Tag Archives: arXiv

Scientific publishers take their money from the academic managers, blame them too

Wonderful thread  at HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19114786

Starting with “All this is an excellent ad for sci-hub, which avoids most of the serious drawbacks of publishers like Elsevier. It was interesting how that was relegated to a veiled comment at the end, “or finding access in other channels”. But basically if the mainstream publishers can’t meet the need, we do need other channels, and right now sci-hub is the only one that actually works at scale.

Then the discussion goes to “Blame the academic administrators who demand publications in top tier journals – the same ones who charge a ton for access.

Or “ in market terms the clients (researchers) manifest a strong preference for other products than those offered by the publishers. Why do they still exist? Does not make any sense, except if we recognize also that the market is perturbed

Enjoy the thread!  It shows that people think better than, you choose:  pirates who fight  only for the media corporation rights,  gold OA diggers who ask for more money than legacy publishers, etc…

UPDATE: for those who don’t know me, I’m for OA and Open Science. I do what I support. I am not for legacy publishers. I don’t believe in the artificial distinction between green OA, which is said to be for archiving, and gold OA which is said to be for publishing. I’m for arXiv and other really needed services for research communication.

Advertisements

What’s new around Open Access and Open Science? [updated]

In the last year I was not very much interested into Open Access and Open Science. There are several reasons, I shall explain them. But before: what’s new?

My reasons were that:

  • I’m a supporter of OA, but not under the banner of gold OA. You know that I have a very bad impression about the whole BOAI thing, which introduced the false distinction between gold which is publication and green which is archival. They succeeded to delay the adoption of what researchers need (i.e. basically older than BOAI inventions, like arXiv) and the recognition that the whole academic publication system is working actively against the researchers interests. Academic managers are the first to be blamed about this, because they don’t have the excuse that they work for a private entity which has to make money no matter the price. Publishers are greedy, OK, but who gives them the money?
  • Practically, for the working researcher, we can now publish in any place, no matter how close or anachronically managed, because we can find anything on Sci-Hub, if we want. So there is no reason to fight for more OA than this. Except for those who make money from gold OA…
  • I was very wrong with my efforts and attempts to use corporate social media for scientific communication.
  • Bu still, I believe strongly in the superiority of validation over peer-review. Open Science is the future.

I was also interested in the implications for OA and OS of the new EU Copyright Directive. I expressed my concern that again it seems that nobody cares about the needs of researchers (as opposed to publishers and corporations in general) and I asked some questions which interest me and nobody else seems to ask: will the new EU Copyright Directive affect arXiv or Figshare?  The problem I see is related to automatic filters, or to real ways the researchers may use these repositories.  See for example here for a discussion.  In   Sept 2018 I filed requests for answers to arXiv and to Figshare. For me at least the answers will be very interesting and I hope them to be as bland as possible, in the sense that there is nothing to worry about.

So from my side, that’s about all, not much. I feel like except the gold OA money sucking there’s nothing new happening. Please tell me I’m very wrong and also what can I do with my research output, in 2019.

UPDATE: I submitted two days ago a comment at Julia Reda post Article 13 is back on – and it got worse, not better. About the implications for the research articles repositories, the big ones, I mean, the ones which are used millions of times by many researchers. I waited patiently, either for the appearance of the comment or for a reaction. Any reaction. For me this is a clear answer: pirates fight for the freedom of the corporation to share in its walled garden the product of a publisher. The rest is immaterial for them. They pirates not explorers.

The price of publishing with GitHub, Figshare, G+, etc

Three years ago I posted The price of publishing with arXiv. If you look at my arXiv articles then you’ll notice that I barely posted on arXiv.org since then. Instead I went into territory which is even less recognized as serious by a big part of academia. I used:

The effects of this choice are put in front of my homepage, so go there to read them. (Besides, it is a good exercise to remember how to click on links and use them, that lost art from the age when internet was free.)

In this post I want to explain what is the price I paid for these choices and what I think now about them.

First, it is a very stressful way of living. I am not joking, as you know stress comes from realizing that there are many choices and one has to choose. Random reward from the social media is addictive. The discovery that there is a way to get out from the situation which keeps us locked into the legacy publishing system (validation). The realization that the problem is not technical but social. A much more cynical view of the undercurrents of the social life of researchers.

The feeling that I can really change the world with my research. The worries that some possible changes might be very dangerous.

The debt I owe concerning the scarcity of my explanations. The effort to show only the aspects I think are relevant, putting aside those who are not. (Btw, if you look at my About page then you’ll read “This blog contains ideas from the future”. It is true because I already pruned the 99% of the paths leading nowhere interesting.)

The desire to go much deeper, the desire to explain once again what and why, to people who seem either lacking long term attention capability or having shallow pet theories.

Is like fishing for Moby Dick.

ArXiv is 3 times bigger than all megajournals taken together

 How big are the “megajournals” compared to arXiv?
I use data from the article

[1] Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth? by Bo-Christer Björk ​https://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.981 , table 3

and the arXiv monthly submission rates

[2] http://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions

To have a clear comparison I shall look at the window 2010-2014.

Before showing the numbers, there are some things to add.

1.  I saw the article [1] via the post by +Mike Taylor

[3] Have we reached Peak Megajournal? http://svpow.com/2015/05/29/have-we-reached-peak-megajournal/

I invite you to read it, it is interesting as usual.

2. Usually, the activity of counting articles is that dumb thing which is used by managers to hide behind, in order to not be accountable for their decisions.
Counting  articles is a very lossy compression technique, which associates to an article a very small number of bits.
I indulged into this activity because of the discussions from the G+ post

[4] https://plus.google.com/+MariusBuliga/posts/efzia2KxVzo

and its clone

[4′] Eisen’ “parasitic green OA” is the apt name for Harnad’ flawed definition of green OA, but all that is old timers disputes, the future is here and different than both green and gold OA https://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/eisen-parasitic-green-oa-is-the-apt-name-for-harnad-flawed-definition-of-green-oa-but-all-that-is-old-timers-disputes-the-future-is-here-and-different-than-both-green-and-gold-oa/

These discussions made me realize that the arXiv model is carefully edited out from reality by the creators and core supporters of green OA and gold OA.

[see more about in the G+ variant of the post https://plus.google.com/+MariusBuliga/posts/RY8wSk3wA3c ]
Now, let’s see those numbers. Just how big is that arXiv thing compared to “megajournals”?

From [1]  the total number of articles per year for “megajournals” is

2010:  6,913
2011:  14,521
2012:   25,923
2013:  37,525
2014:  37,794
2015:  33,872

(for 2015 the number represents  “the articles published in the first quarter of the year multiplied by four” [1])

ArXiv: (based on counting the monthly submissions listed in [2])

2010: 70,131
2011: 76,578
2012: 84,603
2013: 92,641
2014:  97,517
2015:  100,628  (by the same procedure as in [1])

This shows that arXiv is 3 times bigger than all the megajournals at once, despite that:
– it is not a publisher
– does not ask for APC
– it covers fields far less attractive and prolific than the megajournals.

And that is because:
– arxiv answers to a real demand from researchers, to communicate fast and reliable their work to their fellows, in a way which respects their authorship
– also a reaction of support for what most of them think is “green OA”, namely to put their work there where is away from the publishers locks.

_____________________________________

Eisen’ “parasitic green OA” is the apt name for Harnad’ flawed definition of green OA, but all that is old timers disputes, the future is here and different than both green and gold OA

See this post and the replies on G+ at [archived post].

My short description of the situation: the future is here, and it is not gold OA (nor the flawed green OA definition which ignores arXiv). So, visually:

imageedit_34_6157098125

It has never occurred to me that putting an article in a visible place (like arXiv.org) is parasitic green OA+Michael B. Eisen  calls it parasitic because he supposes that this has to come along with the real publication. But what if not?

[Added: Eisen writes in the body of the post that he uses the definition given by Harnad to green OA, which ignores the reality. It is very conveniently for gold OA to have a definition of green OA which does not apply to the oldest (1991) and fully functional example of a research communication experiment which is OA and green: the arXiv.org.]
Then, compared to that, gold OA appears as a progress.
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1710

I think gold OA, in the best of cases, is a waste of money for nothing.

A more future oriented reply has +Mike Taylor
http://svpow.com/2015/05/26/green-and-gold-the-possible-futures-of-open-access/
who sees two possible futures, green (without the assumption from Eisen post) and gold.

I think that the future comes faster. It is already here.

Relax. Try validation instead peer review. Is more scientific.

Definition. Peer-reviewed article: published by the man who saw the man who claims to have read it, but does not back the claim with his name.

The reviewers are not supermen. They use the information from the traditional article. The only thing they are supposed to do is that they read it. This is what they use to give their approval stamp.

Validation means that the article provides enough means so that the readers can reproduce the research by themselves. This is almost impossible with  an article in the format inherited from the time when it was printed on paper. But when the article is replaced by a program which runs in the browser, which uses databases, simulations, whatever means which facilitate the validation, then the reader can, if he so wishes, make a scientific motivated opinion about this.

Practically the future has come already and we see it on Github. Today. Non-exclusively. Tomorrow? Who knows?

Going back to the green-gold OA dispute, and Elsevier recent change of sharing and hosting articles (which of course should have been the real subject of discussions, instead of waxing poetic about OA, only a straw man).

This is not even interesting. The discussion about OA revolves around who has the copyright and who pays (for nothing).

I would be curious to see discussions about DRM, who cares who has the copyright?

But then I realised that, as I wrote at the beginning of the post, the future is here.

Here to invent it. Open for everybody.

I took the image from this post by +Ivan Pierre and modified the text.
https://plus.google.com/+IvanPierreKilroySoft/posts/BiPbePuHxiH

_____________

Don’t forget to read the replies from the G+ post. I archived this G+ post because the platform went down. Read here why I deleted the chemlambda collection from G+.

____________________________________________________

Github laudatio: negative Coase cost

This is a record of a mind changing experience I had with Github, one which will manifest in the months to come. (Well, it’s time to move on, to move further, new experiences await, I like to do this…)

Here is not more than what is in this ephemeral google+ post, but is enough to get the idea.

And it’s controversial, although obvious.

“I  just got hooked by github.io . Has everything, is a dream came true. Publishing? arXiv? pfff…. I know, everybody knows this already, let me enjoy the thought, for the moment. Then it will be some action.

Continuing with github and publishing, this is a worthy subject (although I believe that practically github already dwarfed legacy publishing, academia and arXiv). Here is an excerpt from a post from 2011
http://marciovm.com/i-want-a-github-of-science
“- Publishing is central to Academia, but its publishing system is outclassed by what Open Source software developers have in GitHub- GitHub’s success is not just about openness, but also a prestige economy that rewards valuable content producers with credit and attention

-Open Science efforts like arXiv and PLoS ONE should follow GitHub’s lead and embrace the social web”

I am aware about the many efforts about publishing via github, I only wonder if that’s not like putting a horse in front of a rocket.

On the other side, there is so much to do, now that I feel I’ve seen rock solid proof that academia, publishing and all that jazz is walking dead, with the last drops of arterial blood splatting around from the headless body. ”

Negative Coase cost?

__________________________________________________

The price of publishing with arXiv

This is a very personal post. It is emotionally triggered by looking at this old question  Downsides of using the arXiv and by reading the recent The coming Calculus MOOC Revolution and the end of math research.

What I think? That a more realistic reason for a possible end (read: shrinking) of math research comes from  thinking  that there are any downsides of using the arXiv. That there are any downsides of using an open peer review system. It comes from those who are moderately in favour of open research until they participate into a committee or until it comes to protecting their own little church from strange ideas.

And from others, an army of good but not especially creative researchers, a high mediocracy (high because selected, however) who will probably sink research for a time, because on the long term a lot of mediocre research results add to noise. But on the short term, this is a very good business: write many mediocre, correct articles, hide them behind a paywall and influence the research policy to favour the number (and not the content) of those.

What I think  is that will happen exactly like it happened with the academic painters, a while ago.

You know that I’m right.

Now, because the net is not subtle enough, in order to show you that indeed, these people are right from a social point of view, to say that there is a price for not behaving as they expect, indulge me to explain what was the price which I paid for using the arXiv as the principal means of publication.

The advantage: I had a lot of fun. I wrote articles which contain more than one idea, or which use more than one field of research. I wrote articles on subjects which genuinely interest me, or articles which contain more questions than answers. I wrote articles which were not especially designed to solve problems, but to open ones. I changed fields, once about 3-4 years.

The price: I was told that I don’t have enough published articles. I lost a lot of cites, either because the citation was incorrectly done, or because the databases (like ISI) don’t count well those (not that I care, really). Because I change fields (for those who know me, it’s clear that I don’t do this randomly, but because there are connections between fields) I seem to come from nowhere and go nowhere. Socially, and professionally, is very bad for the career to do what I did. Most of the articles I sent for publication (to legacy publishers) have spent incredible amounts of time there and most of the refusals were of the type “seems OK but maybe another journal” or “is OK but our journal …”. I am incredibly (i.e. the null hypothesis statistically incredible) unlucky to publish in legacy journals.

But, let me stress this, I survived. And I still have lots of ideas, better than before, and I’m using dissemination tools (like this blog) and I am still having a lot of fun.

So, it’s your choice: recall why you have started to do research, what dreams you had. I don’t believe you that you dreamed, as a kid, to write a lot of ISI papers about a lot of arcane problems of others, in order to attract grant financing from bureaucrats who count what is your social influence.

_____________________________________________