[Open-access] An anti-RWA bill

[Mike Taylor]

Bjorn,

The fundamental problem you're describing here is the absurd level of
prestige assigned to getting a paper (or, I should rather say, an
extended abstract) into one of the tabloids.

How are you going to change that?  If we make the move to
self-publication online, or putting everything in arXiv or similar,
how will that change the predilection of hiring committees to start by
counting the number of S&N papers candidates have?

It seems to me that you're conflating two rather separate issues: the
crazy influence of a few journals; and the lack of free access to
research.  You're criticising solutions to the latter because it
doesn't (you believe) offer solutions to the former; but I have yet to
hear ANY solution to the former.  Do you have one?  Or is your plan
just to keep the current S&N system,
but make readers pay for it instead of authors?

-- Mike.



On 1 February 2012 10:09, Björn Brembs <b.brembs at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Mike Taylor wrote:
>
>> As to the substance of your concern: I suppose it comes down to how
>> much you trust markets.  It seems to me that if it costs $50k to
>> publish in Nature of $1350 to publish in PLoS ONE, people will quickly
>> enough desert Nature.
>
> Isn't that bit like arguing that Dom Perignon would cease to
> sell champagne because people can get water (or Moet et
> Chandon) for a tiny fraction of the price?
> Or that Rolls Royce should cease to sell cars because people
> can drive around in a Hyundai just as well?
>
> And in these markets, people actually have the choice!
> Scientists who want to have a job don't have a choice of
> where they publish. How would that change?
>
> Disclaimer: I'm not saying that P1 is like water to
> champagne! lol :-)
>
>> Just as "the Internet interprets censorship as
>> damage and routes around it", so a clearly viewed market will
>> interpret exploitation as exactly what it is and route around it.
>
> Reasonable enough. However, what would motivate, e.g., search
> committees, instead of cutting off the list of applicants at
> the first one who doesn't have a Science or Nature article,
> to actually go and look at the titles and abstracts of the
> papers of their ~600 applicants?
> Only having one Science paper made me not make the shortlist
> on a number of my applications, I've been told.
> How would that change?
>
>> Also, you set up a false dichotomy of taxpayers vs. scientists.
>> Scientists ARE taxpayers.  Openness benefits us as much as anyone --
>> more, in fact.
>
> You are correct, I was exaggerating to make a point that the
> benefit of OA would be outweighed by the cost of having a
> luxury publishing segment without publishing in which you
> wouldn't be able to get a job.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bjoern
>
>
>
> --
> Björn Brembs
> ---------------------------------------------
> http://brembs.net
> Neurobiology
> Freie Universität Berlin
> Germany
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access