Ray Saintonge wrote:
geni wrote:
Journals appear to be doing ok.
Mostly because they deal in specialized niches.
This is unrelated to the current thread, but I was at a meeting at the
Public Library of Science the other day and promised them that I would
make an effort to bring their work to the attention of the wider
Wikipedia community.
http://www.plos.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Library_of_Science
All content of the peer-reviewed Plos journals (including PLoS Biology,
PLoS Medicine, PLoS Genetics, etc.) is released under "by-attribution"
(Creative Commons).
Open access to scientific publications is crucial, and I think we should
be aware and supportive of their efforts. Scientific publishing, and
academic publishing more generally, is due for a revolution... Journals
charge extremely high prices, and the contributors are paid nothing...
this is a core vulnerability. The contributors contribute because there
is prestige in having a paper accepted... if PLoS (and similar efforts)
are creating freely licensed alternative business models, then the old
business model is doomed.
Barbara Cohen, the executive editor of PLoS, and senior editor of PLoS
Medicine, showed me this page:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/015/2004/00000025/F0020008/art000…
Take a couple of minutes to look at it, and enjoy the sad irony... an
academic paper in a traditional journal on the topic of "Impediments to
promoting access to global knowledge in sub-Saharan Africa" costs $25 to
access!
When you see that, then you understand the importance of the work of PLoS.
--
#######################################################################
# Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge #
#
http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world #
#######################################################################