Monday, November 16, 2009
How Meaningful Are User Ratings?
In the spirit of some earlier posts on this blog, The Scholarly Kitchen (an excellent blog for those interested in following issues of open access publishing) has this post about the utility of ratings systems at journals such as PLoS ONE. Interesting food for thought.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Tragedy in Michigan
I wanted to take a brief moment to call your attention to a situation brewing at Michigan State University - the powers-that-be are on the verge of closing down their Geological Sciences program.
Geoscientists impact our lives in more ways than most of us realize. Did you drink a glass of clean water this morning? Geologists and hydrologists help to keep our water supply clean and safe. Did you fill your car with gas this week? A petroleum geologist helped locate the oil deposits and coordinate their extraction. Do you use a cell phone or laptop? The cobalt in the batteries (and nearly all of the other raw materials) was mined from deposits located by geologists. Did your local roads not wash away during the last major rainstorm? A geologist likely had a role in that too. Not to mention all of the paleontologists, planetary geologists, sedimentologists, mining engineers, and the like who have significant training in geology departments around the world.
Surveys find that we are facing a severe shortage of trained geoscientists in the coming decades, as the older generations retire. Our need for geoscientists is not going away, and closing geology departments is not a way to rectify this.
What can you do? Check out these two posts by Chris Noto (guesting at ReBecca's Hunt's Dinochick Blogs) for more information. Don't let the MSU geology department go extinct!
Geoscientists impact our lives in more ways than most of us realize. Did you drink a glass of clean water this morning? Geologists and hydrologists help to keep our water supply clean and safe. Did you fill your car with gas this week? A petroleum geologist helped locate the oil deposits and coordinate their extraction. Do you use a cell phone or laptop? The cobalt in the batteries (and nearly all of the other raw materials) was mined from deposits located by geologists. Did your local roads not wash away during the last major rainstorm? A geologist likely had a role in that too. Not to mention all of the paleontologists, planetary geologists, sedimentologists, mining engineers, and the like who have significant training in geology departments around the world.
Surveys find that we are facing a severe shortage of trained geoscientists in the coming decades, as the older generations retire. Our need for geoscientists is not going away, and closing geology departments is not a way to rectify this.
What can you do? Check out these two posts by Chris Noto (guesting at ReBecca's Hunt's Dinochick Blogs) for more information. Don't let the MSU geology department go extinct!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
DeepDyve Reviewed
Many of the recent posts on this blog have dealt with issues of access to the scholarly literature for those outside the library systems of large research institutions. A digital divide is developing in academia, largely due to the expensive costs of institutional subscriptions and pay-per-download distribution schemes of commercial and non-profit publishers alike.
Thus, I was ver
y excited to hear about the launch of DeepDyve. This website essentially offers a rental service for scholarly publications. Search a database, find an article, and view it on the website's Flash viewer. The prices are quite reasonable - 99 cents per article for the Basic Plan, $9.99/month to get 20 rentals a month on the Silver Plan, and $19.99/month to get unlimited rentals on the Gold Plan. I decided to test out a free trial of the Gold Plan and see if DeepDyve was right for me.
Promotional literature promised "30 million articles from thousands of authoritative journals," so I was expecting good things. Landing on DeepDyve's simple, attractive home page, I sat down to run my first queries.
Unfortunately, the hype hasn't yet caught up with the reality of scholarly publishing. A search for "Triceratops" launched from the web site's home page generated over 84,000 hits. . .most of which were completely irrelevant medical literature ("Median and Radial Nerve Compression About the Elbow" popped up on the first page, for instance). Using the site's advanced search filters, I was able to trim the results down to 71 articles. Of these articles, 8 were listed as "free" (they were already available through open access journals) and 61 only offered a preview of the abstract. A scant 2 articles were available for rental (from the journals Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics).
Why such a poor showing? It comes down to the fact that many of the societies and publishers that own or license our publications haven't yet reached an agreement with DeepDyve to allow rental of relevant articles. Thus, papers from heavy hitters like Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleobiology simply aren't available.
The rental plan also may turn some people off (although I don't think it is a complete deal breaker). In short, you can't download a PDF - all you can do is look at the file within the provided viewer. This is useful for those times when the article turns out to be irrelevant. But, it may ultimately prove unsatisfactory for those inevitable moments when you want to be able to access literature away from an internet connection (and we all have those times!). And, it seems somewhat unsettling to pay for content that you don't actually get to keep (unlike services such as iTunes).
I want to like DeepDyve. . .I really do! It promises to open up swaths of the scholarly literature that were previously unavailable. But, right now DeepDyve is shackled by the limited availability of publications (at least for us paleontologists). There is very little value-added over a standard Google search. Perhaps the future has big things in store. . .I'll be keeping an eye on the situation!
For additional commentary on DeepDyve, and some responses from the company, check out this post at the Scholarly Kitchen.
Thus, I was ver
y excited to hear about the launch of DeepDyve. This website essentially offers a rental service for scholarly publications. Search a database, find an article, and view it on the website's Flash viewer. The prices are quite reasonable - 99 cents per article for the Basic Plan, $9.99/month to get 20 rentals a month on the Silver Plan, and $19.99/month to get unlimited rentals on the Gold Plan. I decided to test out a free trial of the Gold Plan and see if DeepDyve was right for me.Promotional literature promised "30 million articles from thousands of authoritative journals," so I was expecting good things. Landing on DeepDyve's simple, attractive home page, I sat down to run my first queries.
Unfortunately, the hype hasn't yet caught up with the reality of scholarly publishing. A search for "Triceratops" launched from the web site's home page generated over 84,000 hits. . .most of which were completely irrelevant medical literature ("Median and Radial Nerve Compression About the Elbow" popped up on the first page, for instance). Using the site's advanced search filters, I was able to trim the results down to 71 articles. Of these articles, 8 were listed as "free" (they were already available through open access journals) and 61 only offered a preview of the abstract. A scant 2 articles were available for rental (from the journals Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics).
Why such a poor showing? It comes down to the fact that many of the societies and publishers that own or license our publications haven't yet reached an agreement with DeepDyve to allow rental of relevant articles. Thus, papers from heavy hitters like Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleobiology simply aren't available.
The rental plan also may turn some people off (although I don't think it is a complete deal breaker). In short, you can't download a PDF - all you can do is look at the file within the provided viewer. This is useful for those times when the article turns out to be irrelevant. But, it may ultimately prove unsatisfactory for those inevitable moments when you want to be able to access literature away from an internet connection (and we all have those times!). And, it seems somewhat unsettling to pay for content that you don't actually get to keep (unlike services such as iTunes).
I want to like DeepDyve. . .I really do! It promises to open up swaths of the scholarly literature that were previously unavailable. But, right now DeepDyve is shackled by the limited availability of publications (at least for us paleontologists). There is very little value-added over a standard Google search. Perhaps the future has big things in store. . .I'll be keeping an eye on the situation!
For additional commentary on DeepDyve, and some responses from the company, check out this post at the Scholarly Kitchen.
Dinosaur Running and Endothermy in PLoS ONE
On a personal note, I have recently stepped up as "Section Editor" for paleontology at PLoS ONE. This means that I'll be coordinating the editorial flow for most paleo-themed papers that come the journal's way.
One of the real joys of editing for a major journal like PLoS ONE is getting a "sneak peak" at some pretty nifty research. Today, Herman Pontzer, Vivian Allen, and John Hutchinson have a new paper that should be of interest to this blog's general audience [full disclosure: I was the academic editor for this contribution]. As always, papers at PLoS ONE are free to download, comment upon, and rate.
The abstract and citation are copied below; for more info, check out the press release or Ed Yong's excellent blog post on the topic.
The bipedal and presumably endothermic Velociraptor. From the original by Matt Martyniuk, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license.
Citation: Pontzer H, Allen V, Hutchinson JR (2009) Biomechanics of running indicates endothermy in bipedal dinosaurs. PLoS ONE 4(11): e7783. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007783
Abstract
Background
One of the great unresolved controversies in paleobiology is whether extinct dinosaurs were endothermic, ectothermic, or some combination thereof, and when endothermy first evolved in the lineage leading to birds. Although it is well established that high, sustained growth rates and, presumably, high activity levels are ancestral for dinosaurs and pterosaurs (clade Ornithodira), other independent lines of evidence for high metabolic rates, locomotor costs, or endothermy are needed. For example, some studies have suggested that, because large dinosaurs may have been homeothermic due to their size alone and could have had heat loss problems, ectothermy would be a more plausible metabolic strategy for such animals.
Methodology/Principal Findings
Here we describe two new biomechanical approaches for reconstructing the metabolic rate of 14 extinct bipedal dinosauriforms during walking and running. These methods, well validated for extant animals, indicate that during walking and slow running the metabolic rate of at least the larger extinct dinosaurs exceeded the maximum aerobic capabilities of modern ectotherms, falling instead within the range of modern birds and mammals. Estimated metabolic rates for smaller dinosaurs are more ambiguous, but generally approach or exceed the ectotherm boundary.
Conclusions/Significance
Our results support the hypothesis that endothermy was widespread in at least larger non-avian dinosaurs. It was plausibly ancestral for all dinosauriforms (perhaps Ornithodira), but this is perhaps more strongly indicated by high growth rates than by locomotor costs. The polarity of the evolution of endothermy indicates that rapid growth, insulation, erect postures, and perhaps aerobic power predated advanced “avian” lung structure and high locomotor costs.
One of the real joys of editing for a major journal like PLoS ONE is getting a "sneak peak" at some pretty nifty research. Today, Herman Pontzer, Vivian Allen, and John Hutchinson have a new paper that should be of interest to this blog's general audience [full disclosure: I was the academic editor for this contribution]. As always, papers at PLoS ONE are free to download, comment upon, and rate.
The abstract and citation are copied below; for more info, check out the press release or Ed Yong's excellent blog post on the topic.
The bipedal and presumably endothermic Velociraptor. From the original by Matt Martyniuk, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license.Citation: Pontzer H, Allen V, Hutchinson JR (2009) Biomechanics of running indicates endothermy in bipedal dinosaurs. PLoS ONE 4(11): e7783. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007783
Abstract
Background
One of the great unresolved controversies in paleobiology is whether extinct dinosaurs were endothermic, ectothermic, or some combination thereof, and when endothermy first evolved in the lineage leading to birds. Although it is well established that high, sustained growth rates and, presumably, high activity levels are ancestral for dinosaurs and pterosaurs (clade Ornithodira), other independent lines of evidence for high metabolic rates, locomotor costs, or endothermy are needed. For example, some studies have suggested that, because large dinosaurs may have been homeothermic due to their size alone and could have had heat loss problems, ectothermy would be a more plausible metabolic strategy for such animals.
Methodology/Principal Findings
Here we describe two new biomechanical approaches for reconstructing the metabolic rate of 14 extinct bipedal dinosauriforms during walking and running. These methods, well validated for extant animals, indicate that during walking and slow running the metabolic rate of at least the larger extinct dinosaurs exceeded the maximum aerobic capabilities of modern ectotherms, falling instead within the range of modern birds and mammals. Estimated metabolic rates for smaller dinosaurs are more ambiguous, but generally approach or exceed the ectotherm boundary.
Conclusions/Significance
Our results support the hypothesis that endothermy was widespread in at least larger non-avian dinosaurs. It was plausibly ancestral for all dinosauriforms (perhaps Ornithodira), but this is perhaps more strongly indicated by high growth rates than by locomotor costs. The polarity of the evolution of endothermy indicates that rapid growth, insulation, erect postures, and perhaps aerobic power predated advanced “avian” lung structure and high locomotor costs.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Paleo Paper Challenge: Are You Challenged Yet?
Last night, Dave reminded me that it's been nearly a month since we've had an update or progress report for all of you participating in the Paleo Paper Challenge. Remember, your homework is due January 1!
In my last post, I required you readers to publicly shame me if I didn't get right to work on my contributions. Well, I deserve to be shamed. I will confess to doing virtually nothing over the last few weeks (aside from a few very, very minor edits). . .thus, setting a very, very bad example. (although I did help get another manuscript that's not part of the challenge into review!)
So, how's everyone else doing?
In my last post, I required you readers to publicly shame me if I didn't get right to work on my contributions. Well, I deserve to be shamed. I will confess to doing virtually nothing over the last few weeks (aside from a few very, very minor edits). . .thus, setting a very, very bad example. (although I did help get another manuscript that's not part of the challenge into review!)
So, how's everyone else doing?
Monday, November 2, 2009
The Award-Winning Open Source Paleontologist
I was pleasantly surprised to learn earlier today that last week's post about pachycephalosaur ontogeny was awarded "Blog Pick of the Month" for October by everyONE, the PLoS ONE community blog. Thanks!
On a related note, check out the following video from UC Berkeley, with a great summary of the research published last week in PLoS ONE:
On a related note, check out the following video from UC Berkeley, with a great summary of the research published last week in PLoS ONE:
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Buying PDFs: Truth and Consequences
On-line journals are great. You get immediate access to the latest research and can download a fully searchable PDF for later use. Journal digitization has revolutionized the pace of science communication and increased the reach of formerly obscure journals. Through the wonders of the Internet, anyone can get access! Right?
Not so fast. On-line journals offer full benefits only to those whose institution has a subscription. If you don't have a subscription, you're out of luck. . .mostly. Thankfully, it is possible to buy PDFs of individual articles. Right?
Not so fast. It is indeed possible to buy PDFs of articles from most journals. . .if you can cough up the money to do so. Let's face it. PDFs are expensive. Ridiculously so. A three page note from Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology might cost nearly $30! A six page paper from Geology runs $25. [end of this post] Is it really worth it?
Big Problems
I won't pretend that journal sales don't support professional societies I care about. I won't pretend that publishers shouldn't get compensated for their services. I won't pretend that everything is going to turn open access tomorrow.
But, I'm not shy about saying that the current system stinks. No matter how you slice it, $30 for a PDF article is unaffordable for a typical consumer of paleontological publications. The new membership rates for the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, which include electronic access to Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, cost $115 for e-journal only. Assuming around 120 articles per year (a rough count for JVP in 2008), this works out to a little less than $1 per article (and remember that this assumes that 100 percent of membership dues go to the journal subscription - certainly not the case). Why is there a 3,000 percent markup for non-members? Wouldn't journals be able to get by with, perhaps, a 500 percent markup over the member rate? [IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not intending to single out JVP and SVP exclusively; nearly all journal publishers are guilty of this problem. . .it just so happens that JVP is the example most relevant to most readers here]
Let's put it another way. At the current costs of PDF articles, buying every single article in the journal would cost an individual around $3,600 per year.
And let's look at it from yet another angle. Institutional paper subscriptions to JVP are $270/year for US institutions (pre-Taylor & Francis switch; we don't yet know what the cost will be post-switch). This works out to an average of$2.25/article. . .for a format that is much more expensive to deliver than an electronic document!
And one last angle. . .the Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs edited volume, which is a beautifully produced and scientifically important work, includes 20 articles, ships in hard cover and retails for $100 new. This works out to $5/article within the book. Contrast this with $30 or more for a single digital file.
Commenting in a recent thread here at the OSP, a librarian noted that libraries are paying between $2-$4 per PDF article when bought in bundles from for-profit publishers like Elsevier (which, incidentally, continues to post profits in the midst of the recession). Although it is certainly fair to have volume discounts (although the pricing schemes and the bundled journals are often rather dubious in practice), it is of dubious benefit to science to charge such a disproportionate rate to private individuals who are just trying to do some science.
Do these pricing schemes serve science? Do these pricing schemes serve the interests of the authors, who just want their work to be read?
Commonly Suggested "Solutions"
When the issue of paying for individual PDFs is brought up, there are often a number of "solutions" proposed. I put the word in quotes because, as explained below, none of these is fool-proof.
Why not write the author for a PDF?
In some cases, this is a good workaround. But it's never a perfect workaround. Sometimes authors are unresponsive, have changed email addresses, retired, or passed into the fossil record. In this case, the researcher in need of the paper is out of luck.
Why not post a PDF request to VRTPALEO or the DML?
In some cases, this is a workaround. . .one need only look at mailing list archives to see that this is a common strategy. But, PDF requests unfortunately carry a small annoyance factor for many list subscribers. Sometimes no one responds. Finally, PDF sharing by anyone other than the author is generally illegal in the eyes of the publishers and societies (but let's not pretend it doesn't happen).
Why not join the society, and then you get all of the articles as part of your membership?
Again, this is a solution in some cases. If you are a paleontological enthusiast or professional who loves (or needs) to follow every bit of the literature, you should probably join the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and/or the Palaeontological Association and/or the Paleontological Society.
But, let's be realistic. Nobody can afford to join every society to get access to all society publications. In some cases, it's just not necessary. Consider this hypothetical situation. You're a population biologist working for a small nature preserve who wants a little background on the evolutionary history of the coyote. You do a search on Google, and find a citation to Journal of American Paleontology with an abstract that details ecological shifts by coyotes during the Ice Age using isotopic analysis. You click on the link, and. . .paywall! The Society of American Paleontology wants $30 for a five page article. Is it really worth your time and money (as a population biologist) to join a society of paleontology, when you are already stretching your budget to cover dues for two more relevant societies? If the charter for the American Paleontological Society says that they are to promote and advance the science of paleontology, is the society really living up to this mandate? If the society wants to foster cross-discipline appreciation for the relevance of the field, is this happening if the research is not easily accessible? Are the authors who contribute to the journal being well-served by having their research so restricted?
Finally, some journals just aren't sponsored by societies. There is no solution in this case, other than to pay a few hundred dollars per year.
Most of the other journals charge $30 for a PDF!
This is not a solution (or even a "solution"), but an excuse. During the business meeting for a scholarly society to which I belong, I raised a concern about the prices that the society's journal was charging for individual PDFs. Can you guess the answer that I received? I remember something my mother often said to me. . ."If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you too?" Exorbitant PDF costs may be the norm, but that doesn't mean it's the ethical thing to do (especially for a non-profit society whose stated mission includes phrases like "advance the science" and "serve the common interests").
What Needs to Change?
Science (yes, that's the reason why most research is published) is not being served by the current pricing schemes. Alleged solutions for those beyond the boundaries of the pay-wall are not comprehensive, and again do not serve the interests of science.
PDFs of individual articles need to cost less. There is no way to legitimize charging $25, $30, or more for something that costs less to produce than a printed journal, particularly when it prices out to up to a 3,000 percent markup. The current pricing scheme restricts the readership of articles and creates a hierarchy of have- and have-not researchers, in a time when the Internet is supposed to fix these problems for academia. Also, let's not forget that the research behind these articles is often heavily subsidized by public tax dollars. . .
I would suggest that $5, or maybe $10 in exceptional circumstances (e.g., a 50 page monograph) is a cost that I would be willing to pay for a PDF. I would also submit that many journals would see increased PDF sales (particularly for popular topics, such as dinosaurs) if the price was set at something mere mortals could afford to pay.
Is There a Solution?
Right now, it sounds like I'm doing a lot of complaining and not a lot of problem solving. Well. . .yes. This post is partly a rant. Unless people are aware of the problem, nothing will ever happen.
So what can we do? Here are a few suggestions:
Addendum 1: As if by magic, this post at The Scholarly Kitchen appeared at nearly the same instant as I hit the "publish" button on this post. I haven't followed up on the service (which essentially offers cheap rental access to articles from various scientific publishers), but will certainly be looking into it.
Addendum 2: Matt over at Protichnoctem has a nice post with more on the issue of buying PDFs. Go check it out!
The Journal List
The Anatomical Record (Wiley): $29.95
Bulletin of the Geological Society of America (GSA): $25 (GSA website)
Bulletin of the Geological Society of America (GSA): $32 (Geoscience World website)
Cretaceous Research (Elsevier): $31.50
Geology (GSA): $25 (GSA website)
Geology (GSA): $32 (Geoscience World website)
Ichnos (Taylor & Francis): $37
Journal of Experimental Biology (The Company of Biologists): $10
Journal of Morphology (Wiley): $29.95
Journal of Paleontology (Paleontological Society): $12 (BioOne website)
Journal of Paleontology (Paleontological Society): $15 (Geoscience World website)
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP): $30 (BioOne website)
Nature (Nature Publishing Group): $32
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology (Elsevier): $31.50
Paleobiology (Paleontological Society): $12 (BioOne website)
Paleobiology (Paleontological Society): $15 (Geoscience World website)
Palaeontology (Wiley): $29.95
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (NASUSA): $10 ($25/full journal access for seven days)
Science (AAAS): $15
Not so fast. On-line journals offer full benefits only to those whose institution has a subscription. If you don't have a subscription, you're out of luck. . .mostly. Thankfully, it is possible to buy PDFs of individual articles. Right?
Not so fast. It is indeed possible to buy PDFs of articles from most journals. . .if you can cough up the money to do so. Let's face it. PDFs are expensive. Ridiculously so. A three page note from Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology might cost nearly $30! A six page paper from Geology runs $25. [end of this post] Is it really worth it?
Big Problems
I won't pretend that journal sales don't support professional societies I care about. I won't pretend that publishers shouldn't get compensated for their services. I won't pretend that everything is going to turn open access tomorrow.
But, I'm not shy about saying that the current system stinks. No matter how you slice it, $30 for a PDF article is unaffordable for a typical consumer of paleontological publications. The new membership rates for the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, which include electronic access to Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, cost $115 for e-journal only. Assuming around 120 articles per year (a rough count for JVP in 2008), this works out to a little less than $1 per article (and remember that this assumes that 100 percent of membership dues go to the journal subscription - certainly not the case). Why is there a 3,000 percent markup for non-members? Wouldn't journals be able to get by with, perhaps, a 500 percent markup over the member rate? [IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not intending to single out JVP and SVP exclusively; nearly all journal publishers are guilty of this problem. . .it just so happens that JVP is the example most relevant to most readers here]
Let's put it another way. At the current costs of PDF articles, buying every single article in the journal would cost an individual around $3,600 per year.
And let's look at it from yet another angle. Institutional paper subscriptions to JVP are $270/year for US institutions (pre-Taylor & Francis switch; we don't yet know what the cost will be post-switch). This works out to an average of$2.25/article. . .for a format that is much more expensive to deliver than an electronic document!
And one last angle. . .the Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs edited volume, which is a beautifully produced and scientifically important work, includes 20 articles, ships in hard cover and retails for $100 new. This works out to $5/article within the book. Contrast this with $30 or more for a single digital file.
Commenting in a recent thread here at the OSP, a librarian noted that libraries are paying between $2-$4 per PDF article when bought in bundles from for-profit publishers like Elsevier (which, incidentally, continues to post profits in the midst of the recession). Although it is certainly fair to have volume discounts (although the pricing schemes and the bundled journals are often rather dubious in practice), it is of dubious benefit to science to charge such a disproportionate rate to private individuals who are just trying to do some science.
Do these pricing schemes serve science? Do these pricing schemes serve the interests of the authors, who just want their work to be read?
Commonly Suggested "Solutions"
When the issue of paying for individual PDFs is brought up, there are often a number of "solutions" proposed. I put the word in quotes because, as explained below, none of these is fool-proof.
Why not write the author for a PDF?
In some cases, this is a good workaround. But it's never a perfect workaround. Sometimes authors are unresponsive, have changed email addresses, retired, or passed into the fossil record. In this case, the researcher in need of the paper is out of luck.
Why not post a PDF request to VRTPALEO or the DML?
In some cases, this is a workaround. . .one need only look at mailing list archives to see that this is a common strategy. But, PDF requests unfortunately carry a small annoyance factor for many list subscribers. Sometimes no one responds. Finally, PDF sharing by anyone other than the author is generally illegal in the eyes of the publishers and societies (but let's not pretend it doesn't happen).
Why not join the society, and then you get all of the articles as part of your membership?
Again, this is a solution in some cases. If you are a paleontological enthusiast or professional who loves (or needs) to follow every bit of the literature, you should probably join the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and/or the Palaeontological Association and/or the Paleontological Society.
But, let's be realistic. Nobody can afford to join every society to get access to all society publications. In some cases, it's just not necessary. Consider this hypothetical situation. You're a population biologist working for a small nature preserve who wants a little background on the evolutionary history of the coyote. You do a search on Google, and find a citation to Journal of American Paleontology with an abstract that details ecological shifts by coyotes during the Ice Age using isotopic analysis. You click on the link, and. . .paywall! The Society of American Paleontology wants $30 for a five page article. Is it really worth your time and money (as a population biologist) to join a society of paleontology, when you are already stretching your budget to cover dues for two more relevant societies? If the charter for the American Paleontological Society says that they are to promote and advance the science of paleontology, is the society really living up to this mandate? If the society wants to foster cross-discipline appreciation for the relevance of the field, is this happening if the research is not easily accessible? Are the authors who contribute to the journal being well-served by having their research so restricted?
Finally, some journals just aren't sponsored by societies. There is no solution in this case, other than to pay a few hundred dollars per year.
Most of the other journals charge $30 for a PDF!
This is not a solution (or even a "solution"), but an excuse. During the business meeting for a scholarly society to which I belong, I raised a concern about the prices that the society's journal was charging for individual PDFs. Can you guess the answer that I received? I remember something my mother often said to me. . ."If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you too?" Exorbitant PDF costs may be the norm, but that doesn't mean it's the ethical thing to do (especially for a non-profit society whose stated mission includes phrases like "advance the science" and "serve the common interests").
What Needs to Change?
Science (yes, that's the reason why most research is published) is not being served by the current pricing schemes. Alleged solutions for those beyond the boundaries of the pay-wall are not comprehensive, and again do not serve the interests of science.
PDFs of individual articles need to cost less. There is no way to legitimize charging $25, $30, or more for something that costs less to produce than a printed journal, particularly when it prices out to up to a 3,000 percent markup. The current pricing scheme restricts the readership of articles and creates a hierarchy of have- and have-not researchers, in a time when the Internet is supposed to fix these problems for academia. Also, let's not forget that the research behind these articles is often heavily subsidized by public tax dollars. . .
I would suggest that $5, or maybe $10 in exceptional circumstances (e.g., a 50 page monograph) is a cost that I would be willing to pay for a PDF. I would also submit that many journals would see increased PDF sales (particularly for popular topics, such as dinosaurs) if the price was set at something mere mortals could afford to pay.
Is There a Solution?
Right now, it sounds like I'm doing a lot of complaining and not a lot of problem solving. Well. . .yes. This post is partly a rant. Unless people are aware of the problem, nothing will ever happen.
So what can we do? Here are a few suggestions:
- Ask journals and professional societies to consider the implications of pricing schemes for PDFs. Speak out to the people who matter. Let them know how you feel, and how it affects you.
- Don't pay the ridiculous charges. Find low-cost, legal alternatives (e.g., writing to the author or interlibrary loans) whenever possible.
- Submit your work only to journals with researcher-friendly publishing policies.
- If you are an author, do everything you (legally) can to get your work out there for free. If the journal allows you to post a PDF, do so. Respond promptly to PDF requests from other individuals.
Addendum 1: As if by magic, this post at The Scholarly Kitchen appeared at nearly the same instant as I hit the "publish" button on this post. I haven't followed up on the service (which essentially offers cheap rental access to articles from various scientific publishers), but will certainly be looking into it.
Addendum 2: Matt over at Protichnoctem has a nice post with more on the issue of buying PDFs. Go check it out!
The Journal List
The Anatomical Record (Wiley): $29.95
Bulletin of the Geological Society of America (GSA): $25 (GSA website)
Bulletin of the Geological Society of America (GSA): $32 (Geoscience World website)
Cretaceous Research (Elsevier): $31.50
Geology (GSA): $25 (GSA website)
Geology (GSA): $32 (Geoscience World website)
Ichnos (Taylor & Francis): $37
Journal of Experimental Biology (The Company of Biologists): $10
Journal of Morphology (Wiley): $29.95
Journal of Paleontology (Paleontological Society): $12 (BioOne website)
Journal of Paleontology (Paleontological Society): $15 (Geoscience World website)
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP): $30 (BioOne website)
Nature (Nature Publishing Group): $32
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology (Elsevier): $31.50
Paleobiology (Paleontological Society): $12 (BioOne website)
Paleobiology (Paleontological Society): $15 (Geoscience World website)
Palaeontology (Wiley): $29.95
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (NASUSA): $10 ($25/full journal access for seven days)
Science (AAAS): $15
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
