[Taxacom] UNESCO Open Science Recommendation

Nick Grishin grishin at chop.swmed.edu
Sat Mar 7 15:12:43 CST 2020


> Yawn! The issue is already decided and there is nothing anyone can do 
> but watch

Well, the message below was my try to do something. Am I alone? I guess I 
should not be. If I am, then Stephen is right. n



> as, in the long run, untold trillions in taxpayer money gets diverted to 
> corporate profits (of both publishers and scientific institutions) under 
> the guise of "freeing" up every little low grade scientific publication 
> of little or no merit or interest to anyone, while much of the world 
> remains locked in poverty. Good one guys, you make me proud to be human 
> ... Stephen
> On Saturday, 7 March 2020, 07:31:33 pm UTC, Nick Grishin via 
> Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> > OA will prevail.
>
> Yes it will. Indeed, science benefits best from open and free
> communication.
>
> But the way OA is implemented today is unreasonable. Paying over $500 per
> OA page of a paper benefits nobody except the publisher.
>
> The amount a journal charges depends on how the journal feels about its
> standing in the field. Starting OA journals charge less. More prestigious
> journals charge more. I love Pensoft, they do great job on electronic
> publishing. But when Zookeys was launched, the charge was about $20 per
> page, which was somewhat reasonable. And now, it is about $800 per paper.
> Which for an 8-page paper (usually enough to make your point) translates
> to $100 per page: a 5-fold increase from the past.
>
> Why do most taxonomists publish in Zootaxa these days? Because it is a
> decent journal that is free to publish in. And more, optional OA is $20
> per page.
>
>
> One solution is to eliminate journals, because publishing today does not
> need printing, and each paper can and should stand on its own, not as a
> segment of a journal. On-line platform that publishes papers, not journals
> (similar to bioRvix, or like Zookeys for everyone, so many people publish
> in Zookeys these days) seems to be best for science and open
> communication, and it will be the most economical solution to OA (it
> cannot cost more than $20 per archived page, probably less). Yes, as
> someone pointed out, this no-journal system hurts societies. But I think
> it benefits science overall by providing enormous savings, part of which
> can be directed towards societies.
>
> The agencies that require OA should provide support for such publishing on
> top of research funding they assign to a researcher, not from it, and do
> it in a way that decreases the total effective funds spent on publishing
> today, not increases it further. n
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>


More information about the Taxacom mailing list