Comments on: I write for free: the problem with academic publishing

By: Chris Watkins

Chris Watkins — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:46:18 +0000

One possible compromise is to have an expiry of the copyright – after X years, it becomes open access, and after Y years it becomes fully open licensed, allowing for reuse with attribution, and derivative works.

I want to see open licensing become the default for such writing (which means CC-BY-SA or CC-BY, no non-commercial or no-derivatives clauses). In the short term we may need to compromise at times.

Costs for hosting and security are coming down – hopefully that will disappear as an issue, before long.

“Health and Human Rights” http://www.hhrjournal.org looks like a good journal, and it’s great that they’re open access. Pity they’re using a non-commercial clause, which prevents the knowledge being shared in sites such as Wikipedia, other Wikimedia sites, and Appropedia.

By: Elisa Mason

Elisa Mason — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:41:28 +0000

_Health and Human Rights_ (http://www.hhrjournal.org) recently re-launched as an open access journal. You might be interested in one of the articles that appeared in the inaugural issue: “Excluding the poor from accessing biomedical literature: A rights violation that impedes global health” (http://www.hhrjournal.org/index.php/hhr/article/view/20). For more on the open access movement generally, you may want to read Peter Suber’s “Open Access Overview” (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm) and check out his blog: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html

By: Thomas Bjelkeman-Pettersson

Thomas Bjelkeman-Pettersson — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 22:28:07 +0000

There is at least one “free” journal or maybe more a publishing process which is taken very seriously. It is http://arxiv.org/

As a simple example, look at any article about mathematics or physics in a magazine like New Scientist and you will see that there is a good chance that they refer to arxiv.org

In the end, it is the scientist themselves who have to break out of the archaic model of traditional academic publishing.

By: Paul Currion

Paul Currion — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:27:55 +0000

Jeff – that’s possibly true. This discussion has been kicking around a little bit – it’s just that I wasn’t aware of the exact terms the publisher was presenting until I received the form. As I said, I’d be happy to sign over first publishing rights but I fail to understand the basis on which they want the entire copyright. I will of course consider my position now that it’s in the open.

p.s. I’ll also make a note to not ask you for an article…

By: Jeff R. Allen

Jeff R. Allen — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 08:25:28 +0000

You’re in a tight spot, Paul. With 20/20 hindsight, it’s clear what you should have done is asked this question when you joined the board, and refused to be involved if the rest of the board wasn’t going to support you.

The state of the art in academic publishing, IMHO, is PLoS. Investing in any other model is a waste of time, it will (and should) be steamrollered in the end by the realities of information dissemination this century.

-jeff

PS: Sorry to say it, but don’t bother asking me for an article for the journal. I’d never, ever, sign that release.

By: Rod Curtis

Rod Curtis — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:27:50 +0000

Cuz, I’m a member of Copyright Agency Limited, a useful tool for journalists to track your work in the internet age and ensure you receive your annual cut. They’re worth checking out.

By: Tom Longley

Tom Longley — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 09:29:14 +0000

The alternative seems to be something more in line with the KM4Dev journal: a “community artefact” where the costs are borne mostly by contributors and volunteers, and (I expect, but am not sure…) small grants for infrastrucutre and professional technical support.