[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Tue Mar 25 09:02:01 UTC 2014

Mike. Sorry - I was referring to my post on this blog. I.e. I made a
statement I believed to be roughly true and am happy to be corrected. I
probably should have said "I believe that ..."

In some disciplines versions of record are critical. In others they have
little value. If the authors are publishing a formal statement that will be
useful for the community as authoritative , it should be stamped. But many
papers would benefit from updating. e.g. "we've had problems with impure
chemical X from supplier Y in 2011. When did you buy yours?" "Good point -
we bought ours in 2012, so didn't encounter that problem - at your
suggestion we've now repeated with their latest 2014 batch without problem.
 we'll update the paper".

In many cases the version of record is a compromise between the complete
reporting of everything and what can be done with the resources available
and the (appalling) pressure to publish. It is not scriptural.

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:

> On 25 March 2014 08:07, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > And - note - I don't mind posting material that is then communally
> > corrected. It's a discourse , not a formal presentation.
>
> I agree, but only so long as there is explicit and robust versioning.
> I don't want to be in a position where I cite Halibutwrangler (2013)
> as saying X only to find in 2014 that his paper now says Y. I need to
> be able to cite Halibutwrangler (2013:version 12) and know it won't
> change.
>
> Of course the old version-of-record system is just the degenerate
> version of this scheme, where the only version number is 1.
>
> -- Mike.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> "arXiV works. Many submitters then update their papers to reflect
> >> better versions. Except that this then the publishers tell scientist
> >> to remove these."
> >>
> >> [citation needed].
> >>
> >> If you can show me evidence of this, I promise to blog the heck out of
> it.
> >>
> >> -- Mike.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 25 March 2014 07:53, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> > I completely agree with Bjoern. I have come to the same conclusion and
> >> > was
> >> > preparing a series of blog posts on it. I'll phrase it differently...
> >> >
> >> > The Opportunity cost of all Open Access - as currently practised - is
> >> > huge.
> >> > [The opportunity cost of Closed Access is several times that].
> >> >
> >> > In other words we are spending huge amounts of time on non-science
> which
> >> > does not in anyway enhance the process of science. Science isn't
> BETTER
> >> > because it's in an Open Access journal. Researchers still spend time
> >> > reformatting references, redrawing diagrams because the journal wants
> to
> >> > compete with other journals. It's appalling that the publication
> >> > industry
> >> > has not long ago adopted or created universal ways of authoring.
> >> >
> >> > But it's worse. The process of publishing stifles scientific
> >> > communication.
> >> > Why have journals? because publishers want to compete, not because
> it's
> >> > an
> >> > efficient modern process. And the green-OA evangelists repeat the
> mantra
> >> > of
> >> > the sacred version-of-reference. This is nonsense. Science is always
> >> > capable
> >> > of improvement. I deposit my software daily. Mat Todd deposits his
> >> > antimalarial chemical data daily. If either are capable of improvement
> >> > we
> >> > improve it on a daily basis. You couldn't do this in the nineteenth
> >> > century
> >> > but you can now.
> >> >
> >> > So journal-based publication and publisher-based publication have vast
> >> > opportunity costs. No innovation, little discoverability (we supinely
> >> > wait
> >> > for Google to index our science) , no semantics, dead science in
> pixels
> >> > rather than live objects.
> >> >
> >> > The only place it's done properly is arXiv. The APCs costs are trivial
> >> > (7
> >> > USD - compare 7000 Elsevier). Authors WANT it (they don't want journal
> >> > based
> >> > publication). There's no precious formatting. Word and LaTeX are
> totally
> >> > sufficient. I have never heard of a scientist who has refused to read
> a
> >> > paper because it's in LaTeX or Word rather than double-column,
> >> > unreformattable, landscape PDF (one of the worst visual interfaces
> >> > ever).
> >> > Tables split across 2 pages ?? ARGGH. Diagrams measured with a ruler.
> >> > data
> >> > omitted because of "space". three graphs crammed into one diagram
> etc...
> >> >
> >> > arXiV works. Many submitters then update their papers to reflect
> better
> >> > versions. Except that this then the publishers tell scientist to
> remove
> >> > these. You couldn't make this up. Publishers of all sorts now map onto
> >> > Ray
> >> > Bradbury's firemen in Fahrenheit 451 or Orwell's Ministry of Truth.
> >> >
> >> > We are at the start of the Digital Enlightenment. It's touched
> >> > government,
> >> > creative arts, and many areas outside academia. There Open means true
> >> > OKD-Open - free to use, reuse and redistribute and offered as a
> growing
> >> > point for innovation and community building. It's meritocratic and
> >> > democratic.
> >> >
> >> > Open Access looks backward - it is not part of the Digital
> >> > Enlightenment.
> >> > It's authoritarian and debases the author.
> >> >
> >> > Bjoern - I am happy to be in the vanguard.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Bjoern Brembs <b.brembs at gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Monday, March 24, 2014, 10:53:59 AM, you wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > That's why publishers so often do things that we hate: the
> >> >> > fundamentally do not want what we want. It's that simple.
> >> >>
> >> >> Precisely!
> >> >>
> >> >> In fact, after Richard's interview, I'm seriously considering phasing
> >> >> out
> >> >> all editorial support I've given the new startup publishers. It was
> fun
> >> >> and
> >> >> some of them were/are very innovative and full of smart and dedicated
> >> >> people.
> >> >>
> >> >> But in the end, I'm slowly starting to realize that it only increases
> >> >> the
> >> >> Balkanization of our infrastructure. Moreover, as we see now, the
> >> >> constant,
> >> >> ongoing license debates will not go away - in fact the more
> publishers
> >> >> and
> >> >> journals we have, the worse it will be as we'd have to take on every
> >> >> single
> >> >> one of them! And the news this morning about retracting a paper for
> >> >> legal
> >> >> reasons by Frontiers: I mean, that sort of thing just opens so many
> >> >> doors,
> >> >> it seems like if we continue to go down this road of ever more
> >> >> publishers
> >> >> and ever more journals each and everyone doing what they want, soon
> >> >> we'll be
> >> >> bogged down completely just to patch up all the different holes that
> >> >> start
> >> >> springing up all over the place.
> >> >>
> >> >> Technically, taking care that text, data and code are accessible and
> >> >> re-usable is a piece of cake. Do we really want to spend our time
> >> >> telling
> >> >> others how to do it right, correcting them only to then turn around
> and
> >> >> do
> >> >> the same thing all over again, ad adfinitum, rather than getting it
> >> >> right to
> >> >> begin with?
> >> >>
> >> >> Bjoern
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Björn Brembs
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------
> >> >> http://brembs.net
> >> >> Neurogenetics
> >> >> Universität Regensburg
> >> >> Germany
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> open-access mailing list
> >> >> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> >> >> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Peter Murray-Rust
> >> > Reader in Molecular Informatics
> >> > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> >> > University of Cambridge
> >> > CB2 1EW, UK
> >> > +44-1223-763069
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > open-access mailing list
> >> > open-access at lists.okfn.org
> >> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Peter Murray-Rust
> > Reader in Molecular Informatics
> > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> > University of Cambridge
> > CB2 1EW, UK
> > +44-1223-763069
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-access mailing list
> > open-access at lists.okfn.org
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
> >
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140325/15f15f60/attachment-0002.html>