Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ David Gerard _ Gerard takes on JSTOR

Posted by: thekohser

David Gerard http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-July/066983.html JSTOR as a "problem that needs dealing with", and he goes on to ponder ways by which the entire "proprietary journal system" could be brought to its knees.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 20th July 2011, 2:27pm) *

David Gerard http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-July/066983.html JSTOR as a "problem that needs dealing with", and he goes on to ponder ways by which the entire "proprietary journal system" could be brought to its knees.


He could try getting academics to provide articles for WP. But didn't he tell them all to fuck off, or something?

Posted by: Sololol

Too long has the world suffered under the tyranny of these "professors" and "professional academics"! The intellectual prolateriat will rise up and overthrow their masters!


...maybe I huffed too much roofing tar at breakfast but I have no idea what Gerard is talking about or why JSTOR will be the first up against the wall.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 20th July 2011, 9:27am) *

David Gerard http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-July/066983.html JSTOR as a "problem that needs dealing with", and he goes on to ponder ways by which the entire "proprietary journal system" could be brought to its knees.



Why is Gerard even still allowed on that list? All he does is troll with the most inane anarchist rambles. They need to give him the boot and not allow his type anywhere near the internet.




Lilburne

QUOTE
He could try getting academics to provide articles for WP. But didn't he tell them all to fuck off, or something?


To be glib, that was ArbCom's job, and they loved that job.

Posted by: Text

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21841 tongue.gif

Posted by: dtobias

It's not actually the academics being opposed or attempted to be undermined here... academics don't actually get paid (in general) for writing, publishing, or peer-reviewing articles. Rather, it's the parasitical business of commercial corporate academic publishers, who charge extortionate prices for commoners to see the papers the academic authors submitted for free, that is being opposed. This business model was arguably useful in the days when publication required shifting huge mounds of paper, but is rather useless in the Internet age.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 20th July 2011, 11:56am) *

...academics don't actually get paid (in general) for writing, publishing, or peer-reviewing articles.

Though, you have to admit, those functions are almost always a part of their job description, and lacking those activities, they are likely not to obtain tenure and will remain in the lower-paid tiers of the academic system.

That some Wikipediots are made nauseous by the fact that the "commercial corporate academic publishers" have elected to maintain standards -- standards that actually (gasp!) cost money to construct and enforce -- is not really the publishers' worry.

One day, when we are drowning in arts, scholarship, and entertainment that is wholly the output of crappy "open access" or "free culture" or "whatever you want to call it" movements, we'll look back in awe at how much more sensible that phrase "you get what you pay for" seemed.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 20th July 2011, 7:51am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 20th July 2011, 2:27pm) *

David Gerard http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-July/066983.html JSTOR as a "problem that needs dealing with", and he goes on to ponder ways by which the entire "proprietary journal system" could be brought to its knees.


He could try getting academics to provide articles for WP. But didn't he tell them all to fuck off, or something?

Yes, Gerard does indeed appear to be a "Compleat Idiot," inasmuch as there's no difference between a proprietary journal system and a proprietary any-sort-of-business. Proprietary=owner (that's what the Latin word means). All these "property=theft" advocates quickly understand the concept of "property" when it's THEIR stuff you're trying to take away from them. hrmph.gif One more example of hypocrisy.

QUOTE(Gerard)
So. What can we do to help take out the proprietary journal system?


Well, Gerard, you can start an academic journal yourself. Of course, you'd have to pay some money in capital costs, even if it was an e-journal, and then actually do some work to get it up and going. And then, would not appreciate not getting paid by the people who read the papers you publish.

I wonder (not for the first time) what the hell it is that Gerard actually does for a living?

The problem with JSTOR is not that it charges money, but that it has too little competition and is overpriced. Somebody needs to pay for article quality-control and their upkeep on database/servers, and that should be the people who read and use the articles (if they are students, then somebody needs to pay these expenses for them as a deliberate society education-fee, not socialize them wholesale into the entire society, or (even worse) decide that the providers should be screwed by ripping them off).

Right now, JSTOR's market share for the journal-access-market, is rather like the early days of Microsoft and its PC OS market share, but without NEARLY as much reason to hold on to the market share of journal-access that it still has. So far as I can tell, it merely survives through a sort of founder effect complete with early cartelization, which prevents coalition of effective alternatives. Sort of like...... Wikipedia. ermm.gif And there are many other parallels also, such as the salaries of the non-profit JSTOR officers, and that of WMF CEO Sue Gardner. Although JSTOR people apparently make more! happy.gif Neener, Sue. tongue.gif .

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 20th July 2011, 11:56am) *

It's not actually the academics being opposed or attempted to be undermined here... academics don't actually get paid (in general) for writing, publishing, or peer-reviewing articles. Rather, it's the parasitical business of commercial corporate academic publishers, who charge extortionate prices for commoners to see the papers the academic authors submitted for free, that is being opposed. This business model was arguably useful in the days when publication required shifting huge mounds of paper, but is rather useless in the Internet age.



Actually, the academics do benefit from the journals, as they are exclusive and allow you to gain more prominent positions. To remove the costs, then you would no longer have the journals. Academics can publish freely on the internet now. However, you don't have the prominent editors, the great peer review, and the backing of major academic institutions supporting that because you can't pay the great expense for such things. Without these, your article is the same as one written by a 5 year old.

Look at the journal Nature vs some kid's blog. At least one you go to with some confidence that the work is legitimate, where the internet is whatever. Just look at all the nuts who cram into a place like Wikipedia and chase out the real academics. That is the internet as a whole. These journals are the only bastion of academia and wont exist if they are "free".

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 20th July 2011, 12:05pm) *

I wonder (not for the first time) what the hell it is that Gerard actually does for a living?


http://davidgerard.co.uk/

Posted by: dtobias

I still think of the academic publishing industry as worse than the music industry in terms of the money going to people other than those who actually create the works being consumed, and the music industry is pretty bad in this regard: only a small percentage of the cost of a record/CD/MP3 purchased legally goes to actual musicians or songwriters, with most going to management and marketing types. These industries all have in common archaic business models built up in the days when bulky physical objects had to be manufactured and distributed, necessitating all sorts of expensive infrastructure that isn't needed nowadays for electronic distribution. It's notably primarily people connected with this management/marketing/corporate end who are shouting the loudest for draconian protection of intellectual property, supposedly for the sake of the poor starving artists, though they sometimes take such positions over the objection of artists themselves.

The still-useful role of gatekeepers to filter information and distinguish a crank's blog and a garage band's noise from the "good stuff" (however this may be defined) needs to somehow be recreated in the modern world; exactly what form this will take is yet to be determined, but hopefully it won't sap up nearly as much of the resources that go into the industry compared to the writers/artists/performers/researchers themselves.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 20th July 2011, 9:18am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 20th July 2011, 12:05pm) *

I wonder (not for the first time) what the hell it is that Gerard actually does for a living?


http://davidgerard.co.uk/

I knew that, but wanted to know the specifics. Why hasn't his job been outsourced to India yet? One presumes he knows some stuff about the particular systems he administrates, that he hasn't written down and made subject to publication so that anybody else can do his job. Information that wants to be freeeeeeee. I am disappointed. wink.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 20th July 2011, 9:15am) *

Look at the journal Nature vs some kid's blog. At least one you go to with some confidence that the work is legitimate, where the internet is whatever. Just look at all the nuts who cram into a place like Wikipedia and chase out the real academics. That is the internet as a whole. These journals are the only bastion of academia and wont exist if they are "free".

Yes, but on the other hand, the cost of these journals does NOT mostly go to pay for the intellectual labor of those who separate the wheat from the chaff. Much of THAT work is done by "peers" who do work for free. Editorial and layup work is legitimate, but what fraction of the budget goes for that? It's very hard to find out.

These journals come out on paper, most of them, so generally you're paying too much for one, if you buy it that way (and you don't get a break if you want it only in e-form). The Nature Publishing Group (which publishes Nature) also publishes thirty other science journals or so besides Nature, and they, in turn, are owned by Macmillan Publishers, which does a wide range of other types of publishing. But which (you may be sure) doesn't screw its other authors they way they screw their science authors. Essentially, the deal in academia is that authors agree to work for free, in turn for academic credit. Macmillan/Nature keeps all the profit in turn for its reputation. Which has been earned on the back of its unpaid reviewers, mostly, not its amazing staff that churns out slick paper journals with pretty graphs and no spelling or grammatical errors.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 20th July 2011, 1:13pm) *

I still think of the academic publishing industry as worse than the music industry in terms of the money going to people other than those who actually create the works being consumed



....

How much money do you think is left over after all the printing costs? You forgot that the market is really low. A musician sells to millions of people. An academic might have an audience of 1,000 if they are lucky.

There isn't some corporate fatcat who is running everything in these presses. Most of the editors and the ones publishing -are- the same academics who contributed before. There is very little money in academic publishing at any end. They are barely making ends meet now, and removing things like JSTOR would bankrupt them completely.


Milton: "Editorial and layup work is legitimate, but what fraction of the budget goes for that? It's very hard to find out."

Actually, it isn't. Many Academic Universities have publishing houses. Many are public universities. Their expenses are public record. You can find out just how much the people are being paid. I know that the CUA press makes very little, and every one of the staff has a secondary job at the school. You have to remember, for every Oxford University Press there are 10,000 much smaller groups that had to downsize a lot. Even Oxford has taken a big hit.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 20th July 2011, 12:13pm) *
...These industries all have in common archaic business models built up in the days when bulky physical objects had to be manufactured and distributed, necessitating all sorts of expensive infrastructure that isn't needed nowadays for electronic distribution. It's notably primarily people connected with this management/marketing/corporate end who are shouting the loudest for draconian protection of intellectual property...

There's a difference with academic publishing, though. On the surface, it sounds like it would be a good thing to make scholarly journal articles available for free to the public, soon after (or even immediately after) publication. But a significant percentage of people in academia, particularly in the sciences, would still suffer quite a lot if their articles were made widely available that quickly - and financial and intellectual-property considerations aren't the only reasons. In some cases those things actually have very little to do with it.

Rather than try to explain it in the abstract though, here's an obvious case-in-point. Suppose you're a biologist on a decent college/university faculty, doing stem-cell research. If you're reasonably diligent and talented, you might publish one or two papers a year. Of course, nobody reads them except for other biologists, unless maybe one of them happens to be a "blockbuster" or "game-changer." A high-profile paper like that might garner you a prize or award, even a better job, but other than those possibilities it's likely to make little difference to your place in the funding food chain. In most cases it's still going to be publish, add-to-CV, apply-for-grant, deal with review process, continue your research if you win, maybe try again if you lose, lather, rinse, repeat. (And somewhere in there, hopefully get tenure, and maybe even a decent dental plan.)

The thing is, all of this is usually done in relative quiet and obscurity, but now imagine if all those papers about your otherwise highly controversial stem-cell research were to be readily available to the public, quickly found in Google searches, etc... Now what do you have? Right-wing religious nuts camping out in front of the science building, holding up placards accusing you of killing babies, writing letters to families of prospective students, etc., etc. Admittedly, you might have that anyway if you're unlucky, or if you have a tendency towards braggadocio or self-promotion. But most of the academics I know aren't like that.

There's a reason why college professors, etc., want to preserve the so-called "ivory tower" - it's because they'd rather actually be working than constantly trying to explain and justify their work to people who often have little hope of understanding it, much less supporting it. And if you take that ivory tower away, and make research more subject to popular whim, then less research - and in particular, less science - gets done. (Science tends to be more expensive, y'see, and therefore harder to justify in the first place.)

What's more, there are LOTS of rather unpleasant people out there who'd be just as happy as can be if that were to happen.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 20th July 2011, 2:25pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 20th July 2011, 1:13pm) *

I still think of the academic publishing industry as worse than the music industry in terms of the money going to people other than those who actually create the works being consumed



....

How much money do you think is left over after all the printing costs? You forgot that the market is really low. A musician sells to millions of people. An academic might have an audience of 1,000 if they are lucky.

There isn't some corporate fatcat who is running everything in these presses. Most of the editors and the ones publishing -are- the same academics who contributed before. There is very little money in academic publishing at any end. They are barely making ends meet now, and removing things like JSTOR would bankrupt them completely.


Milton: "Editorial and layup work is legitimate, but what fraction of the budget goes for that? It's very hard to find out."

Actually, it isn't. Many Academic Universities have publishing houses. Many are public universities. Their expenses are public record. You can find out just how much the people are being paid. I know that the CUA press makes very little, and every one of the staff has a secondary job at the school. You have to remember, for every Oxford University Press there are 10,000 much smaller groups that had to downsize a lot. Even Oxford has taken a big hit.


He's not saying the editors make money - usually they don't make any. He's saying the publisher makes money. And it's not true that "there is very little money in academic publishing at any end" (though I guess it depends on your definition of "very little"). While there aren't millions of fans who snatch up the individual issues, institutional sales (libraries etc). can bring in some nice dough.

And there have been cases of academic organizations "rebelling" against money-grubbing publishers. Can't remember off the top of my head but IIRC Elsevier had some problems with uppity academics once or twice.

As far as JSTOR goes, I don't think they're part of the problem. If you're an academic you get access to it for free anyway - and you're the intended audience. It's really the interested amateur that gets screwed but there's honestly not that many of those, and they can always take a trip to the library.

But Milton's also right about lack of competition in the journal publishing industry - though it's more of a oligopoly than a monopoly. And dtobias is right that to some extent these companies are following an outdated business model based on shipping thick paper books. But in the end the way it shows up is just in the utterly stupefying inefficiency of the acceptance-publication process (better in some areas than others). In some disciplines it's considered "amateurish" to even inquire about what's going on with your submission before nine months - nine fucking months - have passed. This has further implications - tenure becomes a lot more uncertain; even if you've submitted quite a bit, the roulette wheel is not going to be spun until two years later or something, so who the hell knows how you'll come out when that clock gets close to midnight.

(Edit: not to mention that getting a revise/resubmit two years after you wrote something is something of a joke - who can remember what they were thinking exactly two years ago?)

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(radek @ Thu 21st July 2011, 4:13am) *

He's not saying the editors make money - usually they don't make any. He's saying the publisher makes money. And it's not true that "there is very little money in academic publishing at any end" (though I guess it depends on your definition of "very little"). While there aren't millions of fans who snatch up the individual issues, institutional sales (libraries etc). can bring in some nice dough.



Sorry, but that is just not true. Most publishers don't make money from academic work, and many journals are published on demand (hence the high prices) according to the wishes of the editors, as the editors are the ones who started and run most journals and a small print shop is all that exists of a "publisher".

Your confusion is like thinking Hollywood is the majority of movie making while ignoring that the vast majority are two guys with a cheap camera running around. We don't even have a Hollywood in academia publishing.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 21st July 2011, 6:17am) *

QUOTE(radek @ Thu 21st July 2011, 4:13am) *

He's not saying the editors make money - usually they don't make any. He's saying the publisher makes money. And it's not true that "there is very little money in academic publishing at any end" (though I guess it depends on your definition of "very little"). While there aren't millions of fans who snatch up the individual issues, institutional sales (libraries etc). can bring in some nice dough.



Sorry, but that is just not true. Most publishers don't make money from academic work, and many journals are published on demand (hence the high prices) according to the wishes of the editors, as the editors are the ones who started and run most journals and a small print shop is all that exists of a "publisher".

Your confusion is like thinking Hollywood is the majority of movie making while ignoring that the vast majority are two guys with a cheap camera running around. We don't even have a Hollywood in academia publishing.

The closest to scientific publishing Hollywood would be Elsevier, which publishes 2000 journals out of 70 offices in 24 countries. Also about 1900 books a year. They have 7000 employees and annual revenues of 1.5 billion pounds (US $2.43 billion). That's not in the Hollywood league of course, but neither is it chump change, and it completely gives the lie to the idea that there's no money in academic publishing. I don't really care what "most" scientific publishers make. How do you even define a scientific publisher? You can say it's two guys in a garage and claim that "most" don't make money. However, the journals that have a high impact factor are published by people like Elsevier and NPG (Nature Publishing Group). The last is a Macmillan division that publishes ~30 journals, so I cannot find out its finances, but if Elsevier makes a profit, I think it's safe to say that NPG does also. University libraries are starting to boycott Elsevier's prices, in fact.

Springer is another interesting German company that does mostly science books and high end science texts and reference books (no journals). Also some econ, law and social science stuff, but it's all heavily academic, and they look at author-credentials with a very heavy hand. They make $1.25 billion a year.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Publishing_Companies_with_focus_on_BGP
http://company.monster.com/elsevi.aspx

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 21st July 2011, 11:06am) *


The closest to scientific publishing Hollywood would be Elsevier, which publishes 2000 journals out of 70 offices in 24 countries. Also about 1900 books a year. They have 7000 employees and annual revenues of 1.5 billion pounds (US $2.43 billion). That's not in the Hollywood league of course, but neither is it chump change, and it completely gives the lie to the idea that there's no money in academic publishing. I don't really care what "most" scientific publishers make. How do you even define a scientific publisher? You can say it's two guys in a garage and claim that "most" don't make money. However, the journals that have a high impact factor are published by people like Elsevier and NPG (Nature Publishing Group). The last is a Macmillan division that publishes ~30 journals, so I cannot find out its finances, but if Elsevier makes a profit, I think it's safe to say that NPG does also. University libraries are starting to boycott Elsevier's prices, in fact.

Springer is another interesting German company that does mostly science books and high end science texts and reference books (no journals). Also some econ, law and social science stuff, but it's all heavily academic, and they look at author-credentials with a very heavy hand. They make $1.25 billion a year.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Publishing_Companies_with_focus_on_BGP
http://company.monster.com/elsevi.aspx



....

I'm a tad confused as to why you think Academia = Scientific. Many pop science journals are sold, which make far more money but they shouldn't be even considered in this discussion.

By the way, your example makes 880 millions total. "7,000 journal editors, 70,000 editorial board members and 200,000 reviewers are working for Elsevier" work for the company. Based on that many employees, less than 1 billion pre-taxed profit (remember, it hasn't been taxed yet or the rest) is incredibly tiny.

I find it odd how you refuse to look at the majority of academic publishers, which are universities.

Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Johns Hopkins, Chicago, etc, are major ones. But there are thousands of university publishers, many with journals. The ones that do make a profit publish things other than academic journals (things like dictionaries that can sell a lot of).

Then there is this: "However, the journals that have a high impact factor " Most journals don't have a "high impact factor".

A journal like http://www.rc.umd.edu/ksaa/ksj/index.html the Keats and Shelley Journal would be an example of a top level journal representing my field. Although it is top of its specialty, it is incredibly tiny and has no budget. They make no money off of it. No one does. There are hundreds of similar journals in English literary criticism. That is just one field among thousands in "academia", each with similarly situated journals.

I think this is just a difference between those with exposure to academic presses and those without. Sigh.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 21st July 2011, 9:11am) *

I'm a tad confused as to why you think Academia = Scientific. Many pop science journals are sold, which make far more money but they shouldn't be even considered in this discussion.


With the example of Elsevier I am merely addressing your comment above:
QUOTE(Ottava)
There is very little money in academic publishing at any end. They are barely making ends meet now, and removing things like JSTOR would bankrupt them completely.


There is money to be made at the high end, and Elsevier makes it. Thus, your comment is refuted and batted out of the ballpark. As for the low end, I don't really care if Lesbian University publishes the Journal of Marxist Feminist Critique of English Romantic Poetry, circulation 200 (okay, desktop printrun 200), so that aspiring academic ladder climbers at Lesbian U. can eventually get tenure there, with a longer CV. Big deal. I don't think it has much to do with JSTOR, and to the extent that it does, it shouldn't. "Academic publication" of this type is pretend publication. It is not written to advance knowledge or the culture of mankind, but so that somebody can advance in a completely pretend system of merit, by means which ape the way it is done in the sciences. It is tennis played with the net down. It is Potemkin Village. It is "cargo-cult academia" by analogy with cargo cult science. So what if there exists one more or less article about how Lord Byron was actually a terrible male chauvanist?

I admit, to be sure, that some of this stuff may have something to do with "academia" in the formal sense of the word yecch.gif , but also add that that part of academia which isn't natural science might as well be state-funded religion or (at best) state-funded fine arts or sports patronage. Again, it doesn't concern me because there is no objective way to judge it, and many many ways to game it, and if it is subsidized by JSTOR's policies for the science journals, so much the worse. The necessity to provide welfare for these little humanities journals are not an argument for why JSTOR should be expensive. And yes, JSTOR IS expensive to ordinary individuals not associated with major institutions-- i.e., people not climbing an academic ladder somewhere but still doing real science and writing real patents for real business applications-- such as myself. hrmph.gif

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 21st July 2011, 9:11am) *

By the way, your example makes 880 millions total. "7,000 journal editors, 70,000 editorial board members and 200,000 reviewers are working for Elsevier" work for the company. Based on that many employees, less than 1 billion pre-taxed profit (remember, it hasn't been taxed yet or the rest) is incredibly tiny.


I don't know where you got the 880 million figure, except perhaps the 880 million Euro figure for operating profit of Elsevier-Reed from the Elsevier Wikipedia article. According to that article, in 2006 Elsevier itself (the science arm) made 581 million Euros pre-tax profit or US $825 million. That is from gross revenues of $ US 2.43 billion (my cite is above), and it is before taxes but AFTER operating expenses, which includes (of course) all overhead, including employee salaries. The people you name above are all volunteers except for the paid staff, and if you're able to divide the 2.43 - 0.825 = $1.6 billion operating expenses by 7000 people on-salary, you can see that there's the potential for some very good salaries there (it comes out $229,000). Of course, not all overhead is paid in salaries, as Elsevier maintains offices and does have paper publication costs. But their editors do start at http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Reed-Elsevier-Group-Editor-Salaries-E3502_D_KO20,26.htm# and go up from there.

Incidently, assuming a international corporate tax averaging 25%, Elsevier's pre-tax profit of $825 million becomes (assuming they have litttle debt) $618 million net income or bottom line. That's what the stockholders take home as dividends. $600 million in annual take-home is real money.

As for your comment about how the pre-tax profit is incredibly tiny for Elsevier, as usual you have no idea what the you're talking about. Elsevier's profit margin is 825 million/2430 million = 34%, which is damned good for any business, and excellent for a publishing company. The top four general book publishers (e.g., Random house) only make profit margins of 8% or so, and 10% in the days before the economy got bad. So compare with your poor academic publisher, here.

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 21st July 2011, 9:11am) *

I find it odd how you refuse to look at the majority of academic publishers, which are universities.

Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Johns Hopkins, Chicago, etc, are major ones. But there are thousands of university publishers, many with journals. The ones that do make a profit publish things other than academic journals (things like dictionaries that can sell a lot of).

Then there is this: "However, the journals that have a high impact factor " Most journals don't have a "high impact factor".

A journal like http://www.rc.umd.edu/ksaa/ksj/index.html the Keats and Shelley Journal would be an example of a top level journal representing my field. Although it is top of its specialty, it is incredibly tiny and has no budget. They make no money off of it. No one does. There are hundreds of similar journals in English literary criticism. That is just one field among thousands in "academia", each with similarly situated journals.

I think this is just a difference between those with exposure to academic presses and those without. Sigh.

Oy. Had you started out talking about the poor obscure downtrodden poetry criticism journals, you would have been fine. But alas, you had to overgeneralize into academic areas you know nothing about, and then proceded from there to step on your dick. So I pointed that out. You're welcome.

I would, BTW, recommend to anybody reading along to look at the WP article on Elsevier, which contains accounts of entire boards of some of their 2000 journals resigning to found their own competing journals, due to Elsevier's outlandish charges to libraries (which have in turn resulted in libraries refusing subscriptions). These new independent journals will now be free to deal separately with not only JSTOR, but also JSTOR's competitors. Good for everyone. And if the Journal of Social Text Deconstruction and Keats Study gets clobbered in the process, that's me over there, shedding a great fat tear. wink.gif

I saw their starved lips in the gloam,
With horrid warning gaped wide,
And I awoke and found me here,
On the cold hill's side.

And this is why I sojourn here
Alone and palely loitering,
Though the sedge is withered from the lake,
And no birds sing

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 21st July 2011, 2:18pm) *


There is money to be made at the high end, and Elsevier makes it.


1. You haven't proven that.

2. The numbers that are provided including non-academic publications is still really, really low.

So I can't buy your argument on those grounds. Sorry.

QUOTE
"Academic publication" of this type is pretend publication.


My example was one of the leading journals in one of the most critic heavy fields in British Literature. On its board are two world famous critics, with Jack Stillinger being one of the most important critics in modern literary criticism. It isn't a "pretend publication".

I think your statements like the above show an ignorance and a purposeful one. You approach this with a bias and hate, and you throw up whatever strawmen or distractions you can in order to cloud any honest discussion.

QUOTE
And yes, JSTOR IS expensive to ordinary individuals not associated with major institutions


It is less expensive than ordering those journals individually. Having over 4 million articles is a major thing. This is the equivalent of claiming that Netflicks is the devil for having to raise costs to provide thousands of movies on demand.


QUOTE

Incidently, assuming a international corporate tax averaging 25%, Elsevier's pre-tax profit of $825 million becomes (assuming they have litttle debt) $618 million net income or bottom line. That's what the stockholders take home as dividends. $600 million in annual take-home is real money.

As for your comment about how the pre-tax profit is incredibly tiny for Elsevier, as usual you have no idea what the you're talking about.


Really? I have no clue?

Divide 600 million by 500,000 authors if we were going to play Robin Hood and divy up the profits: that is only 1,200 per year. That is not going to stock holders, being reinvested, etc. So, by screwing the company model that keeps it operating, we would only give the authors an additional 1,200 per year.

This isn't a lot of money. That isn't even close.


QUOTE

Oy. Had you started out talking about the poor obscure downtrodden poetry criticism journals


Academia isn't comprised of the incredibly well funded medicine field alone. Most of academia is comprised of the liberal arts, and most of JSTOR is journals in these fields. You criticize me, but people know my background and understanding of the field. There is nothing to back up your smugness or attacks. Plus, your arguments fall flat when examined.

I have personal experience on my side. You have nothing.

Posted by: SpiderAndWeb

Most academics I know publish copies of their paper on their website, freely available. Google search for the title of the paper usually turns these up. If there are particular papers not available for free online yet, if you email the corresponding authors they will be delighted to send you a copy, free of charge. There is no need to pay Elsevier or anyone else for access to these papers.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(SpiderAndWeb @ Thu 21st July 2011, 3:08pm) *

Most academics I know publish copies of their paper on their website, freely available. Google search for the title of the paper usually turns these up. If there are particular papers not available for free online yet, if you email the corresponding authors they will be delighted to send you a copy, free of charge. There is no need to pay Elsevier or anyone else for access to these papers.

Therefore, would you agree that there is no need for David Gerard to be considering ways to bring down JSTOR?

Would you be willing to go so far as to say David Gerard is an idiot?

Posted by: Detective

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 21st July 2011, 8:33pm) *

Would you be willing to go so far as to say David Gerard is an idiot?

Is there any point asking that on Wikipedia Review? wacko.gif

Posted by: EricBarbour

rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(SpiderAndWeb @ Thu 21st July 2011, 12:08pm) *

Most academics I know publish copies of their paper on their website, freely available. Google search for the title of the paper usually turns these up. If there are particular papers not available for free online yet, if you email the corresponding authors they will be delighted to send you a copy, free of charge. There is no need to pay Elsevier or anyone else for access to these papers.

Unless you've already published in an Elsevier journal. You don't retain copyright in that case, and it's technically illegal for you to just publish it youself on your website, in that case. A fair fraction of the money journals make is in providing reprints to authors so they can have something to send by snailmail. No, I don't know if Elsevier has ever prosecuted such a case, however.

If you have exact title and authors from anywhere on a scholarly site, yes indeed, Google will probably find it on your website. However, it isn't only on your website neither Google Schoolar nor pubmed will find it, because it won't be in either of them, and it's unlikely it will find it any other way, either (too much garbage on the web). If it is on pubmed in absract form after getting published in a pubmed-listed journal, they will NOT link to YOUR free copy on YOUR website. It would be nice if authors could insert such information into their own paper citations on pubmed/medline (in MEDLARS), but for legal liability reasons having to do with copyright (pressure from journals!) they don't.

Posted by: Ottava

Most journals in the humanities do not own the copyright to the works. They might have you sign a non-compete to not release the work anywhere else for a few years though. That is why there are so many books from so many publishers in which they just compile important critical works on various topics. All that is needed for them is permission from the author.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 21st July 2011, 11:59am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 21st July 2011, 2:18pm) *


There is money to be made at the high end, and Elsevier makes it.


1. You haven't proven that.

I have. I gave you the numbers, more than you'll ever see in your life, and you ignored them. Incidently, do you make $2 million a year? I doubt Jimbo Wales makes $2 million a year.

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 21st July 2011, 11:59am) *

2. The numbers that are provided including non-academic publications is still really, really low.
So I can't buy your argument on those grounds. Sorry.

I didn't make any arguments there. I'm sure they are low. They deserve to be low. If you write something nobody wants to read, why do you think you should be paid highly for it?

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 21st July 2011, 11:59am) *

QUOTE
"Academic publication" of this type is pretend publication.

My example was one of the leading journals in one of the most critic heavy fields in British Literature. On its board are two world famous critics, with Jack Stillinger being one of the most important critics in modern literary criticism. It isn't a "pretend publication".


Well, the guy can self-publish with Amazon. Let's see how many copies he sells.

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 21st July 2011, 11:59am) *

I think your statements like the above show an ignorance and a purposeful one. You approach this with a bias and hate, and you throw up whatever strawmen or distractions you can in order to cloud any honest discussion.


This is an honest discussion. You just think that poetry criticism should be socialized, essentially. I don't. I want publishing to be wide open, and those who generate money by writing things people want to read, should have a fair share of it. Anybody who disagrees with my reasonable attitude is an idiot or thief. smile.gif Maybe both.

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 21st July 2011, 11:59am) *

QUOTE
And yes, JSTOR IS expensive to ordinary individuals not associated with major institutions

It is less expensive than ordering those journals individually. Having over 4 million articles is a major thing. This is the equivalent of claiming that Netflicks is the devil for having to raise costs to provide thousands of movies on demand.

You won't like that comparison. If Netflix charged like JSTOR, nobody would be able to afford them but very rich people. OTOH, if JSTOR charged like Netflix, I wouldn't be criticizing them. And why don't they?

As for Elsevier, in any business model with decent and free competition, they WOULD do things differently. So there's something wrong with Elsevier. I predict, however, that they will get their reward eventually. A wish: may they go the way of Blockbuster Video.

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 21st July 2011, 11:59am) *

QUOTE

Incidently, assuming a international corporate tax averaging 25%, Elsevier's pre-tax profit of $825 million becomes (assuming they have litttle debt) $618 million net income or bottom line. That's what the stockholders take home as dividends. $600 million in annual take-home is real money.

As for your comment about how the pre-tax profit is incredibly tiny for Elsevier, as usual you have no idea what the you're talking about.


Really? I have no clue?

Divide 600 million by 500,000 authors if we were going to play Robin Hood and divy up the profits: that is only 1,200 per year. That is not going to stock holders, being reinvested, etc. So, by screwing the company model that keeps it operating, we would only give the authors an additional 1,200 per year.

This isn't a lot of money. That isn't even close.

Straw man. I never suggested that Elsevier's $600 million a year pure profit be divided equally amongst each author who managed to publish one paper in one of its 2000 journals. The authors who make most of Elsevier's money no doubt generate a lot of cash amoung a relatively small fraction of top authors, and a very long tail who probably don't generate enough to merit anything. But some slice of that pie going to the top earning authors would be fair. Elsevier now functions even more rapaciously than WP: getting free author labor AND being a publically-traded publishing company with highly compensated officers. How highly? Well, its CEO takes home $2 million/yr and its chief financial officer $1.2 million.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=REL:LN

Much of that generated by making academic publishing hard to penetrate, via cartel-like deals with JSTOR and high costs to libraries which are forced to pay them, because they cannot deal with authors more directly. Of course, all this will eventually change as the IT world flattens. Right now 2/3rds of faculty at universities do not even use JSTOR, and that figure can only drop.

http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/scat/finholtz~print.shtml

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 21st July 2011, 4:04pm) *
QUOTE(SpiderAndWeb @ Thu 21st July 2011, 12:08pm) *
Most academics I know publish copies of their paper on their website, freely available. Google search for the title of the paper usually turns these up. If there are particular papers not available for free online yet, if you email the corresponding authors they will be delighted to send you a copy, free of charge. There is no need to pay Elsevier or anyone else for access to these papers.
Unless you've already published in an Elsevier journal. You don't retain copyright in that case, and it's technically illegal for you to just publish it youself on your website, in that case. A fair fraction of the money journals make is in providing reprints to authors so they can have something to send by snailmail. No, I don't know if Elsevier has ever prosecuted such a case, however.
It's more complex. The publishers, like Springer and Elsevier, do allow "preprints," but typically not as-published papers, i.e., with their formatting. I've had to go over and over this because of JzG's claims of copyright violation by lenr-canr.org, which was generally publishing preprints. I think it was Springer-Verlag that allowed the exact same text, same illustrations, perhaps, but not the publisher paging and logo and formatting.

As a practical reality, non-profit web sites can put up papers regardless of those permissions, unless they clearly *know* that they are violating copyright. If the author gives them permission, they are not legally required to investigate and find out if the author can legally do that, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of being prosecuted provided that they take the paper down upon notice of violation.

There was a beautiful example of what nonsense JzG was writing about this. I helped edit a paper by Edmund Storms, "Status of cold fusion (2010)" and it was published as a review by Naturwissenschaften (Springer). Dr. Storms started lenr-canr.org, I think, and, in any case, he uploaded a preprint there. JzG claimed this was copyvio. However, if you look at the paper as shown on the Naturwissenschaften web site, in the first-page free preview, there, very obvious to see, is a link to lenr-canr.org as a place to read conference papers (very difficult to find otherwise, sometimes). So, by JzG's theory, Springer-Verlag, a for-profit publisher which has to be careful about stuff like this, was advertising a web site hosting "copyvio." Violations of their own copyright, perhaps, but also that of other publishers.

I don't think so!


Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 21st July 2011, 4:52pm) *

u the numbers, more than you'll ever see in your life, and you ignored them. Incidently, do you make $2 million a year? I doubt Jimbo Wales makes $2 million a year.


You provided the most profitable of all of these groups, and 2 million is the greatest figure?

I'm not impressed. Making a couple million while running one of the largest publishing operations is incredibly tiny in comparison to standard CEO pay for such massive companies with such huge staffs.

QUOTE

I didn't make any arguments there. I'm sure they are low. They deserve to be low. If you write something nobody wants to read, why do you think you should be paid highly for it?


What are you even talking about? You were the one crusading against publishing companies for making lots of money. Now you are admitting that only a tiny handful actually make money. Do you even pay attention to your own arguments? It almost feels like 3 different people have been on your name in the past 3 responses and neither bothered to see what the other said.

QUOTE

Well, the guy can self-publish with Amazon. Let's see how many copies he sells.


Um, what? I pointed out that Jack Stillinger was a major critic who sat on the editorial board to prove that the Keats-Shelley Journal is rather prestigious. How does your response have anything to deal with what I said?

P.S., http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Jack+Stillinger&x=0&y=0.



QUOTE
This is an honest discussion. You just think that poetry criticism should be socialized, essentially. I don't.


Where did you get that? You are the one saying the publishers make so much money. I'm just pointing out that no one makes money in it and that the vast majority of majorly scholarly works are barely able to break even. My whole argument from the beginning was that complaining about those like JSTOR is pointless as they are the only mass distributor able to take care of the costs. Even if they all "self-published" and were able to create peer-review, how would they fund the websites? And it would only be websites, making those without internet access unable to get the items.


QUOTE
I want publishing to be wide open, and those who generate money by writing things people want to read, should have a fair share of it.


The New York Times, an item in popular demand, is unable to generate money from the internet. Why would academic journals do any better? I wonder if you even understand economics or business.

QUOTE

You won't like that comparison. If Netflix charged like JSTOR, nobody would be able to afford them but very rich people.


Netflicks will be going up to about 600 dollars per year. JSTOR for a single access account can be purchased for 300 from what I've seen. Even a 25,000 user access for a tiny library is only 1,200 a year and less after the initial start-up fee.

QUOTE
As for Elsevier, in any business model with decent and free competition,


You think "free" can equal decent when history proves that it doesn't.


they WOULD do things differently. So there's something wrong with Elsevier. I predict, however, that they will get their reward eventually. A wish: may they go the way of Blockbuster Video.

QUOTE

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 21st July 2011, 11:59am) *
QUOTE

Incidently, assuming a international corporate tax averaging 25%, Elsevier's pre-tax profit of $825 million becomes (assuming they have litttle debt) $618 million net income or bottom line. That's what the stockholders take home as dividends. $600 million in annual take-home is real money.

As for your comment about how the pre-tax profit is incredibly tiny for Elsevier, as usual you have no idea what the you're talking about.


Really? I have no clue?

Divide 600 million by 500,000 authors if we were going to play Robin Hood and divy up the profits: that is only 1,200 per year. That is not going to stock holders, being reinvested, etc. So, by screwing the company model that keeps it operating, we would only give the authors an additional 1,200 per year.

This isn't a lot of money. That isn't even close.

Straw man. I never suggested that Elsevier's $600 million a year pure profit be divided equally amongst each author who managed to publish one paper in one of its 2000 journals.


Really? Because above you did. Multiple times. You said that the evil publishers were keeping money that deserved to go to the writers. I quoted you multiple times. Did you give your computer to someone else mid-post?

QUOTE

Much of that generated by making academic publishing hard to penetrate, via cartel-like deals with JSTOR


I already pointed out that there are thousands of databases, some larger than JSTOR. MLA and Ebsco are two examples. And that is just online collections. There are tens of thousands of academic publishers in the world. Even in the medical community there are hundreds of notable medical journals attached to various universities.


It really seems like you haven't any experience with the field and you are just throwing around crazy anarchist rambles, jargon, and the rest.

By the way, it is rather suspicious that you are keeping to Gerard's absurd position. Somey, is that just a coincidence?

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 21st July 2011, 8:17am) *

QUOTE(radek @ Thu 21st July 2011, 4:13am) *

He's not saying the editors make money - usually they don't make any. He's saying the publisher makes money. And it's not true that "there is very little money in academic publishing at any end" (though I guess it depends on your definition of "very little"). While there aren't millions of fans who snatch up the individual issues, institutional sales (libraries etc). can bring in some nice dough.



Sorry, but that is just not true. Most publishers don't make money from academic work, and many journals are published on demand (hence the high prices) according to the wishes of the editors, as the editors are the ones who started and run most journals and a small print shop is all that exists of a "publisher".

Your confusion is like thinking Hollywood is the majority of movie making while ignoring that the vast majority are two guys with a cheap camera running around. We don't even have a Hollywood in academia publishing.


It's probably true that most publishers don't make money from academic work, but then again, most ice skaters don't make money from ice skating. What's your point? We're not talking about some zines here, but big publishing houses like Elsevier.

Likewise I don't know what "on demand" journals you're reading but that's also not what we're talking about here (I don't even think those kind appear on JSTOR)

EDIT: Oh, I see this has already turned into an Ottava thread. Anyway, Milton handled it pretty well, Ottava is wrong and at this point is just engaging in his usual doomed "fight to the death" instead of finishing his freakin' dissertation. Go finish your dissertation Ottava.

Posted by: radek

Ugh, I got to respond to some of this.

QUOTE

You provided the most profitable of all of these groups, and 2 million is the greatest figure?

I'm not impressed. Making a couple million while running one of the largest publishing operations is incredibly tiny in comparison to standard CEO pay for such massive companies with such huge staffs.


Don't be dishonest Ottava. He didn't say 2 million is the profit of "these groups", he said 2 million is the SALARY of one of the CEO's. While that's certainly not the top CEO pay out there (it's a long tail), it is more than the CEO of Bank of America, Microsoft and a numberhttp://projects.nytimes.com/executive_compensation.
You basically don't have a clue as to what you're talking about Ottava.


QUOTE


It really seems like you haven't any experience with the field and you are just throwing around crazy anarchist rambles, jargon, and the rest.


Huh? That's pretty funny coming from a guy who hasn't finished his dissertation.

QUOTE
By the way, it is rather suspicious that you are keeping to Gerard's absurd position. Somey, is that just a coincidence?


Oy, typical Ottava.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(radek @ Thu 21st July 2011, 11:40pm) *

It's probably true that most publishers don't make money from academic work, but then again, most ice skaters don't make money from ice skating. What's your point? We're not talking about some zines here, but big publishing houses like Elsevier.


They make up a tiny, tiny minority. I already demonstrated examples of the true exemplars of academic journals. They are done by universities at small level without millions of dollars and mostly printed on-demand. They sell books by the 100s, not the millions, and journals are no different.

QUOTE
Likewise I don't know what "on demand" journals you're reading but that's also not what we're talking about here (I don't even think those kind appear on JSTOR)


The Keats-Shelley Journal and those like it do appear on online databases. Most of those databases are used because of the small academic journals.

I think it is odd how you cling to Milton being correct when he is laughably wrong and contradicts himself. Then you attack me for not finishing my dissertation while acknowledging that I have a personal connection to the matter and you have no clue.


Somey, is it right that WR is being filled with the uninformed spouting whatever ignorance they can? Isn't that Wikipedia's major failing? I find it odd how those two are spouting off stuff that Gerard is spouting off. Can we just show them the door already?

I mean, look at this. Radek is either trolling or illiterate:

QUOTE

Don't be dishonest Ottava. He didn't say 2 million is the profit of "these groups", he said 2 million is the SALARY of one of the CEO's.


I never said that 2 million was the profit. There is no way to claim I did. "You provided the most profitable of all of these groups, and 2 million is the greatest figure?" That is what I said. It is clear that "2 million" referred to the CEO salary and the "most profitable" pointed to the company that would pay the most.

Then you have him outright lying:

"it is more than the CEO of Bank of America, Microsoft and a number of other big names make."

Because we all know that Bill Gates made 60 billion not running Microsoft, right? Or that the Bank of America individual being a brand new CEO was receiving all of his pay package there, right? Or that he didn't have to take a salary hit because BoA was involved in the bank bailout and there was a lot of negative press over CEO pay in the US. I mean, the nonsense behind it all is almost revolting. It is clear from looking at the list that not only do the majority of the CEOs make far more than 2 million dollars but the ones that don't tend to be making little because of political reasons or already made a lot as being stockholders (Steve Jobs, for example).

Then he says nonsense like this: "Huh? That's pretty funny coming from a guy who hasn't finished his dissertation."

Really, because he has even progressed through graduate school? Not from what anyone knows. Standard free kulture trolling.

Posted by: radek



QUOTE
The Keats-Shelley Journal and those like it do appear on online databases. Most of those databases are used because of the small academic journals.


Does the Keats-Shelley journal appear on JSTOR? Do these on-demand journals? No? So you just picked some examples of really really really small journals that nobody reads and use that as a basis for your argument that there's no money in academic publishing. Seriously?

"I got a friend who lost money at a casino once. Obviously there's no money to be made in the world of finance. "

That's about the intellectual sophistication of your argument.

QUOTE
I think it is odd how you cling to Milton being correct when he is laughably wrong and contradicts himself. Then you attack me for not finishing my dissertation while acknowledging that I have a personal connection to the matter and you have no clue.


I didn't "attack" you for anything. Don't be such a god damn weasel. You're importing Wikipedia tactics ("I iz being attck!") onto WR. This isn't AN/I, full of gullible editors and admins who take such weird claims seriously.

And yes, you got better things to do than waste time on this discussion.

QUOTE

Somey, is it right that WR is being filled with the uninformed spouting whatever ignorance they can? Isn't that Wikipedia's major failing? I find it odd how those two are spouting off stuff that Gerard is spouting off. Can we just show them the door already?


Whine, whine, whine. Again, this isn't AN/I where you get to orchestrate blocks for people simply because they point out how clueless you are.

And no, "we" are not spouting what Gerard is. Quit freaking lying. You're just embarrassing yourself. And your weaselly insinuations that Milton IS Gerard are just so freaking stupid they don't deserve a comment.

QUOTE
I mean, look at this. Radek is either trolling or illiterate:


A person who hasn't finished their dissertation accusing a person who actually has finished one of illiteracy - geez Ottava... you can do better than that.

QUOTE


Then you have him outright lying:

"it is more than the CEO of Bank of America, Microsoft and a number of other big names make."

Because we all know that Bill Gates made 60 billion not running Microsoft, right? Or that the Bank of America individual being a brand new CEO was receiving all of his pay package there, right? Or that he didn't have to take a salary hit because BoA was involved in the bank bailout and there was a lot of negative press over CEO pay in the US. I mean, the nonsense behind it all is almost revolting.


Dude, I even provided a link which listed CEO salaries. And here's a clue for you: Bill Gates is NOT the current CEO of Microsoft. Steven Ballmer is, and his annual salary, perks and all is 1.4 million which happens to be less than 2 million.

Here's another clue, wealth is not income. Wealth is the accumulated value of your assets. A salary is what you get in payment per some period of time. It's like comparing an ocean with a river that flows into it and saying "see, the ocean has more water in it!". Gates didn't make that 60 billion in a single year from his salary.

If you don't like the BoA example, take Office Depot. Or Whole Foods. Not that you have any idea of what happened with BoA either.

QUOTE

Really, because he has even progressed through graduate school? Not from what anyone knows. Standard free kulture trolling.


If thinking "they must disagree with me because they're stupid and lying about having finished graduate school, because it takes a very very very long time to finish graduate school, obviously, since even a super smart guy like me is taking forever to do it, no way anyone who disagrees with a super smart guy like me could have done it, yes, that's it they must be lying" allows you to sleep better at night, then go ahead and think it.

Posted by: Abd

DO NOT FEED
THE OTTAVA

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

Abd, I just logged onto JSTOR from home, and I have access to the Keats-Shelly journal. Granted, the archives are four years out-of-date, but there are 50 years worth of them.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 12:29am) *

QUOTE
The Keats-Shelley Journal and those like it do appear on online databases. Most of those databases are used because of the small academic journals.


Does the Keats-Shelley journal appear on JSTOR? Do these on-demand journals? No? So you just picked some examples of really really really small journals that nobody reads and use that as a basis for your argument that there's no money in academic publishing. Seriously?


The Keats-Shelley Journal is in JSTOR.

http://www.jstor.org/journals/04534387.html





Somey, it is obvious that Radek is trolling. Can you please do something about that? If I wanted to do with out right liars who are promoting disinformation as the only means to protect their free kulture anarchy, I would go hang out at Foundation-l. Isn't WR supposed to be free of that stuff?

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 8:38am) *

Abd, I just logged onto JSTOR from home, and I have access to the Keats-Shelly journal. Granted, the archives are four years out-of-date, but there are 50 years worth of them.


Ah ok, thanks for answering that question. I don't think it really changes the main point.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 10:40am) *

Somey, it is obvious that Radek is trolling. Can you please do something about that? If I wanted to do with out right liars who are promoting disinformation as the only means to protect their free kulture anarchy, I would go hang out at Foundation-l. Isn't WR supposed to be free of that stuff?


Somey, could you remind us, doesn't Ottava have some kind of "X posts per day" limit, or something?

Posted by: Vigilant

QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 2:40pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 12:29am) *

QUOTE
The Keats-Shelley Journal and those like it do appear on online databases. Most of those databases are used because of the small academic journals.


Does the Keats-Shelley journal appear on JSTOR? Do these on-demand journals? No? So you just picked some examples of really really really small journals that nobody reads and use that as a basis for your argument that there's no money in academic publishing. Seriously?


The Keats-Shelley Journal is in JSTOR.

http://www.jstor.org/journals/04534387.html





Somey, it is obvious that Radek is trolling. Can you please do something about that? If I wanted to do with out right liars who are promoting disinformation as the only means to protect their free kulture anarchy, I would go hang out at Foundation-l. Isn't WR supposed to be free of that stuff?



How soon you fall back on the old "I'm losing this argument, please ban everyone who disagrees with me" schtick.

I also love the appeal to the audience. "See how Radek is clueless" reference.

Go finish your dissertation and leave the internet alone.

It is not good for you.

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 12:36pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 10:40am) *

Somey, it is obvious that Radek is trolling. Can you please do something about that? If I wanted to do with out right liars who are promoting disinformation as the only means to protect their free kulture anarchy, I would go hang out at Foundation-l. Isn't WR supposed to be free of that stuff?


Somey, could you remind us, doesn't Ottava have some kind of "X posts per day" limit, or something?


He used to be on the Horological Egg-Timer (as Moulton called it), but I thought Ottava and Somey reached an accord about that? unsure.gif

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 9:56pm) *
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 12:36pm) *
Somey, could you remind us, doesn't Ottava have some kind of "X posts per day" limit, or something?
He used to be on the Horological Egg-Timer (as Moulton called it), but I thought Ottava and Somey reached an accord about that? unsure.gif

Well, we did reduce the timer duration to 30 minutes, based on what we considered to be a significant improvement in his general mien, so to speak. But shortly after that he posted a somewhat final-sounding bye-bye message and we didn't hear from him for several months - until just recently, that is.

I should say that this thread is a little hard to follow now, and it has been derailed to some degree - but that's not entirely Ottava's fault, despite his history of thread-derailment. The issue here isn't really whether or not academic journals are "highly" profitable, though to be honest I'm surprised anyone would argue that they are, at least not generally speaking. Moreover, I can't imagine anyone looking at sales/subscriber figures from the last 10-15 years (roughly corresponding with the internet era) and not seeing noticeable declines across the board.

To me, the issue here is the attitude of Wikipedians towards people who are trying to make a living as "knowledge workers" - and by that I mean anybody, at any level. Writers, researchers, editors, publishers, distributors, even the people who run the support machinery to some degree. I just can't see why it isn't more obvious to people that the more extreme attitudes we see from WPers (and Dave Gerard is one of the most extreme WPers of all) are based largely on jealousy, envy, and (as always) narcissism. They don't dislike the idea of getting paid to be smart; they dislike the fact that other people are getting paid, not them.

And if they honestly think they're doing the world a big favor by taking a pro-active stance against academic publishing, they're dangerously deluded, and once again it's no wonder that people accuse them of cultishness because of things like that. So we can only hope that in this case, it's just Dave being Dave, and not something more widespread and (I daresay) sinister.

Posted by: SpiderAndWeb

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 21st July 2011, 8:04pm) *

QUOTE(SpiderAndWeb @ Thu 21st July 2011, 12:08pm) *

Most academics I know publish copies of their paper on their website, freely available. Google search for the title of the paper usually turns these up. If there are particular papers not available for free online yet, if you email the corresponding authors they will be delighted to send you a copy, free of charge. There is no need to pay Elsevier or anyone else for access to these papers.

Unless you've already published in an Elsevier journal. You don't retain copyright in that case, and it's technically illegal for you to just publish it youself on your website, in that case. A fair fraction of the money journals make is in providing reprints to authors so they can have something to send by snailmail. No, I don't know if Elsevier has ever prosecuted such a case, however.


Abd is right, in that I have articles published by Elsevier, and preprints of the same articles hosted perfectly legally on my web site. There may be a few extra typos and the formatting is different but the content itself is identical.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 23rd July 2011, 12:50am) *
So we can only hope that in this case, it's just Dave being Dave, and not something more widespread and (I daresay) sinister.

People have been tortured and killed for far less than what Dave Gerard does routinely. Presumably his
pornsite sysop work makes him think he's a badass, and therefore untouchable by mere mortals.
I bet you they aren't paying him as much as he thinks he's worth, and resentment has had a few
years to build up.

Personally I'm still waiting for him to realize that, if there was ever a real crisis, Jimbo would
cheerfully throw him out of the airplane, and watch him corkscrew into the dirt. Jimbo lies to everyone,
close or far.