Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Dmitri Zaitsev
About
Communities and Collections
View all
Posts

Post has shared content
Those who lived in Soviet Union will remember buying "v nagruzku" (overload?), an untranslatable Russian term referring to being forced to buy unnecessary items in addition to useful ones. It was a classic consequence of no competition and unavailability of the same items without the "nagruzka".

Fast forward to the "capitalism" of 2017 looking no different -- the APC is becoming the new classic "nagruzka" example:

Either pay for our services you don't need or else forget about your OA publication!
It seems some publishers build in costs only indirectly related to the publishing of an article, when choosing an Article Processing Charge

The reason for such a huge variance, and some (arguable very) high APCs comes from cost unrelated to publication. Sudhakaran Prabakaran (@wk181 on Twitter), who has first hand experience with AAAS, explained that these costs include, for example, the news that are published in the journal Science; for eLife, represented by Emily Packer (@PackerLEmily on Twitter), APCs of £2500 (based on <this post>, down from £3147 <projected cost for 2016>), include the development of new publishing platforms (that are released as open source software, by the way). [see blog post for <links>]

Developing new platforms are conceivably part of publishing an article, but it would be nice if there was some transparency, for instance telling authors up front that 20% of their APC actually went to paying for news articles or similar (I made that number up...)

https://lgatto.github.io/OA-discussion-01/

Post has shared content
Never thought selecting the Open Access online for a Springer journal, with no document signed, would irrevocable and give them right to demand the charges afterwards.
+SpringerOpen strikes again! For the third time in a few months, I hear from a French mathematician being bullied by Springer into paying more than €2000 for having clicked inadvertently on the Open Access button. Some of us are so surprised by the whole hybrid scheme that they do not realize this money is actually to be paid, and from their or their lab's pocket on top of that (let the one who read all Terms of Use for all internet service they use throw the first stone) .

What is really outrageous here is that Springer publishes under an OA licence (thus irrevocable) before asking the payment to the authors. Then even if the author wants to withdraw the article or to make it non-OA, it is too late and Springer insists, to the point of legal threats which are anything but courteous. In the two previous cases, Springer representatives ultimately found a decent way out once the cases where made public, hence this post.

To Springer representatives reading this: it concerns a proceeding volume of "Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matemáticas". You can email me for details.

Oh, and bravo for this great move in your competition with Elsevier for the title of most despised scientific publisher.

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
I have just posted this question about Isreal Gelfand's intriguing suggestion to study "Heredity Principle" structures instead of Categories
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
Half a dozen reasons why I support the Jussieu Call for Open Science and Bibliodiversity.

http://jussieucall.org/index.html

1. I support its call to move beyond PDFs. This is necessary to bypass publisher locks and facilitate reuse, text mining, access by the visually impaired, and access in bandwidth-poor parts of the world.

2. I applaud its recognition of no-fee or no-APC open-access journals, their existence, their value, and the fact that a significant number of authors will always depend on them.

3. I join its call for redirecting funds now spent on subscription journals to support OA alternatives.

4. I endorse its call to reform methods of research evaluation. If we want to assess quality, we must stop assuming that impact and prestige are good proxies for quality. If we want to assess impact, we must stop using metrics that measure it badly and create perverse incentives to put prestige ahead of both quality and access.

5. I support its call for infrastructures that are proof against privatization. No matter how good proprietary and closed-source platforms may initially be, they are subject to acquisition and harmful mutation beyond the control of the non-profit academic world. Even without acquisition, their commitment to OA is contingent on the market, and they carry a permanent risk of trapping rather than liberating knowledge. The research community cannot afford to entrust its research to platforms carrying that risk.

6. Finally I support what it terms bibliodiversity. While we must steer clear of closed-source infrastructure, subject to privatization and enclosure, we must also steer clear of platform monocultures, subject to rigidity, stagnation, and breakage. Again, no matter how good a monoculture platform may initially be, in the long run it cannot be better than an ecosystem of free and open-source, interoperable components, compliant with open standards, offering robustness, modularity, flexibility, freedom to create better modules without rewriting the whole system, freedom to pick modules that best meet local needs, and freedom to scale up to meet global needs without first overcoming centralized constraints or unresponsive decision-makers.

#oa #openaccess
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
Do we need peer review?

I was asked to write a "polemical article" for the Times Literary Supplement on the subject of peer review. It appeared online today, and isn't behind a paywall ...

Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Post has shared content
These 18 Savvy Pets Know Their Way Around Technology Better Than You Do http://th3pictures.com/r/2Gt03
Animated Photo
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded