W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2017

Free and Open Access [was Re: With footnotes (was Re: Open Access to Journal of Web Semantics (JWS))]

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 08:29:07 -0400
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <ae47ae97-9bd3-21ba-1d61-c41d7b9fee7c@dbooth.org>
The open access dilemma *can* be solved: by getting universities to 
commit to an open access policy in their tenure evaluation criteria. 
"If an article is not published in a journal that provides free and open 
access, it doesn't exist", i.e., it will not be counted toward tenure.

This change would actually be in the universities' best interest anyway, 
because they would save money on journal subscriptions and benefit 
science.

The problem now is that researchers are convinced -- quite reasonably -- 
that they need to publish in "prestigious" journals for tenure credit, 
so they cave to those journal's closed-access policies.  If that 
perverse incentive is broken by universities adopting an open access 
policy as described above, then we can have a sustainable shift to 
free-and-open access for research publications.  This policy shift does 
not need to happen all at once either.  Individual universities can take 
the lead, and others can follow.  This issue needs to be raised with 
university administrations.

I'm so glad this topic is being discussed!

David Booth

On 08/09/2017 08:47 AM, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
> On 2017-08-09 14:25, Harry Halpin wrote:
>> Congrats for that getting this nearly open access policy. My opinion is
>> that this is about as much as we can expect from for-profit academic
>> publishers, and I would like to congratulate Ian and the rest for
>> getting these concessions out of Elsevier. So, I can go back to
>> reviewing for this journal - and I do think high quality peer review is
>> important, and see good reason for keeping it anonymized.
>>
>> In terms of the rest of the complaints, it should be obvious the
>> academic publishing world is for profit with all that entails.
>> Nonetheless, this is better than 99% of the rest.
>>
>> In terms of RDF dogfooding, there are unsolved  practical problems
>> ranging from the failure of MathML in modern browsers (i.e. why
>> scientific publishing uses LaTeX) to the long history of having
>> difficulty with RDF uptake in general. I wish good luck to anyone trying
>> to solve these problems that have been outstanding for about two decades.
>>
>> If one doesn't use mathematics or academic peer revuew, and wants to
>> experiment with the magic of RDF, perhaps digfooding a blog is more
>> productive than complaining about CFPs. Once a great system works and is
>> production ready, I am sure there would be a sympathetic response from
>> academics and publishers.
>>
>>     Yours,
>>        Harry
> 
> 
> You can ignore
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2017Aug/0011.html as
> you like to fit your agenda. In the meantime, go ahead and obey what the
> for-profit tells you, and do not question "authority".
> 
> For those that are not content with the status quo, or are not satisfied
> with "that's just how things are" (tm), they have a more exciting future
> ahead. And, we are working on building that instead of being passive or
> dismissing others for trying.
> 
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
> 
Received on Thursday, 10 August 2017 12:29:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 10 August 2017 12:29:38 UTC