OpenVisionScience: Difference between revisions
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
<object width="400" height="233"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GMIY_4t-DR0?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GMIY_4t-DR0?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400" height="233" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> | <object width="400" height="233"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GMIY_4t-DR0?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GMIY_4t-DR0?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400" height="233" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> | ||
</html> | </html> | ||
[http://thecostofknowledge.com/ Over 7000 researchers] are refusing to review, edit, and/or publish with Elsevier. Vision researchers spotted on the list include George Lovell, Jon Pierce, Edward Adelson, Alex Holcombe (who is only partially boycotting, and took a related pledge at [http://www.openaccesspledge.com OpenAccessPledge], Deborah Aphtorp, Joan Lopez-Moliner, Rainer Mausfeld, | [http://thecostofknowledge.com/ Over 7000 researchers] are refusing to review, edit, and/or publish with Elsevier. Vision researchers spotted on the list include George Lovell, Jon Pierce, Edward Adelson, Alex Holcombe (who is only partially boycotting, and took a related pledge at [http://www.openaccesspledge.com OpenAccessPledge], Deborah Aphtorp, Joan Lopez-Moliner, Rainer Mausfeld, Nick Scott-Samuel, Michel Treisman, | ||
==Publishing Solutions- subscription model== | ==Publishing Solutions- subscription model== | ||
Revision as of 21:43, 26 February 2012
Location: Royal Ballroom 1-3
We all hope for an open system of science in which:
- Journal articles are inexpensive or free.
- Peer review is fair and efficient.
- Experiments can be fully replicated by anyone.
Achieving these goals is more feasible than ever, but most publishers, journals, and researchers have made few changes to the way they do business. This workshop will include discussion of possible solutions. We want constructive suggestions, possibly leading to an action plan.
Background
- Amusing video Scientist Meets Publisher satirizes the current situation with closed journal publishing
<html> <object width="400" height="233"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GMIY_4t-DR0?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GMIY_4t-DR0?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400" height="233" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> </html> Over 7000 researchers are refusing to review, edit, and/or publish with Elsevier. Vision researchers spotted on the list include George Lovell, Jon Pierce, Edward Adelson, Alex Holcombe (who is only partially boycotting, and took a related pledge at OpenAccessPledge, Deborah Aphtorp, Joan Lopez-Moliner, Rainer Mausfeld, Nick Scott-Samuel, Michel Treisman,
Publishing Solutions- subscription model
Subscription but non-profit
- Oxford Journals of OUP?
- Annals of Botany editor says they're great
- Would ARVO take VR on board?
- Duke University Press?
- MIT Press?
- Cambridge University Press?
- Highwire Press (Stanford)?
- Society for Neuroscience
Subscription, for-profit but at least not-ridiculously-profitable publishers
Danger with these is that eventually they'll be bought up by the mega-profitable mega-publishers. Quite likely actually.
So why hasn't Pion (publisher of Perception) been swallowed up by one of the megapublishers? Is there something about Pion that suggests it won't ever be?
Open Access (a dream, but not an impossible one)
- Open Journal Systems
- Annotum
With these options, if some universities/libraries/societies banded together, staff could presumably be hired to do administration of the above software etc.
The savings by eliminating the subscription fees for university libraries might well allow them to fund this (Heather Morrison's thesis includes calculations).
PLoS Currents -with a big non-profit publisher, yet completely free and open-access (so what's the catch?)
With PLoS Currents, submission to publication can take place in a matter of days and there are no publication fees. Authors currently use Google knol to write their submission and are in complete control of the appearance of their article. In early 2012, the Currents series will move to an enhanced platform with new features and a streamlined display with no disruption to the publication (Google is discontinuing knol in May 2012).
Only catch I see is that you have to use the Currents platform to create/layout the manuscript. And we don't know what this platform is.
Agenda
11 a.m. start Introduction to the issues by Alex Holcombe and .
11:20 Topic 1: Experiment code repository, open peer review,
11:30 Topic 2: Publishing, closed access, open access, Elsevier, corporate megapublishers and alternatives,
Add something here or discuss at the Discussion Forum.
