Open-access science: be careful what you wish for

A very quick post tonight, but I've had an article published in The Conversation titled Open-access science: be careful what you wish for.

This is a word of caution on the push to make all science, bother the publications and data paid for with public money, available to all.

To cut a long story short, I fully support this move. I would love my science to be read by all (well, at least those who are interested :).

The caution is, however, that doing this costs. The current funding model is a bit busted; scientists need to publish in established journals, as articles that do not appear in the "highest impact journals" are not considered as important.

But the journals are owned by big publishing houses, and so libraries need to pay for access to the papers, often to see the science generated by their own researchers. It's a bit of a complex mess.

Anyway, my caution is that while the funding for open source science has to come from somewhere, it is not good to raid existing science budgets, when those funds could be used to support more science and innovation.

Raid existing budgets? Surely you think this is not possible, but check out what's recently happened in the UK. While I support the move to open source, I'd rather see money being spent on science being done, and we think of clever ways of making it accessible to all!

Location: Sydney NSW, Australia

Comments

  1. Brendon J. Brewer9 October 2012 at 05:05

    I still don't understand why we need *any* journals. I hardly ever use actual journals to read papers. The authors put them online themselves and then I download it. This hardly costs anything.

    Surely there's a way to have peers assess each other's work without the need to waste resources on "journals" that aren't needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Phillip Helbig10 October 2012 at 19:05

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Phillip Helbig10 October 2012 at 19:06

      This only works because almost all papers on arXiv and so on are actually submitted to real journals. Take that away, and arXiv would have much lower quality.

      There is a huge discussion on this at Peter Coles's blog .

      Delete
  2. Cusp9 October 2012 at 07:29

    I agree, but there is a catch 22 - papers must have impact, and impact is measured but citations, and you are more likely to get citations (statistically) in a higher impact-factor journal. This is only get more important as governments will measure impact to justify the allocation of public funds.

    We have to completely change the way we think of publishing and assessing impact, and this is going to cost.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Falling into a black hole: Just what do you see?

Image
Everyone loves black holes. Immense gravity, a one-way space-time membrane, the possibility of links to other universes. All lovely stuff. A little trawl of the internets reveals an awful lot of web pages discussing black holes, and discussions about spaghettification, firewalls, lost information, and many other things. Actually, a lot of the stuff out there on the web is nonsense, hand-waving, partly informed guesswork. And one of the questions that gets asked is "What would you see looking out into the universe?" Some (incorrectly) say that you would never cross the event horizon, a significant mis-understanding of the coordinates of relativity. Other (incorrectly) conclude from this that you actually see the entire future history of the universe play out in front of your eyes. What we have to remember, of course, is that relativity is a mathematical theory, and instead of hand waving, we can use mathematics to work out what we will see. And that's what I did. ...
Read more

Journey to the Far-Side of the Sun

Image
There was a movie, in the old days, Journey to the Far-Side of the Sun  (also known as Doppleganger) which (spoiler alert) posits that there is a mirror version of the Earth hidden on the other side of the Sun, sharing the orbit with our Earth. The idea is that this planet would always be hidden behind the Sun, and so we would not know it there there. This idea comes up a lot, over and over again. In fact, it came up again last week on twitter. But there's a problem. It assumes the Earth is on a circular orbit. I won't go into the details here, but one of the greatest insights in astronomy was the discovery of Kepler's laws of planetary motion , telling us that planets move on elliptical orbits. With this, there was the realisation that planets can't move at uniform speeds, but travel quickly when closer to the Sun, while slowing down as their orbits carry them to larger distance.  There has been a lot of work examining orbits in the Solar System, and you can  s...
Read more

Moving Charges and Magnetic Fields

Image
Still struggling with grant writing season, so another post which has resulted in my random musings about the Universe (which actually happens quite a lot). In second semester, I am teaching  electricity and magnetism to our First Year Advanced Class . I really enjoy teaching this class as the kids are on the ball and can ask some deep and meaningful questions. But the course is not ideal. Why? Because we teach from a textbook and the problem is that virtually all modern text books are almost the same. Science is trotted out in an almost historical progression. But it does not have to be taught that way. In fact, it would be great if we could start with  Hamiltonian and Lagrangian  approaches, and derive physics from a top down approach. We're told that it's mathematically too challenging, but it really isn't. In fact, I would start with a book like  The Theoretical Minimum , not some multicoloured compendium of physics. We have to work with what we have! ...
Read more