Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userThe rents too high: Self-archive for fair online publication costs
80
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Stevan Harnad
Publication date
2018
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The main contributors of scientific knowledge, researchers, generally aim to disseminate their findings far and wide. And yet, publishing companies have largely kept these findings behind a paywall. With digital publication technology markedly reducing cost, this enduring wall seems disproportionate and unjustified; moreover, it has sparked a topical exchange concerning how to modernize academic publishing. This discussion, however, seems to focus on how to compensate major publishers for providing open access through a pay to publish model, in turn transferring financial burdens from libraries to authors and their funders. Large publishing companies, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, PLoS, and Frontiers, continue to earn exorbitant revenues each year, hundreds of millions of dollars of which now come from processing charges for open-access articles. A less expensive and equally accessible alternative exists: widespread self-archiving of peer-reviewed articles. All we need is awareness of this alternative and the will to employ it
rate research
Read More
The lack of scientific openness is identified as one of the key challenges of computational reproducibility. In addition to Open Data, Free and Open-source Software (FOSS) and Open Hardware (OH) can address this challenge by introducing open policies, standards, and recommendations. However, while both FOSS and OH are free to use, study, modify, and redistribute, there are significant differences in sharing and reusing these artifacts. FOSS is increasingly supported with software repositories, but support for OH is lacking, potentially due to the complexity of its digital format and licensing. This paper proposes leveraging FAIR principles to make OH findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. We define what FAIR means for OH, how it differs from FOSS, and present examples of unique demands. Also, we evaluate dissemination platforms currently used for OH and provide recommendations.
There is a growing acknowledgement in the scientific community of the importance of making experimental data machine findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR). Recognizing that high quality metadata are essential to make datasets FAIR, members of the GO FAIR Initiative and the Research Data Alliance (RDA) have initiated a series of workshops to encourage the creation of Metadata for Machines (M4M), enabling any self-identified stakeholder to define and promote the reuse of standardized, comprehensive machine-actionable metadata. The funders of scientific research recognize that they have an important role to play in ensuring that experimental results are FAIR, and that high quality metadata and careful planning for FAIR data stewardship are central to these goals. We describe the outcome of a recent M4M workshop that has led to a pilot programme involving two national science funders, the Health Research Board of Ireland (HRB) and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW). These funding organizations will explore new technologies to define at the time that a request for proposals is issued the minimal set of machine-actionable metadata that they would like investigators to use to annotate their datasets, to enable investigators to create such metadata to help make their data FAIR, and to develop data-stewardship plans that ensure that experimental data will be managed appropriately abiding by the FAIR principles. The FAIR Funders design envisions a data-management workflow having seven essential stages, where solution providers are openly invited to participate. The initial pilot programme will launch using existing computer-based tools of those who attended the M4M Workshop.
In the same way ecosystems tend to increase maturity by decreasing the flow of energy per unit biomass, we should move towards a more mature science by publishing less but high-quality papers and getting away from joining large teams in small roles. That is, we should decrease our scientific productivity for good.
The article focuses on possible financial effects of the transformation towards Gold Open Access publishing based on article processing charges and studies an aspect that has so far been overlooked: Do possible cost sharing models lead to the same overall expenses or do they result in different financial burdens for the research institutions involved? It takes the current state of Gold OA publishing as a starting point, develops five possible models of attributing costs based on different author roles, number of authors and author-address-combinations. The analysis of the distributional effects of the application of the different models shows that all models result in similar expenditures for the overwhelming majority of institutions. Still, there are some research institutions where the difference between most and least expensive model results in a considerable amount of money. Given that the model calculation only considers publications that are Open Access and where all authors come from Germany, it is likely that different cost sharing models will become an issue in the debate on how to shoulder a possible large scale transformation towards Open Access based on publication fees.
In contrast to other fields where conferences are typically for less polished or in-progress research, computing has long relied on referred conference papers as a venue for the final publication of completed research. While frequently a topic of informal discussion, debates about its efficacy, or library science research, the development of this phenomena has not been historically analyzed. This paper presents the first systematic investigation of the development of modern computing publications. It relies on semi-structured interviews with eight computing professors from diverse backgrounds to understand how researchers experienced changes in publication culture over time. Ultimately, the article concludes that the early presence of non-academic practitioners in research and a degree of path dependenceor a tendency to continue on the established path rather than the most economically optimal one allowed conferences to gain and hold prominence as the field exploded in popularity during the 1980s.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
