Should scientific publications be publicly available?

There is a very frequent mention of a certain Witches ' Hammer, which I first brought up. Someone has quoted this source several times in a completely different context than I had in mind. When I wrote that I want to fight pseudoscience even with the help of the witches ' hammer, I meant those situations that, due to ignorance or misinterpretation, are unfamiliar to someone. Namely: paid protection, bad publications, etc. I want to counteract this at my own level and those who do not know me from the forum understand what I'm talking about. I think that most people on the forum are divided into a number of categories-scientists, collectors, sellers. Sometimes combinations. But there is. believe me, dozens of specialists who have degrees, have a position, but they do not know or are not interested in the subject at all. People who receive good grants and drink them away, and then write free reports. It seems to me that these are vile phenomena and I really want to be able to somehow influence this.
I bow low to Lavr Bolshakov, who, having no formal opportunities, began to struggle with such phenomena.
If anyone here saw my mentoring tone, please excuse me. But I think that a person who has more experience in a number of things can give advice. When they give me advice, I listen and absorb the information, isn't that a bad thing? People write that when publishing in the West, you have to pay, I was published 40 times, I never paid - I write-this is nonsense. What is the problem? I've been to Japan and I know many Japanese people, I know that nature protection is not present there in an absurd sense, as in a number of countries, that there are no cameras there - it's just that the Japanese have a different attitude to nature. The mayor of one town comes to the reserve climbs waist-deep in the swamp and takes pictures of dragonflies, and then walks through the forest and picks up candy wrappers. The mentality is different.Well, I know it - and I share the information. And they say to me - I teach others, because I watched Google.
Yesterday, a guy told me where and how to fish in Syria. I didn't tell him about Google.
You can also tell me how people live and how they live with nature in Western Mongolia or Siberia. You can see it in Google by sight. Maybe we'll learn something new.

I made a mistake, once I paid 27 E for the color for the article Freina, J. J. de, Yakovlev, R. V. 2005. Anmerkungen zu Cossulus Staudinger, 1887, mit Beschreibung einer neuen Art aus Ostanatolien (Lepidoptera, Cossidae) // Entomologische Zeitschrift. Bd. 115 (2). P. 81–84.

There is a very frequent mention of a certain Witches ' Hammer, which I first brought up. Someone has quoted this source several times in a completely different context than I had in mind. When I wrote that I want to fight pseudoscience even with the help of the witches ' hammer, I meant those situations that, due to ignorance or misinterpretation, are unfamiliar to someone. Namely: paid protection, bad publications, etc. I want to counteract this at my own level and those who do not know me from the forum understand what I'm talking about. I think that most people on the forum are divided into a number of categories-scientists, collectors, sellers. Sometimes combinations. But there is. believe me, dozens of specialists who have degrees, have a position, but they do not know or are not interested in the subject at all. People who receive good grants and drink them away, and then write free reports. It seems to me that these are vile phenomena and I really want to be able to somehow influence this.
I bow low to Lavr Bolshakov, who, having no formal opportunities, began to struggle with such phenomena.

Well, actually, the witches ' hammer is still not the set of methods that you need to act on, I think so and I've already written about it. The fight against pseudoscience as such is also not their job, so I think it is better to fight against pseudoscience by raising the level of scientific knowledge, including accessibility.

Here is an interesting question - how did these people get so high, without interest in the subject of activity? Or maybe they had an interest, but it disappeared after they made their way through the wilds of the nomenclature ladder and reached these positions?

Now someone will tell you how people live in Siberia, without looking at Google.

It is hard to live, not to compare with Japan or the EU. Or is it not true?

It is difficult in comparison with the EU, easier in comparison with Japan and many regions of European Russia and Ukraine. Japan is the most difficult place. Google didn't show it?

OK, but Google showed that in Japan the average life expectancy is 85 years, and in Siberia 65-60 years, so what's the big deal? Is it so cool in Siberia that life is already out of the question?

Japanese people in 40 look like 20. This is a very youngish race. They enter into marital relations very late. they start aging very late. These are well - known facts-anthropology.

Mr. Yakovlev
: Yes, Roman, your "divisions" are sparsely populated. Mine, too, though, but still more.
I'm not gloating, just to the fact that my position is quite right to be.
By the way, I didn't vote for myself.

Well, here's the thing. I will strive to make my work publicly available , and this is also out of a desire not to be in an information vacuum. Do you know how unpleasant it is to give a lecture when you see that no one is listening to you? So it's the same here.

In this sense, I voted for your position. I can recommend doing this to others, but I can't decide for them.

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 09.11.2010 22: 39

Mr. Kovyl
Is Doing Great, I congratulate you! This is a success. It will help you destroy the existing order

Publications are available in any case. They can be available for free or for money. The latter option does not cancel their availability in any way. I don't see any point in breaking spears here - even dung, and that's not free, although, in fact, it's shit (sorry for my French).

A pointless argument. I agree that publications are available, one way or another. Another thing is that it is difficult to overcome the opportunity to get free when they ask for money for something. Books printed abroad are expensive, but the author receives only a couple of copies in addition to a prestigious publication and high-quality printing, a recent example is the well-known Kononenko with his scoops of Siberia, a couple of emas were issued, but he did not pay anything for printing. We do the identification of insects of the Far East completely ourselves, the RFBR gives money only for printing, so why can't we charge 200-500 rubles for a book (which, according to the work invested in it, costs more than one thousand), which by and large will go one way or another to prepare the next book. In addition, we are not against electronic versions, and we simply cannot ban them, but it is nice to see good books on your bookshelves, and not just in directories on your screw.
They say that you need to pay for publications in good magazines, there are some, but there are a lot of other equally good ones in which you don't need to pay, Roman is right here. And now, in general, it's not how many articles you have and in which magazines or books, available or not, that comes to the fore, but how many people quote you. This is the main indicator of your scientific work. Moreover, recently, at least in academic science, citations are taken into account only for WOS. Access to the database is paid, but I have it (like all employees of our institute), so I can take a look at it. I am sure that many people will simply not find their surnames there, even if their publications are at least a thousand times more accessible than everyone else's.

But this is a separate question. How can you be read if you publish in "non-prestigious" magazines, but post electronic versions? Well, you can't write "science for free" or even more enticing keywords to catch search engines... So again, the wrong contingent will react

Speaking of accessibility
None of the interested parties missed the news that until the end of November on http://www.springerlink.com/ free elephant giveaway free access to most articles?

And now, in general, it's not how many articles you have and in which magazines or books, available or not, that comes to the fore, but how many people quote you. This is the main indicator of your scientific work. Moreover, recently, at least in academic science, citations are taken into account only for WOS. Access to the database is paid, but I have it (like all employees of our institute), so I can take a look at it. I am sure that many people will simply not find their surnames there, even if their publications are at least a thousand times more accessible than everyone else's.

I have such a question-now there are not so few scientific journals and collections where articles of a similar profile are published, and all over the world. Do all of them fall into the attention of specialized specialists? It seems to me that hardly, but tn. prestigious journals with high citation rates are certainly considered, and therefore they are more often cited, and therefore many people tend to place an article there - a vicious circle.
But if there was a public and complete database of journals online with contextual search, then citation will probably be determined by the relevance of the work, and now citation probably depends more on the journal in which the publication is placed.
Since it is much easier to set a contextual search for thousands of articles than to buy/subscribe/look in libraries, this is all in the paper version.

There is such a thing as Zool. Rec. It has almost everything. They are very good I quote everything that has been published, i.e. almost everything. If the article is published in the notes of the Nature Testing Society of Western Sichuan or in the Altai Zoo.if no one bothered to send it to Biosis, then the message is gone.
What about Kononenko's book? Super book. We've been waiting for her. Buy it. Normal business-a huge amount of work has been invested, and I am Orthodox, I love stupid books, and I look at the computer as a convenient typewriter.

I wonder if Mr. Kovyl sent KK Volgograd to the Brit Museum and Biosis and other articles published in local publications?

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 16.11.2010 20: 09

Yakovlev, Biosis is this? http://wokinfo.com/about/whoweare/

Yakovlev, Biosis is this? http://wokinfo.com/about/whoweare/

Yes, that's it. These are the publishers of Zool. High score. The oldest and most complete abstract publication on zoology.

I wonder if Mr. Kovyl sent KK Volgograd to the Brit Museum and Biosis and other articles published in local publications?

No, I didn't send it. Should I have? I actually thought that mailing lists to libraries should be handled not by individual authors of this CC, but by the editorial staff, probably. And then they will send 20 pieces to the same one, and they gave me only 3 copyright copies (I already gave one).
And on the forum I posted articles for colleagues who either do not have access to central libraries, or they do not have much money and time to go to Moscow or St. Petersburg for each article. If necessary , I will scan and post part of the CC (you can also post all of it, but it will take longer).

Reasonable colleagues hold the following opinion, and recommend it to everyone::

http://susanne.schulmeister.com/open_access_publishing.html

Publications must be publicly available. This is the air of science.

Accessibility doesn't mean it's free.

Accessibility doesn't mean it's free.

I think it should be added here - "imho". Because the results of the survey once again prove the correctness of T. FTOR.

Publications must be publicly available. This is the air of science.

Ah well done! Yes, they are rarely classified as such...
Then scientific trips should also be publicly available. This is the oxygen of science. Both devices and tools should be publicly available, in general- "equipment and material". This is the kylo of science. Canteens in scientific institutions should also be publicly accessible. This is the bread of science. Water supply should also be publicly available, this is the water of science. Without publications, I will be able to survive with my scientific work longer than without food and water. Yes, and women for men (and men for women) should also be publicly available, this is the continuity of science, otherwise who will pass it on to over time...
You give it public access! And, on the other hand, sometimes you think-what's the use? ABC books, it seems, for kids have always been publicly available, but those who are not very good at reading, even if they crack, they will not be able to read the relevant topics and will mumble for the thousandth time what has long been refuted...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 01.12.2010 18: 19

I think it should be added here - "imho". Because the results of the survey once again prove the correctness of T. FTOR.

IMHO you have. I have a strong belief and belief that "any work must be paid", whether it is the work of a scientist in the field of extracting knowledge, or it is the work of a typesetter and paper manufacturer. Or the software manufacturer on which the PDF was compiled (don't tell me that the software should be "publicly available"). :D)

.. Without publications, I will be able to survive with my scientific work longer than without food and water...

Would you mind giving some examples of your creative work in the "Forum Members' Publications " thread?
As for the examples of bread, water, etc.of science, they are not such. This is your personal bread, water, etc., but not science. It is strange to write down in the" bread of science " the beer that you have consumed during your life. In 100 years, I think very few people will be interested in this. But the articles, if they are worthy, will really be the "bread of science".
It's a shame, you were taught philosophy, but you are engaged in sophistry.

IMHO you have. I have a strong belief and belief that "any work must be paid", whether it is the work of a scientist in the field of extracting knowledge, or it is the work of a typesetter and paper manufacturer. Or the software manufacturer on which the PDF was compiled (don't tell me that the software should be "publicly available": D)

Yes, I have-imho. That doesn't mean I'm not convinced. And this does not mean that they are the ultimate truth.
And I do not argue that the work of a scientist should be paid. For example, in the form of a grant salary, or at the place of work - please. But not in the form of charging a fee for the results of scientific knowledge (articles)!
PS And the results of the survey you, of course, do not care...

This post was edited by kovyl - 01.12.2010 18: 37

Would you mind giving some examples of your creative work in the "Forum Members' Publications " thread?
As for the examples of bread, water, etc.of science, they are not such. This is your personal bread, water, etc., but not science. It is strange to write down in the" bread of science " the beer that you have consumed during your life. In 100 years, I think very few people will be interested in this. But the articles, if they are worthy, will really be the "bread of science".It's a shame, you were taught philosophy, but you are engaged in sophistry.

1. I don't drink beer. "In the course of a lifetime." But I know scientists (from antiquity to some living ones) for whom alcohol has become a much more necessary condition for creativity than some publications, without which they can work very fruitfully for science much longer than without alcohol. I just mentioned offhand the main thing, and beer-and everything else necessary (in your opinion) for a scientist-you can guess for me. At the same time, demand the public availability of beer.

2. "In 100 years" (even earlier) and publications become public domain and can be copied for free. They will not become more accessible (try to get them again), but since the beautiful word "accessibility" here often covers the free copying and receiving of other people's publications, it will be possible to re-shoot everything for free without any fear.

3. My scientific work is presented outside of our "Forum Participants' Publications " section. But even if I had personally swept the pavement all my life, this would not in any way refute what I said above. I have always understood the topic "Forum member publications" as referring only to the forum profile, but unfortunately, I do not have any publications on entomology. I don't see the point in throwing out a long list of my publications on extraneous topics on the entomological forum.

And this topic, quite clearly, raises the question of attitude to scientific publications, and the quote I gave speaks about publications in general. No one is forbidden to have this attitude. I hope the topic about "public access" is public, and not created only for those who lit up and in some other way? I repeat, publications, and this has not been refuted here, are no more necessary for the work of a scientist, that is, for the real functioning of science, than all that I have mentioned.

If you are simply talking about the accumulated scientific baggage for the future, and not about what is the air for the real activity of living scientists, who you seem to have aside from the needs of some impersonal "science" as a system of knowledge, then there is no problem, then see point 2. Then conduct a survey not among the living ask scientists about what they would like or would not like to have access to, and ask impersonal science, which does not need to go anywhere, and does not ask to eat. So it won't tell you anything about publications either; only living scientists who need publications for their work can answer. Do not engage in sophistry and do not break the indissoluble. Science as such needs to develop everything that specific scientists working in it need in order to have the opportunity and meaning to work in it. This is inseparable, is it really hard to understand?

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 01.12.2010 19: 16

In your opinion, the printer's work is not worth paying for? Accordingly, I can tell you the same thing: can you present your collection to me for free, that is, for free? This is also of scientific value, so please. Otherwise-shoot yourself, because the information on the labels of your collection is extremely necessary for science, and if you don't give me your collection for free , then what can we talk about?

Well, the fact that you spent time and money on collecting the collection - this, I'm sorry, does not bother me.

1. I don't drink beer. "In the course of a lifetime."

Sorry, I just used beer as an example. I didn't mean your personal attitude towards him.

 
2. "In 100 years" (even earlier) and publications become public domain and can be copied for free. They will not become more accessible (try to get them again), but since the beautiful word "accessibility" here often covers the free copying and receiving of other people's publications, it will be possible to re-shoot everything for free without any fear.

I mentioned "in 100 years" in the context of what everyone doesn't care, what we ate and who we slept with. Articles will be in demand. And not about whether they will be "for free" or not.

3. My scientific work is presented outside of our "Forum Participants' Publications " section. But even if I had personally swept the pavement all my life, this would not in any way refute what I said above. I have always understood the topic "Forum member publications" as referring only to the forum profile, but unfortunately, I do not have any publications on entomology. I don't see the point in throwing out a long list of my publications on extraneous topics on the entomological forum.

And where can I get acquainted with your scientific work (at least with a list), since it is not related to entomology?
Of course, you can have any opinion you want about anything. It would be foolish to argue with this.

And this topic, quite clearly, raises the question of attitude to scientific publications, and the quote I gave speaks about publications in general. No one is forbidden to have this attitude. I hope the topic about "public access" is public, and not created only for those who lit up and in some other way? I repeat, publications, and this has not been refuted here, are no more necessary for the work of a scientist, that is, for the real functioning of science, than all that I have mentioned.

If you are simply talking about the accumulated scientific baggage for the future, and not about what is the air for the real activity of living scientists, who you seem to have aside from the needs of some impersonal "science" as a system of knowledge, then there is no problem, then see point 2. Then conduct a survey not among the living ask scientists about what they would like or would not like to have access to, and ask impersonal science, which does not need to go anywhere, and does not ask to eat. So it won't tell you anything about publications either; only living scientists who need publications for their work can answer. Do not engage in sophistry and do not break the indissoluble. Science as such needs to develop everything that specific scientists working in it need in order to have the opportunity and meaning to work in it. This is inseparable, is it really hard to understand?

Strange. So, when I said in the next branch that you can't show an article in the bus station window instead of money, they turned on me-they said I was going too far. Now it turns out that scientists still need to eat and they have nothing else to earn on it, except for the sale of works. But then again it turns out to be an injustice, which I already wrote about: some people, then, should be paid for their work, and others should not?
I also raise funds for scientific work, but not by selling my work.

This post was edited by kovyl - 01.12.2010 19: 33

T. rhopalocera.com however, we should not take all this tragically. As the classic said, " Mr. chaplain will not give you anything." The best statistics are not at the level of completely abstract surveys, but the one given by the topic "I'll give it away for free", and that topic has already run out of steam for a year and a half and has moved somewhere in the backside, having counted God forbid a dozen real offers...

The main distribution of gifts is based on personal contacts and personal motives, and not as much as you want and to anyone. This applies to literature, collectible material, and much more.

In your opinion, the printer's work is not worth paying for? Accordingly, I can tell you the same thing: can you present your collection to me for free, that is, for free? This is also of scientific value, so please. Otherwise-shoot yourself, because the information on the labels of your collection is extremely necessary for science, and if you don't give me your collection for free , then what can we talk about?

Yes, for the publication of an article, the work of a printer is a phenomenon that is an echo of the past. You don't need printers to publish on the Internet. Why should we feed parasites? It is better for a scientist to receive in the form of a salary what he has to spend on printing costs. Is not it so?
A collection is not a result of work. No need to pull over the ears. Are you going to publish photos of the collection? But if you have the ability to provide this collection with a safe and accessible location, and I don't, then I think I'll think about it. And, what the hell is not joking, maybe I will present it to you.

T. rhopalocera.com however, we should not take all this tragically. As the classic said, " Mr. chaplain will not give you anything." The best statistics are not at the level of completely abstract surveys, but the one given by the topic "I'll give it away for free", and that topic has already run out of steam for a year and a half and has moved somewhere in the backside, having counted God forbid a dozen real offers...

The main distribution of gifts is based on personal contacts and personal motives, and not as much as you want and to anyone. This applies to literature, collectible material, and much more.

This is not an abstract survey, but a very specific one. But you didn't show up in that topic either...
Well, where can I look at examples of your work - you still haven't answered...

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what this argument is about.
The fact that you are arguing here will not make all scientific publications more accessible.

My opinion: That a person should decide for himself whether his scientific publications will be publicly available, or not. The one who wanted his publication to become publicly available, I think it has long been posted on the Internet.
About whether publications should be paid for.
Sorry, but paid publications are no longer publicly available. You can also buy it from the researcher who wrote it, when it is not yet available to readers.

Yes, it's good to see here and there frostbite, everything is forgotten, everything is new And what happens if in a week under -35 knocks, and there are prospects
Some kind of water of science, bread of science. A formal and real situation - a scientist, conducting research, receives a salary for it. Salary is "bread for science", "water for science" and other components of consumption.. ee of the consumer set.
And publications are "the fruits of science", that is, the result. The scientist, therefore, has already received compensation for his work - in the form of a salary(and what is it, big, small, etc., for this question there is a section "Conversation" ). At the same time, the salary of scientists is paid not from the profit from sales of publications, as in the classical scheme of commodity-money relations, but from taxes of the state-the customer of the scientific process.
These are the realities.

Thus, the publication material itself has already been paid for. There are still technical details-these are the actual costs of replicating the publication. Hence, the simple conclusion is that the print of a scientific journal should have a cost that is no more than the cost-effective cost of replication.
Hence - at the minimum cost of replication, the impression should have an adequate cost.
And now you can dream.

It is necessary to create a database of scientific journals in electronic form, with all the technical costs of this database being sponsored, optimally-by the state, all publications in it should be publicly available free of charge.

By the way, this does not mean that paper magazines are absolutely canceled. This means that each magazine must place a copy of the issued issues in this database. Anyone who wants to buy a paper version of the magazine should write it out and pay for it. And everything else remains the same. Availability of scientific knowledge - in my opinion, this is the main criterion for the success of a civilization, this parameter correlates well with the level of development, primarily scientific. And the concept of accessibility also includes the monetary issue.
And then there is the availability of bread, water, heat, housing and other things. And the level of availability of all this - by the way, also an indicator of the level of development of civilization.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what this argument is about.
The fact that you are arguing here will not make all scientific publications more accessible.

My opinion: That a person should decide for himself whether his scientific publications will be publicly available, or not. The one who wanted his publication to become publicly available, I think it has long been posted on the Internet.

A dispute to explain things to people (for those who don't really understand it yet). We are arguing here so that people try to make more publicly available (if you want - free) publications.

Sorry, but paid publications are no longer publicly available.

Of course, that's what I'm always talking about here. And I argue with those who try to prove that this is not so.

I mentioned "in 100 years" in the context of what everyone doesn't care, what we ate and who we slept with. Articles will be in demand. And not about whether they will be "for free" or not.

I understood. Articles will be requested. And they will be publicly available already in the sense of public domain. But even then, not " everyone doesn't care what we ate," because the present makes up tomorrow. Those who didn't eat didn't work. Those who did not go on expeditions when it was necessary for science did not have enough material, and their scientific works suffered from this, and this will not be corrected in a hundred or a thousand years, especially in entomological faunistics, which deals with very historically mobile material. Who will be better off in a hundred years, what scientists and what science? And in the absence of a material opportunity to provide their scientific work, a horde of parasites is wound up, which does not spend money on science and has something to eat, and which will make a dissertation on the same topic, collecting nothing and working nowhere, pushing aside the literate one with its elbows, but will do some terrible hack, and will be perpetuated by such publications that It's embarrassing. And what kind of science and in what 100 years will it be good? And many such considerations have already been expressed here.

And where can I get acquainted with your scientific work (at least with a list), since it is not related to entomology?

Something is on the page a-j-elez.narod.ru, the "Publications" section (actually, apart from this section, there is almost nothing there).

Strange. So, when I said in the next branch that you can't show an article in the bus station window instead of money, they turned on me-they said I was going too far. Now it turns out that scientists still need to eat and they have nothing else to earn on it, except for the sale of works. But then again it turns out to be an injustice, which I already wrote about: some people, then, should be paid for their work, and others should not?I also raise funds for scientific work, but not by selling my work.

If the works were not stolen by you, but were created by labor, if everyone you consider it necessary to give them in your own way has already been given them, then why not sell the rest, if, of course, there is a solvent demand for them? The example with the bus station I don't remember who turned against whom, and of course, a scientist also needs to eat. Therefore, without arguing with the indisputable phrase that publications are the bread of science, I ask you to remember that publications (although not only they) are the bread of a scientist, just as a statue is the bread of a sculptor. In private-owned conditions, this bread is not issued only by society, but consists, among other things, of what the private buyer pays for a book or magazine.

Of course, you can have any opinion you want about anything. It would be foolish to argue with this.

Well, thank God.