You might be right about the far future, but there's still a lot of human flourishing that fails to happen every day until then. Or you could be wrong, and I'd hate to /start/ having this conversation once we realize that.
Starting in 2013, all US-funded work needs to end up publicly accessible within a year of publication. There are slightly different ways, depending on the funder, but it's the rule.
Canada's Tri-Council Agencies have had a similar policy from 2016 onward, ditto EU....
Older papers are tricky though. I'm not sure the government can compel you to make something available.
I hadn’t heard about this, is there a keyword I can use to learn more?
This is a "meta-policy" of sorts, in that it directs grant-making agencies to form policies of their own. A lot was written about it at the time, most of which includes its title "Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research."
It came up again in 2020 when OSTP considered revising the rules (e.g., https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/will-trump-white-hou...)
Depending on your interests, you could then look at individual agencies' policies.
- Here's the NIH policy: https://publicaccess.nih.gov Search for something in PubMed and there will be a "PMC Free Full Text" icon if it's available from PubMed Central. Some publishers just lower the paywall, in which case it says "free from publisher".
- An FAQ for the NSF: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2018/nsf18041/nsf18041.jsp
- The DoD hosts its own repository called DTIC. Heres' the policy stuff: https://discover.dtic.mil/policy-memoranda/ Open access is the last section. You can search at the top-right for DoD funded research.
- Not to be outdone on the acronym front, the DOE has a site called PAGES, which ostensibly stands for Public Access Gateway for Energy and Science: https://www.osti.gov/public-access
- Those are the biggies, but there are a ton of federal agencies covered by the policy. Here's the USDA's plan: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USDA-Publ...
For me, the rise of preprints has blunted the impact of that exclusivity period: something approximating the full text is usually available, whether from the publishers, PMC, or bioarxiv. This might depend on a lot of discipline--neuro dove head-first into preprints and I think they're less common in other fields.
It's not obvious to me what the "right" fee is. The NPG fees seem bonkers. The PLoS journals and eLife aren't trying to turn a profit, are a bit lower but still in the few thousand dollar range, so there must be some non-obvious, non-trivial expenses.
Scihub is at least levelling the playing field and forcing the conversation to happen.
Bioarxiv is seven years old, and when it started, it was tiny niche service with a few dozen new papers each month. People were skeptical of the contents of preprints and journals were reluctant to accept (or cite) work posted there. Now, it gets thousands of submissions a month and is a de rigueur part of many researchers' (and some journals') workflow.
In parallel, governments and funders have put some weight behind open access. An open version needs to be available within a year for all US-funded work from 2013 onward; Canada's similar tri-council policy took effect in 2016(?). It's true that there aren't draconian penalties, but there are some small nudges towards compliance. The NIH wants a PubMed Central ID for any paper you're claiming credit for on a grant. Google Scholar nags about non open-access papers on your profile. Many journals (even initially-closed ones) even handle the whole open access deposition thing for you now.
As a result, I find I need the library VPN a lot less these days. On the other hand, I agree that supplanting the publishers is tough. A Cell, Science, or Nature paper still carries a ton of cachet and its associated career impact; ELife isn't quite there yet.
Then, Elsevier, Springer, SAGE , et al. should spend their money making ToC / abstract lists of the best of the best papers in the different subjects.
That´s the main value of these editorials, they should super specialize in that and leave the distribution/editing to others (they kind of already do, they just want to have control).
I may not want to pay ANY money once I am looking for a specific article that I know it exists. But I will pay good money for a "push" type of listing/abstract and maybe analysis of the best articles in certain subjects (its kind of what Feedly does but without any analysis/editorial but just dumb grouping).
Personally, I think part of the solution would be to have grants that are in some way publicly funded (taxes) to have a portion set aside to pay publishing costs, and require publishing in some way. This would both make open access with well-polished articles more accessible, it would also help solve the issue of negative results rarely being published.
Not perfect, not a.silver bullet, but at least an incremental improvement.
Claiming $10k for a bunch of unnecessary work is outrageous.
The cost of prestigious journals are the curation and high standard of peer review. Except they don't actually pay their staff for those things...
But you are right: it's still a mostly unnecessary cost these days. And regardless if the other costs, $150 to $700 per year for a journal subscription is rarely justified by the publishing costs the turn articles into more polished and high quality pieces.
The financial model for disseminating scientific knowledge is broken, but I did want to acknowledge that there is good and useful work done in-between an author writing up their research and ultimately making it available online.
I'm assuming journals were happy to switch subscriber to digital-only subscriptions. All the revenue without the circulation headaches.
In the very early 00's a small publisher might have a few dozen journals and a dozen books a year, and reasonable but not huge profit margins. At the same time a couple of things were happening:
1) Elsevier was already snatching up small publishers and offering their own digital access.
2) For a small publisher going digital was much more difficult. It wasn't in their existing tech skill set and there weren't much in the way of turn-key solutions to fill their specific needs
3) Royalty agreements weren't built for all-access subscriptions. They were based on purchases of a full issue. They couldn't be shoe-horned into all-access subscriptions so the publisher would have to go back and renegotiate contracts for digital distribution in a process that was extremely time consuming... getting agreements for 30 years of your back catalog wasn't easy.
4) For a small publisher, digitizing content was very expensive. A simple destructive scan where the content was unbound and image scanned to a PDF wasn $0.50 to $1 per page, but you need things to be searchable too. OCR wasn't good enough and OCR w/human correction was very expensive. Common practice was to go for the cheaper image-only OCR and tack on ToC, Titles, abstracts and authors as indexed metadata, which also cost more money.
Elsevier was big enough that most of the above were somewhat non-issues for them. They could throw their bulk around and dictate terms on royalties deploying an army of people to work them all out journal by journal. They had plenty of money to build a digital platform and digitize their back catalog year by year at a fairly rapid pace.
Library budgets were being cut back, so it looked like a real nice option to subscribe to Elsevier and get instant access to tons of stuff. It became a lot harder for smaller publishers to get their material into libraries. This created a downward spiral, Elsevier picked off small publishers one by one, making their product even more appealing.
In the end, we're left with what we have now: A few massive publishers that looked like reasonable options 15 and 20 years ago at those prices, but then the prices rapidly escalated, and after 7 or 10 years of digital subscriptions you almost couldn't go back because you'd have to buy that many years of back catalog.
Uhm, I don't know if you've published a paper since the 90s but none of those are costs that modern journals incur. Or if they do, nobody asked them to.
The main thing journals do is peer review and that is all done for free by other academics. Authors do basically all of the typesetting, and although journals still insist on printing issues there's really no need for them to do so.
The only really important thing that journals do is finding and hassling reviewers.
It's often not very good: an overzealous typesetter replaced every single italic p (as in "p < 0.05") with a musical quarter-note. Still, some of that money must be going somewhere.
That said, I would actually love a journal that offered (good) copy/line editing of accepted papers so that the science is presented as clearly as possible. I suspect this would work out well for the authors and the journal. At the margin, easier to read => more cites. However, very few journals compete on "author-friendliness". It's all impact factor this and metrics that.
A nomogram got futzed around and, well, the ruler-only, no-calculator required, calculations were now wrong.
"A set of trial calculations indicate that the nomogram of Burton et al is accurate, but a realignment of Burton’s nomogram (for greater symmetry?) in the Clinical Nutrition text resulted in a nomogram with considerable inaccuracy."
They did and do this sort of editing, so it may be, sometimes, a matter of journal quality. I don't anything gets into JAMA without that level of editing.
Anyway, that's what my opinions in this thread have been based on, but maybe I'm exhibiting selection bias by having experience primarily with a higher quality publisher.
I certainly didn't get any suggestions aimed at improving the readability of the text; those mostly came from coauthors and colleagues before submission, with a few more things flagged, in passing, by peer reviewers.
That's on the biology side of things. For ML, it's basically "Here's the doc class! Good luck!"
Or look at the editing that Elife professional editors perform in addition to other peer reviewers: detailed feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions and suggestions for improvement." detailed feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions and suggestions for improvement
Maybe poor quality journals don't do this sort of thing, I'm not familiar with them & their economic models.
They (the journal owners) don’t do these anymore:
-Proofreading: you’re expected to do this before you submit, and the reviewers will reject it if it is of poor enough writing quality. They will not, however, edit the paper in any way.
-Copyediting: there shouldn’t be copy editing in research papers, if there is fluff there is wasted real estate
-Typesetting: once again, researchers are expected to submit a paper with the typesetting requirements fulfilled (or in a format which can be automatically adjusted with a template (e.g. LaTeX))
-logistics: not an issue anymore, almost all access is digital and printed by the reader as necessary (if the portal is not DRMd to prevent this)
Copy editing is about a lot more than fluff. Accurately & skillfully communicating research and results does not completely overlap the Venn diagram skill set of "excellent researcher". Research skills do not equate to communication skills.
Typesetting is a little more complex than character format, but you're right, especially in these days with better tools, it's not nearly as labor intensive as it used to be, though still absolutely necessary if the journal is physically printed. Much much simpler if it's online only.
Many journals are still printed and archived especially by libraries, so those logistics are still a factor, and there is a fixed amount of labor required if it's 100 copies are 10,000. After the 100, the required work is incremental.
Digital absolutely has logistics involved as well: building and maintaining a platform isn't free, BUT:
I would wholeheartedly agree that the financial models here are broken and outrageous. Even considering the publishing work I mentioned, whether we disagree on the scope or not, better tools have made that work significantly easier. Scalable digital platforms are also much more of a known quantity and cheaper: inexpensive turn key solutions exist that could be scaled with fairly mundane tech skills. In every way I can think of, the costs associated with turning a raw article fresh from the authors into a polished publication should be much much cheaper.
Accurately & skillfully communicating research and results does not completely overlap the Venn diagram skill set of "excellent researcher". Research skills do not equate to communication skills.
Postdocs are no more likely to have their Venn diagrams overlap significantly.
But in any case, journals don't do any semantic editing on articles, so the whole point is moot: anyone can be an editor as long as they can typeset and maybe spot typos there and there, and neither communication nor research skill is required for that.
a journal will never edit the text beyond typos. their editorials are written from other peers for free. What copy editing?
Certain things would get edited automatically without signoff, but only if they were needed to conform to the style guide: some of that was set by the publisher, some by the journal editor.
Take two scientific researcher of the same discipline & scientific skill level, and one of them might be a very poor communicator. Multiple levels of the editorial process addressed those issues, copy editing included.
Changes were not made without the author's approval: They were edited, proofs sent to the author, who signed off, or declined some changes while adding others. It would then be reviewed by the publisher's editors again, and if all went well a final proof was sent out for a final sign off.
I'm not sure why you doubt this sort of thing: I lived in that world, on the tech side of a small/medium scientific publisher, and saw it all happen & built some of the systems that facilitated the process. It wasn't wasted effort: margins weren't very big and where I worked they would have been happy to get rid of a few staffers if the process didn't require them.
If you published an article through a reasonably sized publisher in a somewhat well-known, did you different experience? If so, then either the practices vary greatly among different publishers, or practices have changed a lot since the early 00's (which may very well be the case)
It also depends on the author guidelines of each journal. Nature group e.g. has requirements about when your subscripts should be in italics. And i think sometimes they prettify images. I don't care about those things, and it doesnt change a thing about the impact of 99% of papers. Most authors submit great quality manuscripts anyway, judging from what i 've reviewed. In fact i m pretty sure i m doing more copyediting and suggestions while reviewing than any of the paid editors.
Another thing is, a ton of effort is wasted in reformatting (and sometimes rewriting) a paper to resubmit to another journal. Publishing is definitely a wasteful process.
There are always publishing costs, but it would be cheaper to set up a public utility for proofreading and uploading papers rather than the current situation
As an example from Elife, in addition to the peer review feedback process, Elife describes their editorial output as providing: "detailed feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions and suggestions for improvement." detailed feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions and suggestions for improvement"
In terms of the mechanics of publishing, it's all very little different than a traditional publisher, except for the funding model. In terms of public access, it is far superior: Publication costs are covered without exorbitant subscription fees and the public gets the benefits of the research for no cost of their own.
This is why I would like to see a move to grant models where the grant includes the cost of publication, and a requirement for the portion to be used to get knowledge into the public even if the results did not confirm the experimental hypothesis.
As an n=1, I had a professor run out of money from their grant, so he gave a sob story to the journal and they agreed to make it open-access for free. I guess it depends on the journal.
I guess he would have paid out-of-pocket if the journal didn't accept the sob story.
It seems you are claiming that the future isn't making all scientific content available, period - but rather only that content whose copyright holders have decided to make available.
I whole-heartedly disagree. We must not submit to arbitrary restrictions on the copying of information; and we certainly cannot and should not wait for Elsevier, Springer, IEEE et alia to grace us with access to articles.
Also - if "Open Access" means authors have to pay a large wad of money to have their papers published - that's not tolerable either.
Sci-hub existence is the proof by itself that you don't need billions to publish millions of articles.
Yes, but the perfect can be the enemy of the good.
While it keeps access open, it costs ludicrous amounts to submit an article (up to 4k $).
Not to mention the many journals focusing on OA that keep popping up who are purely profit driven, and care little for quality and standards.
With the severe lack of funding in the academic world, OA is not going to be the future, but will potentially skew access and impact towards research with deep pockets (rather than quality).
/side note: my spouse is an active publicising academic.
How does that _actually_ work, though? Can anyone download the final, published PDF from "publicly accessible repositories"?
(Full disclosure: ex scientist with published papers, still no idea how I can legally share _my_ work with anyone who might be interested...)
http://lesscrime.info/post/how-to-stop-hiding-your-research/