The crime of electronic journals

Society wrote:

The publishers of the journal and the operators of JSTOR
want to get paid. HTH

Why do they more deserve payment than the actual people
that did the research? What are they contributing?

"Deserve" doesn't mean what you think it means, Andrew Usher.

Despite my vast intelligence I can't read your mind. So unless you
tell me what you mean by 'deserve' that statement can only be taken as
an empty insult.

What are the publishers (paper or electronic) contributing?

I am talking about electronic publishing only.

Lessee, access to interested readers, subscribers, editing,
printing, mailing, operating a web site with a database, and
a whole bunch of other stuff "the actual people that did the
research" and seek to disseminate said research find easier
to pay someone else to do.

They have no choice because the academic system requires publication
in journals. With internet distribution, there is no printing cost,
typesetting is now trivial, and peer-reviewers (the most important
part of the process) are not paid either. So again, just what is the
justification for such restrictive practices?

And especially, I added that there should at least be open access to
articles more than a few years old (as there is is astronomy already);
then, all institutions would still have to maintain a subscription.

Scientific knowledge is rightfully the common property
of mankind and doesn't deserve to be hidden from the public.

I disagree. I am not morally required to give up anything I learn.
If I cast pearls before swine, I expect at least a pork chop
in return.

If you learn it yourself, and you aren't using anyone else's money, of
course. But here the restrictions come from the journal publishers,
not the actual discoverers.

Andrew Usher

In sci.astro Andrew Usher wrote:
Society wrote:

The publishers of the journal and the operators of JSTOR
want to get paid. HTH

Why do they more deserve payment than the actual people
that did the research? What are they contributing?

"Deserve" doesn't mean what you think it means, Andrew Usher.

Despite my vast intelligence I can't read your mind. So unless you
tell me what you mean by 'deserve' that statement can only be taken as
an empty insult.

What are the publishers (paper or electronic) contributing?

I am talking about electronic publishing only.

Lessee, access to interested readers, subscribers, editing,
printing, mailing, operating a web site with a database, and
a whole bunch of other stuff "the actual people that did the
research" and seek to disseminate said research find easier
to pay someone else to do.

They have no choice because the academic system requires publication
in journals. With internet distribution, there is no printing cost,
typesetting is now trivial, and peer-reviewers (the most important
part of the process) are not paid either. So again, just what is the
justification for such restrictive practices?

Well, knowing the systems JSTOR use quite well, they have some expensive,
powerful servers at multiple locations for reliability. They employ people
to build and maintain their content. They have to pay hosting and
maintainence costs. I'm sure there are reproduction fees as well.

http://support.mimas.ac.uk/jstor/


And especially, I added that there should at least be open access to
articles more than a few years old (as there is is astronomy already);
then, all institutions would still have to maintain a subscription.

Scientific knowledge is rightfully the common property
of mankind and doesn't deserve to be hidden from the public.

I disagree. I am not morally required to give up anything I learn.
If I cast pearls before swine, I expect at least a pork chop
in return.

If you learn it yourself, and you aren't using anyone else's money, of
course. But here the restrictions come from the journal publishers,
not the actual discoverers.

Andrew Usher

--
As an atheist I don't accept the god theory.

Andrew Usher wrote:

They have no choice because the academic system requires publication
in journals.

Going OT (not sure what the T was in the first place) which
mathematicians or scientists of the 20th and 21st centuries have made
their name through word of mouth rather than journal papers?

--
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

Tell ya what, Usher ol' dude. Start your own journal. Pay for the servers,
drives, etc. Pay people to work for you. Pay for their benefits. Pay for
the data lines that you need. Pay for the office space. Pay for the HVAC.
Pay for the PR to get people to accept your journal as authoritative. Pay to
persuade them to use your journal instead of JACS or whoever. And you can't
use free e-mail like Yahoo.

Then give it all away, because you don't "deserve" anything else.

On Nov 13, 10:20*am, (David
Bostwick) wrote:
Tell ya what, Usher ol' dude. *Start your own journal. *Pay for the servers,
drives, etc. *Pay people to work for you. *Pay for their benefits. *Pay for
the data lines that you need. *Pay for the office space. *Pay for the HVAC.
Pay for the PR to get people to accept your journal as authoritative. *Pay to
persuade them to use your journal instead of JACS or whoever.

I'm not in a position to do so, but clearly some people are. How do I
know? Because there already are open access journals. Because some
areas of science already are mainly open access. Because scientists
voluntarily put their work up on the internet (though that's much less
convenient than open-access journals because articles are always cited
by journal).

Why are the leading journals such as your example JACS the most
prestigious? Because they're perceived that way! People submit the
best articles there, they are considered the most highly in one's CV,
etc. JACS has that position because they're already established, not
because they're run better than any other journal.

An argument exactly analogous to yours would be that Harvard is the
most prestigious college because they're the best, and anyone who
challenges that can just start his own college or shut up! That sounds
ridiculous, doesn't it? So do you when you talk about journals.

Andrew Usher

On Nov 13, 7:34*pm, Nomen Publicus
wrote:
In sci.astro Andrew Usher wrote:
Why do they more deserve payment than the actual people
that did the research? What are they contributing?
I am talking about electronic publishing only.

I've wondered this myself. There are many topics in which I
have interest (though I'm retired with no academic affiliation)
for which *only* pay-per-view journal articles are available.
Some researchers place free copies of their papers on their
own sites. Can all do this, or do journals place copyright
restrictions?

Well, knowing the systems JSTOR use quite well, they have some expensive,
powerful servers at multiple locations for reliability. *They employ people
to build and maintain their content. They have to pay hosting and
maintainence costs. I'm sure there are reproduction fees as well.

I am *amazed* at how inexpensive my own hosted website is:
http://fabpedigree.com
For less than $100 per year I'm entitled to 346 gigabytes storage
and upwards of 2 terabytes of bandwidth per month. The servers
(at lunarpages.com) seem fast and reliable; the low price
includes excellent customer service and software.
How many terabytes per month does JSTOR transfer?

I'd guess that a significant portion of JSTOR's operating
expense is the adminstration associated with collecting fees!

JSTOR *does* support a search facility ... but wouldn't
Google do that for free anyway, more-or-less automatically?

Scientific knowledge is rightfully the common property
of mankind and doesn't deserve to be hidden from the public.

"Society" wrote:
I disagree. *I am not morally required to give up anything I learn.
If I cast pearls before swine, I expect at least a pork chop
in return.

Oh. It's a *political* argument. Would it be rude to guess which
side of the Divide you two debaters are respectively on? :-)

James Dow Allen

James Dow Allen wrote:
On Nov 13, 7:34 pm, Nomen Publicus
wrote:
In sci.astro Andrew Usher wrote:
Why do they more deserve payment than the actual people
that did the research? What are they contributing?
I am talking about electronic publishing only.

I've wondered this myself. There are many topics in which I
have interest (though I'm retired with no academic affiliation)
for which *only* pay-per-view journal articles are available.
Some researchers place free copies of their papers on their
own sites. Can all do this, or do journals place copyright
restrictions?

You ought to be able to join a university library and get access that way.
You may have to pay a flat rate fee for such access, e.g., as an alumnus or
a guest user. Investigate.


Well, knowing the systems JSTOR use quite well, they have some
expensive, powerful servers at multiple locations for reliability.
They employ people to build and maintain their content. They have to
pay hosting and maintainence costs. I'm sure there are reproduction
fees as well.

I am *amazed* at how inexpensive my own hosted website is:
http://fabpedigree.com
For less than $100 per year I'm entitled to 346 gigabytes storage
and upwards of 2 terabytes of bandwidth per month. The servers
(at lunarpages.com) seem fast and reliable; the low price
includes excellent customer service and software.
How many terabytes per month does JSTOR transfer?

I'd guess that a significant portion of JSTOR's operating
expense is the adminstration associated with collecting fees!

JSTOR *does* support a search facility ... but wouldn't
Google do that for free anyway, more-or-less automatically?

Scientific knowledge is rightfully the common property
of mankind and doesn't deserve to be hidden from the public.

"Society" wrote:
I disagree. I am not morally required to give up anything I learn.
If I cast pearls before swine, I expect at least a pork chop
in return.

Oh. It's a *political* argument. Would it be rude to guess which
side of the Divide you two debaters are respectively on? :-)

James Dow Allen

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

On Nov 13, 6:27*am, Andrew Usher wrote:
Society wrote:
The publishers of the journal and the operators of JSTOR
want to get paid. *HTH

Why do they more deserve payment than the actual people
that did the research? What are they contributing?

"Deserve" doesn't mean what you think it means, Andrew Usher.

Despite my vast intelligence I can't read your mind. So unless you
tell me what you mean by 'deserve' that statement can only be taken as
an empty insult.

Well, one of the majoer crimes of electronic journals is that
90+% of the time, it turns out the that the only thing the
cranks know about science, engineering, or electronics is RCA.

That's a lot the of the reason that the educable engineers
invented Atomic Clock Wris****ches and Light Sticks, rather than
idiot Quantum Mechanics and Wal-Mart. And invented Desktop
Publishing,
CD+rw, DVD-rom, All-In-One Printers, Blue Ray, and The 21st
Century,
rather than AI idiots and FIFOs.

And invented GPS, Digital Terrain Mapping, HDTV, XML, Flat Screen
Software Debuggers,
Cyber Batteries, Home Broadband, Holograms, Compact Flourescent
Lighting,
Digital Books, and On-Line Publishing, rather than rather than
CBS Cranks and N-D Holography.

And invented USB, Multiplexed Fiber Optics, mp3, mpeg, and
Bi-Optical Computers rather than Chrysler.








What are the publishers (paper or electronic) contributing?

I am talking about electronic publishing only.

Lessee, access to interested readers, subscribers, editing,
printing, mailing, operating a web site with a database, and
a whole bunch of other stuff "the actual people that did the
research" and seek to disseminate said research find easier
to pay someone else to do.

They have no choice because the academic system requires publication
in journals. With internet distribution, there is no printing cost,
typesetting is now trivial, and peer-reviewers (the most important
part of the process) are not paid either. So again, just what is the
justification for such restrictive practices?

And especially, I added that there should at least be open access to
articles more than a few years old (as there is is astronomy already);
then, all institutions would still have to maintain a subscription.

Scientific knowledge is rightfully the common property
of mankind and doesn't deserve to be hidden from the public.

I disagree. *I am not morally required to give up anything I learn.
If I cast pearls before swine, I expect at least a pork chop
in return.

If you learn it yourself, and you aren't using anyone else's money, of
course. But here the restrictions come from the journal publishers,
not the actual discoverers.

Andrew Usher

In article , Andrew Usher wrote:
On Nov 13, 10:20=A0am, (David
Bostwick) wrote:
Tell ya what, Usher ol' dude. =A0Start your own journal. =A0Pay for the s=
ervers,
drives, etc. =A0Pay people to work for you. =A0Pay for their benefits. =
=A0Pay for
the data lines that you need. =A0Pay for the office space. =A0Pay for the=
HVAC.
Pay for the PR to get people to accept your journal as authoritative. =A0=
Pay to
persuade them to use your journal instead of JACS or whoever.

I'm not in a position to do so, but clearly some people are. How do I
know? Because there already are open access journals. Because some
areas of science already are mainly open access. Because scientists
voluntarily put their work up on the internet (though that's much less
convenient than open-access journals because articles are always cited
by journal).


By their choice, not by your demand.


Why are the leading journals such as your example JACS the most
prestigious? Because they're perceived that way! People submit the
best articles there, they are considered the most highly in one's CV,
etc. JACS has that position because they're already established, not
because they're run better than any other journal.


And this means they should allow free access because...


An argument exactly analogous to yours would be that Harvard is the
most prestigious college because they're the best, and anyone who
challenges that can just start his own college or shut up!

And this means they should allow free access because...


That sounds
ridiculous, doesn't it? So do you when you talk about journals.

Andrew Usher


Not similar, because I'm not saying Harvard or ACS should give anything away
for free. That was your original demand, but you brought their prestige into
the discussion for some reason. I don't see how their prestige supports your
demand that "they should give it to me for free." There's no connection.

You want other people to pay for things, and then they should give you free
access. By your reasoning, you should be able to walk into any car dealer and
demand that you be allowed to drive out in any car you want. Sounds cool, but
I doubt that it would last very long.

Those who foot the bill get to charge what they want. If it's a reasonable
price, people will use it. If the price is too high, the owners will lower it
or go out of business. If they want to give it away, they get to choose, not
you. Even Google and Yahoo get something from someone by letting you use
their services for free. If Google and Yahoo made you pay, would we see less
of you?

In article , "Mike Dworetsky" wrote:
James Dow Allen wrote:
On Nov 13, 7:34 pm, Nomen Publicus
wrote:
In sci.astro Andrew Usher wrote:
Why do they more deserve payment than the actual people
that did the research? What are they contributing?
I am talking about electronic publishing only.

I've wondered this myself. There are many topics in which I
have interest (though I'm retired with no academic affiliation)
for which *only* pay-per-view journal articles are available.
Some researchers place free copies of their papers on their
own sites. Can all do this, or do journals place copyright
restrictions?

You ought to be able to join a university library and get access that way.
You may have to pay a flat rate fee for such access, e.g., as an alumnus or
a guest user. Investigate.


But that's not *free*, which is what he wants.