Literature

Community and Forum → Literature and websites → Literature

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

Likes: 3

19.10.2010 16:41, PVOzerski

Uv. rhopalocera.com, and here is the answer question. Which is more important to you - to be read and quoted without paying you anything, or to have a couple of rich people pay you to publish, and for others it would remain inaccessible? And what do you think guides authors who post electronic versions of their own printed articles on the Internet? Is it really the hope of monetary donations?

In addition, an indirect material benefit to the authors of such "free" publications is still possible. For example, the recruitment of publications for the defense, and then a bonus for the degree. Or it will become easier to win grants, for example, by having a name. It is not without reason that some VAKOV magazines charge money for publications. They've seen through this indirect benefit , so they're cashing in.

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 19.10.2010 16: 42

19.10.2010 19:05, PVOzerski

I know all about magazine copywriting. Therefore, what I'm going to post, I publish not in magazines, but in the cathedral collection - where this issue is agreed. By the way, the MAIK rules allow their authors to use articles published in their journals in their monographs. An attempt to analyze these rules so far convinces me that I will also be able to post a monograph-regardless of articles based on the same materials.

Although my position is that it would be necessary to favor MAIKOV publications with their publications less - so that there prices are not pushed up and draconian restrictions are not imposed. Unfortunately, however, Internet copies, even tracked by all sorts of Googles, do not find a response

, i.e. articles do not spread out on different sites, they do not contact me about them with requests to explain something, etc. I don't know about the general trend. And again, there are all sorts of VAKOV lists and impact factors - which so far turns my approach into a utopia. Still, the main road should be anti - monopoly and ensuring freedom of information

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

19.10.2010 19:42, Aleksey Adamov

Of course, I am not in favor of mass copying, it is much more convenient and pleasant for me to read the original in the form of a paper book. But the prices should be with a human face. At the same time, this is not possible everywhere and always, because "the German is cheap and the Russian is too tough".
The price of the book should be such that the desire to get it in the original, but for money there was more desire to find (or wait for) an electronic copy. This is crucial for authors who publish monographs entirely at their own expense.

Here, by the way, I wonder what price Our people can consider acceptable (see the criteria above), for a volume of a modern publication such as "Determinant of insects of the European part of Russia and adjacent territories", if the volumes are divided into families or groups of families (if families of small volume)???

Likes: 1

20.10.2010 20:51, kovyl

And I think that Mr. rhopalocera is absolutely wrong.
Take the same Catalog of Lepidoptera of Russia. Yes, the authors worked hard collecting literature, etc. Well, they also received a fee from the funds. Well, what did the people who were not included in the authors ' circle get, but nevertheless whose publications they used to compile this catalog? Royalties, or at least a copy of this book? Even if not all of them, but at least those who were mentioned in the acknowledgements? Or should they show a photocopy of the thank-you page in the ticket window of the station when they go to buy a ticket to go to the fields? And they, by the way, sometimes pay their own money to be published.
So there's no need to talk about piracy here.

Likes: 1

21.10.2010 0:06, Alexandr Zhakov

everyone likes to download from the Internet. freebies are indestructible

I pay for the Internet, and for this reason, it is not a freebie.
Freebie, this is when they give out at presentations and exhibitions and take whether they need it or not.
The net contains information, not books, and I pay for it.
the cost varies

.
If you need a thick, beautiful book on coated paper in a dust jacket with colored pictures, so that you can be proud of yourself and show it to your guests. Well, then you can pay a few hundred Yandex units. If you need information about the distribution, the image of genitals and biology, then such sums become a pity, but for frequent use they are simply not enough for this. then there is enough electonic information on the hard disk.
A story about Khoja Nasreddin.
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...87#entry1115087

Likes: 2

21.10.2010 1:16, А.Й.Элез

To Nasrudin. This example is wrong. The use value of a book (as opposed to food) is primarily due to the "smell", i.e. information, and only then-to paper and so on. It would be more accurate to compare the smell of food with the rustle of the pages of a book, and you can get this rustle for free (by the way, even together with the information contained in the text) in the library. Of course, not everywhere there is a suitable library, and the dukhanchik does not stick out at every step.

To the Catalog of Lepidoptera of Russia. Not only consolidated works, imagine, are based on the work of others; you never know in what work – especially in scientific ones-there are citations (after all, even quoting other people's publications is not prohibited), but the author of the cited work does not receive an author's fee for quoting it by others. (Although there is an indirect incentive). Is this news? Since when did it become the norm in science to dance every time from zero, and not from what others have already achieved? But this does not mean that the author of the work, who did not pass by the achievements of his predecessors, can be accused of undermining its implementation. No, it just means that quoting the author's text and using his information will be equally acceptable in relation to this author. That's all. If the author uses the information of others and cites someone, let's not just cite him and use his information in the development of science, but we will put the author on the e..u as a counterfeit! If I use in my scientific work the knowledge that other people's books, oral information and media materials have invested in me throughout my entire adult life, and I earn precisely because of their textual content, and not paper, etc.), this does not mean that it would be moral to steal my salary at the exit from the institute's cash register from your pocket.

The argument "I pay for the Internet, ergo is not a freebie" does not work. Abstract traffic is not a freebie, but information that the copyright holder demands money for is given as a freebie if it is not paid for. If a thief paid for the subway while transporting a freshly stolen suitcase, this does not mean that he did not grab the suitcase for free. It is for freebies, but the delivery of freebies is really paid for. And even then, not out of a great sense of principle, but because it was only paid for because it was harder to get away with it with impunity. And it would be possible to get away with it-a freeloader would not refuse a free means of delivery, be it metro or Internet traffic...

And the difficulties of acquiring literature are already clear to all of us, as well as the absurdity of protecting works from copying, the distribution of which, in principle, can no longer infringe on the economic interests of copyright holders. Therefore, I personally do not always, but in the most slippery and recent cases, fundamentally oppose copying and for the mandatory obtaining of the author's consent.

Likes: 6

Likes: 1

21.10.2010 18:58, kovyl

To the Catalog of Lepidoptera of Russia. Not only consolidated works, imagine, are based on the work of others; you never know in what work – especially in scientific ones-there are citations (after all, even quoting other people's publications is not prohibited), but the author of the cited work does not receive an author's fee for quoting it by others. (Although there is an indirect incentive). Is this news? Since when did it become the norm in science to dance every time from zero, and not from what others have already achieved? But this does not mean that the author of the work, who did not pass by the achievements of his predecessors, can be accused of undermining its implementation. No, it just means that quoting the author's text and using his information will be equally acceptable in relation to this author. That's all. If the author uses the information of others and cites someone, let's not just cite him and use his information in the development of science, but we will put the author on the e..u as a counterfeit! If I use in my scientific work the knowledge that other people's books, oral information and media materials have invested in me throughout my entire adult life, and I earn precisely because of their textual content, and not paper, etc.), this does not mean that it would be moral to steal my salary at the exit from the institute's cash register out of pocket.
...
And the difficulties of acquiring literature are already clear to all of us, as well as the absurdity of protecting works from copying, the distribution of which, in principle, can no longer infringe on the economic interests of copyright holders. Therefore, I personally do not always, but in the most slippery and recent cases, fundamentally oppose copying and for the mandatory obtaining of the author's consent.

All right, just one small nuance. In order for me to quote the author of a commercial publication, I must first buy this publication, but he does not need my articles. Therefore, the argument "satisfaction by mutual citation" is not accepted. Or then two options: 1) pay royalties to all authors in all publications; 2)all publications are non - commercial. Is it feasible to implement any of them? Unlikely. No one puts the author on the "e...y". He receives a salary in a state institution (by the way, partly on my taxes), receives a fee from foundations. I don't take it away from him. What do I get? We are obviously not on an equal footing. If he is so nervous about losing money, let him go into business, not science (I have already mentioned this).
I believe that there can be no commercial science. Because then it won't be science for everyone. And this will be at least a flawed science. I, for example, will send anyone any of my articles and I don't care that I spent my time, effort and money on it. I knew what I was doing when I started doing it.

21.10.2010 22:29, А.Й.Элез

All right, just one small nuance. In order for me to quote the author of a commercial publication, I must first buy this publication, but he does not need my articles. Therefore, the argument "satisfaction by mutual citation" is not accepted.

The nuance is questionable. It is hardly more difficult for us to find or even buy, say, that Catalog of Lepidoptera in the library than it was for its authors to break through a mountain of your and not only your articles and books in preparing the publication. And no one here talked about satisfaction (??). It was about the fact that everyone has the right to cite and in relation to everyone.

Or then two options: 1) pay royalties to all authors in all publications; 2)all publications are non - commercial. Is it feasible to implement any of them? Unlikely. No one puts the author on the "e...y". If he is so nervous about losing money, let him go into business, not science (I have already mentioned this).
I believe that there can be no commercial science. Because then it won't be science for everyone. And this will be at least a flawed science. I, for example, will send anyone any of my articles and I don't care that I spent my time, effort and money on it. I knew what I was getting into when I started doing this.

And this question takes us beyond the narrow scope of the topic. That's why I always mention that we are talking about market relations. You actually answer the question of overcoming this relationship. I do not argue with this, especially since not only this topic, but many problems are precisely in this fundamental question, but we will forget about entomology in this way. In a normal situation, believe me, the universal rights and real opportunities that you are talking about will affect not only entomological literature, but a lot of things (and much more important), but this does not mean that in the current situation we can turn down anyone who does not want to get into his pocket. - if you don't want to get fucked up, go from science to business. This is no more logical than throwing a friend in business, and to answer his dissatisfaction: if you don't like cheating, leave the business for science.
Except at sharp turns, you can't live in two economies at once, you can't take market relations from one system and equal access (not fake rights, but access!) access to scientific information from another system. What one system can give, it is absurd to demand from another. If the author lives in private ownership and pays for everything everywhere, do not ask him to follow the principles of public ownership in relation to his works at the expense of his own hump. Solve the problem from the beginning (it is outside the scope of the topic), and not from the tail.
And do not forget that not all entomological literature is published today for a state salary or even for grants, a very large part of it is published purely commercially, privately, when these publications do not affect the salary (some other colleagues at the Institute row the same salary and even more without such publications), and "the author's fee" is paid at best in copies of books, as under sivonos they paid their salaries in pots and towels.

22.10.2010 5:54, kovyl

The nuance is questionable. It is hardly more difficult for us to find or even buy, say, that Catalog of Lepidoptera in the library than it was for its authors to break through a mountain of your and not only your articles and books in preparing the publication. And no one here talked about satisfaction (??). It was about the fact that everyone has the right to cite and in relation to everyone.

So no one disputes this right.

And this question takes us beyond the narrow scope of the topic. That's why I always mention that we are talking about market relations. You actually answer the question of overcoming this relationship. I do not argue with this, especially since not only this topic, but many problems are precisely in this fundamental question, but we will forget about entomology in this way. In a normal situation, believe me, the universal rights and real opportunities that you are talking about will affect not only entomological literature, but a lot of things (and much more important), but this does not mean that in the current situation we can turn down anyone who does not want to get into his pocket. - if you don't want to get fucked up, go from science to business. This is no more logical than throwing a friend in business, and to answer his dissatisfaction: if you don't like cheating, leave the business for science.
Except at sharp turns, you can't live in two economies at once, you can't take market relations from one system and equal access (not fake rights, but access!) access to scientific information from another system. What one system can give, it is absurd to demand from another. If the author lives in private ownership and pays for everything everywhere, do not ask him to follow the principles of public ownership in relation to his works at the expense of his own hump. Solve the problem from the beginning (it is outside the scope of the topic), and not from the tail.
And do not forget that not all entomological literature is published today for a state salary or even for grants, a very large part of it is published purely commercially, privately, when these publications do not affect the salary (some other colleagues at the Institute row the same salary and even more without such publications), and "the author's fee" is paid at best in copies of books, as under sivonos they paid their salaries in pots and towels.

There is no kidalov here. Of course, I can't ask everyone to do what I like. I believe that we are, if you will, living in an era of global reassessment. The old market relations slow us down and do not allow science to develop properly. So let's change them slowly! I can't solve the problem from the beginning. I repeat: I can give any of my articles to any colleague in the shop for free. He is the same as me, what should I take money from him? Everyone in their place will do what they can, you see, something will start to change.
I've already written here. In order for everyone to stick to their interests, all the funds need to do is pay the authors more salary, and not a percentage of the sale of the circulation of the publication, which should generally be electronic. And several problems will disappear immediately.

22.10.2010 8:08, rhopalocera.com

There is no kidalov here. Of course, I can't ask everyone to do what I like. I believe that we are, if you will, living in an era of global reassessment. The old market relations slow us down and do not allow science to develop properly. So let's change them slowly! I can't solve the problem from the beginning. I repeat: I can give any of my articles to any colleague in the shop for free. He is the same as me, what should I take money from him? Everyone in their place will do what they can, you see, something will start to change.
I've already written here. In order for everyone to stick to their interests, all the funds need to do is pay the authors more salary, and not a percentage of the sale of the circulation of the publication, which should generally be electronic. And several problems will disappear immediately.

electronic publications in the field of taxonomy and nomenclature will be considered invalid.

Likes: 1

22.10.2010 19:42, kovyl

have a good laugh? according to the Code, this is not a published work with all its consequences. so the time hasn't come yet.and no one knows if it will come .

Nicho, we will fix this case (I hope).

2 kovyl

What if you do this?
Organize the topic "Forum participants' publications " by analogy with the plantago library. But there will not be the files themselves, but a list of the participant's works, and if someone is interested, they can contact the author directly. Of course, you will have to reveal your nickname, but this is a voluntary matter.
I can't give you an example myself, because there is a shameful zero in the" publications " column, but publications are very interesting.
I don't think the Monsters will be interested in this offer... what if?!

All for the fight against freebies!
"Our answer to Lord Curzon!"

I would open this topic, but somehow it's inconvenient - there are clearly a lot of people who are on the forum for a long time and have more publications. But if no one is there , I'll give you an example, because I like the idea. I actually had the idea of an online library, but who would take it? Yes, and according to our laws