20122012-02-12
On 2/11/12 11:24 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On 2/11/12 3:43 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: >> Jerry Avins<jya@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> (snip, I wrote) >>>> 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. > > i think it was Wisconsin. and the burning home owner was begging them to > put it out. but he neglected to pay his fee that year. the fire dept > came out because the neighboring house was covered. >no, you're right. it's Tennessee: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-191241763.html -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Reply by ●February 12, 20122012-02-12
On 2/11/2012 9:24 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On 2/11/12 3:43 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: >> Jerry Avins<jya@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> (snip, I wrote) >>>> 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. > > i think it was Wisconsin. and the burning home owner was begging them to > put it out. but he neglected to pay his fee that year. the fire dept > came out because the neighboring house was covered.Actually, a neighbor's house, here (street behind us and two doors over) burned to the ground (literally, nothing left standing) while the fire department "watched". Brought out all sorts of equipment -- portable high power floodlights, two trucks, etc. -- and watched! (as did most of us neighbors) In this case, however, it was because the woman who owned the home was a pack rat. After getting her out of the house, firefighters decided it was too dangerous to go back inside (apparently, *hallways* were full of stacked newspapers, magazines, etc.). So, they protected the surrounding homes (knocking a chimney off of one home with the force of the water hoses!) and waited for the fire to burn itself to completion. The *real* chuckle came when the loss was *blamed* on the fire department! No, not because they sat and watched. Rather, because they had been called to the home, earlier, to put out a fire in her car (battery shorted out or somesuch). But, didn't remove the car from the carport *or* verify that the fire was truly out. So, when it restarted a while later... They ended up paying for the house to be rebuilt. Really cool to see an "identical" house reappear on the previous *slab*! [A friend of ours coincidentally bought the "replacement house". He didn't believe us when we told him the story, originally. Of course, now that his neighbors have confirmed it, ... ]
Reply by ●February 12, 20122012-02-12
Jerry Avins wrote:> I agree, and I hope the law has been changed by now. In the case I knew > about, the property owner had made is contribution for years (as I do) > but on that year, he forgot (as I have done). One impetus to getting the > regulation revised is the liability resulting from someone having been > improperly omitted from the "good to go" list.In TN the issue wasn't as simple as liability. The incident was in a county (rural) and the county voted to make it pay by choice About 85% payed. The owner admitted to the local paper not paying and stated he didn't expect he would ever see a fire at his place. I know of a place in WV where similar event took place and as I understand it the trend is growing in rural areas. It's not quite that bad where I am yet, but we had a school collapse after a snow and we were already had 2 replacement school buildings in the pipeline. For awhile we had kids going to school in shifts because we didn't have enough buildings. Of course we're not so short of cash we can't dig up Main street. I wasn't at the meeting but I imagine something like this: councilman 1: You know, we don't have hardly any traffic problems around here. councilman 2: Why don't we dig up our 3 lane Main street and make it 2 lane, after all it's the only way to get from one end of town to the other. When the project started, they tore out two lanes and went to a single lane. Then of course the work was delayed and slowed because - you guessed it - traffic. John Wayne - "Life is hard. Life is damn hard when you're stupid"
Reply by ●February 12, 20122012-02-12
On 12/02/2012 05:18, stan wrote: ..> > In TN the issue wasn't as simple as liability. The incident was in a > county (rural) and the county voted to make it pay by choice About 85% > payed. The owner admitted to the local paper not paying and stated he > didn't expect he would ever see a fire at his place. I know of a place > in WV where similar event took place and as I understand it the trend > is growing in rural areas.This sounds like a good description of a dark place, in which everyone is "looking out for number one" (in the Bible Belt, presumably): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_long_spoons Richard Dobson
Reply by ●February 14, 20122012-02-14
