Re: DISCLAIMER (was Re: [CfP] Journal of Web Semantics (JWS) - Special Issue on Ontology Engineering)

I dont see this in terms of enemies and friends (us vs publishers). this is
quiet simply a business relation, nothing more nothing else. you pay in a
market where there are options offering goods and services with a clear
differentiator; a market that moves forward by giving u choices, better
services, improved goods, etc. True, 300 years is a long time, and in this
long time we have seen the greatest innovation of all times (the internet)
impacting everything, including government, but.... not at all academic
publications. the greatest innovation we have seen in academic publication
has been.... well, now we get to see the PDF online and a version of HTML
that is just as static (of course there are hyperlinks).

What is the incentive for publishers to innovate if we scholars dont pay
for quality and/or innovative products?  We expect above all a strict
review process that warranties reproducibility (when ever possible and
achievable), a reliable archival, strong dissemination so that our work has
more impact, etc. however, out of all we need/want/desire/expect, we get
pennies on the dollar. the innovation is just not there. the business is so
corrupt that now we get to publish posters and ideas and pay APCs for that.
But, this is not on the publishers, this is on us.

I raised this before at ESWC2017 asking if we wanted to have a pre print
server that we could control.  *No journal is a pre print no matter whether
it is "open" or not.*   For a community to take control of shaping its own
communications a pre print under the control of the community as a place
where to implement all the technical innovations that are needed is a good
option.

It is not just about the representation layer. it goes far deeper than
that. today we pay for a representation layer that does not work. tomorrow,
the way things are going, we will pay for the same but with the added cost
on us that we will also have to pay for access to objects that facilitate
reproducibility and/or reusability. If a community really wants to take
control of the communication system then the community will have to take
action and once again I think that a pre print is a good first step in this
direction. So *once again*, why dont  we have a pre print server where to
experiment with all of these wonders instead of keep  complaining about the
publishers? BTW, publishers have a fiduciary responsibility towards their
investors, not one facing the research community. we researchers have a
moral responsibility towards us. so why dont we walk the walk instead of
keep just talking the talk?

where is John Galt in all of this?

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-08-07 12:47, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:
> > On 08/07/2017 12:19 PM, Alexander Garcia Castro wrote:
> >> Krzysztof , why is this picture of the publishing industry inaccurate?
> >> there must be some truth there because it is not just Sarven  the one
> >> with this perception -others are, however, less vociferous. Maybe we
> >> need less political correctness with businesses that provide a service
> >> to us (the message being we can remove/change them) and more
> >> rightfulness with the community of researchers as a whole.
> >
> > Because the 'publishing industry' is not our enemy. The relation between
> > the publishing industry and science is very complex with beneficiaries
> > from both sides and a careful balance that we have to strike and
> > renegotiate as time progresses. This relationship goes back more than
> > 300 years. If we paint a one-sided image of this relation, we are not
> > doing ourselves a favor. Instead, we should work with them to actively
> > shape this relationship. In many domains such as Computer Science, the
> > publishing industry's role is declining (which I believe is good) and
> > this puts us into a unique position and explains the rapid development
> > within the industry. Calling the behavior of one side shameful (and
> > their work junk) is not what one would call an invitation.
>
> The publishers agenda: increase profit margin. Its consequences are what
> the researchers and citizens pay for in sociotechnical terms in the
> meantime.
>
> So, I don't actually view the publishers as an "enemy". I just think
> they are insignificant. We should invest our energy towards building and
> using solutions that we actually need.
>
> >> As a disclaimer: I dont receive any money from the publishing
> >> industry. I am not an editor for any journal and at this moment I dont
> >> have any business relation with the publishing industry other than
> >> paying APCs for something that I really dont understand what am I
> >> paying for.
> >
> > I am an editor of a journal and I work with the publishing industry and
> > I believe in understanding an industry before criticizing them. So far,
> > Pascal Hitzler and I have fostered open and transparent reviews, open
> > access to manuscripts in all stages, open and free *full *metadata, and
> > Linked Data usage by said industry. I believe that this a more fruitful
> > way to bringing change.
>
>
> Thank you for your commitment and achievements.
>
> If you don't mind, I'd like to dig further, my reply:
>
> * http://csarven.ca/web-science-from-404-to-200#semantic-web-journal
> *
> http://csarven.ca/web-science-from-404-to-200#semant-web-
> dog-food-and-scholarlydata
>
> Bottom line: we are in 2017 and the Semantic Web community is still
> being told to use desktop/print options. There is nothing above and
> beyond some metadata (eg title, authors, abstract, document-centric
> references?..) to takeaway. How do I find something interesting or
> non-trivial?
>
> Is this still relevant:
> https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#Universality ?
>
> What's the canonical or the authoritative URI for the works?
>
> What would it take SWJ to welcome contributions that are represented in
> native Web formats, and even published at personal or institution
> Webspaces as the canonical representations? I've asked SWJ this in the
> past, but didn't receive a response, so I'm asking again in mid 2017. Is
> there a plan that's documented and publicly accessible? As far as truly
> "eating our own dogfood", what changed since SWJ's existence (2009?) How
> can we communicate our work any different today?
>
> Will 2018 be the year for the "Semantic" "Web" scholars?
>
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
>
>


-- 
Alexander Garcia
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexander_Garcia
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/75943.html
http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexgarciac