Re: Rep Conyers - fan of science
- From: Steve Jaros <sjaros3@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 15:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 9, 3:32 pm, TimV <nos...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
emeye...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 9, 8:59 am, Steve Jaros <sjar...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 9, 7:54 am, CheeseHusker dos <jonrus...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/06/rep-conyers....I'm not sure how something like that can be enforced, unless it can be
Recently, government-sponsored agencies like NIH have moved toward
open access of scientific findings. That is, the results are published
where anyone can see them, and in fact (for the NIH) after 12 months
the papers must be publicly accessible
John Conyers (D-MI) apparently has a problem with this. He is pushing
a bill through Congress that will literally ban the open access of
these papers, forcing scientists to only publish in journals
stipulated as a condition of receiving a government grant? If so,
that's one reason why i've always eschewed doing research funded by
government grants (yeah i know, in some fields it's unavoidable).
But journals play an important role - they vet research via peer
review, raising the confidence of others that the work is basically
sound (note i didn't say "guarantee"). Without peer-reviewed journals,
each researcher would have to spend a lot more of his/her personal
time vetting work 'published' by others, time that couldn't be spend
doing substantive research. In such a situation, very quickly,
researchers would organize themselves and create ... peer reviewed
journals! Even the blog article criticizing conyers that mentions
something called "astro-ph" says that it posts access to articles
accepted by journals, meaning that they have already been peer-
reviewed. But as mihos notes, someone has to do the work of running
the journal, and that costs money.
And a journal won't stay "in business" long, won't be able to attract
the subscriptions and fees to cover its costs, if others can access
the same content for free.
The public access requirement refers to peer reviewed papers in which
the research was funded by NIH - this is a policy that is stipulated
when you accept the funding. It does not require or even suggest that
the research not be peer reviewed. The journal has 12 months to
comply - many (such as Nature) had already done that before the policy
was implemented (and some even give free instant access)- I expect
that the 12 months is enough time to ensure the financial viability of
the journal and to ensure subscriptions. In addition, many journals
charge fees to publish.
Ed
Every scientific journal I have ever published in has required "page
charges", including some journals that are online only (but still
extensively peer reviewed). On average, my papers have cost $800 each
with page charges
I'm just stunned by that figure. I've never had to pay a cent to
publish a paper and never can imagine myself doing so. . I know it's
common in some fields (like economics), but .. well it just astonishes
me. The top journals, and even the lesser ones, in my field are all
paid for by subscriptions and institutional advertising.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Rep Conyers - fan of science
- From: JGibson
- Re: Rep Conyers - fan of science
- From: Chris Mihos
- Re: Rep Conyers - fan of science
- References:
- Rep Conyers - fan of science
- From: CheeseHusker dos
- Re: Rep Conyers - fan of science
- From: Steve Jaros
- Re: Rep Conyers - fan of science
- From: emeyerth
- Re: Rep Conyers - fan of science
- From: TimV
- Rep Conyers - fan of science
- Prev by Date: Religion in America Today
- Next by Date: Re: So much for LSU ...
- Previous by thread: Re: Rep Conyers - fan of science
- Next by thread: Re: Rep Conyers - fan of science
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading