[Taxacom] publishing (Re: ZooBank reality check)

[Richard Jensen]

Gee, Doug,

Everything I wrote wasn't a position I take or a recommendation I'm 
making. I'm describing the way things are, not the way things ought to 
be. That's the problem - right now the publishing world is in transition 
and these things will change. But, until such time as they do, we have 
to work with what we've got.

I didn't say *for profit* was the only way to go. But nothing is free. 
If there are a 1000 submissions/day, who is going to volunteer to take 
care of all the background work that goes into having these reviewed, 
revised, etc. This would be no small task.

One thing I keep reading is "that's trivial" (not just from you; and 
often it's implicit). It may be trivial for someone who has access to 
all the necessary facilities and technical know-how, but there are many 
who just don't have access to everything needed to make it trivial.

Cheers,

Dick J


Richard Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary’s College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Tel: 574-284-4674



Doug Yanega wrote:
> Richard Jensen wrote:
>
>   
>> Paul Kirk wrote:
>>  > I'm not saying it's simple but there has to be some sort of 'evolution'.
>>     
>>>  A few points:
>>>
>>>  Why publish in journals which charge $2500?
>>>  
>>>       
>> I didn't say one should.  Some journals may only charge $100.  The point
>> is, not everyone can afford to pay such a fee.
>>     
>
> Then let's abandon all journals that charge any publication fees. Do 
> journals exist to serve us, or do we publish simply to keep the 
> journals in business? Does the phrase "the tail wagging the dog" come 
> to mind? If we have problems with journals holding copyright, and all 
> this other nonsense, then let's DUMP the journals once and for all, 
> and start a copyright-free online taxonomic publication site. If the 
> taxonomic journals vanish into oblivion as a result, then so be it. 
> WE come out ahead, and that's what counts (unless you're a taxonomist 
> who runs a journal, in which case it's a conflict of interests). We 
> can do better with electronic distribution of print-on-demand files, 
> with a few hardcopies deposited, even, if no one is willing to revise 
> the Codes.
>
>   
>>  > Where are the distribution cost when it's electronic and not thin sheets
>>     
>>>  of wood - if the latter is required (for effective publication/being
>>>  available) then local printing is the solution not centralized.
>>>  
>>>       
>> Well, somebody has to pay for a connection to the internet and IP support.
>>     
>
> Trivial - further, let's imagine that everyone who pays for a 
> subscription to (or publishing in) a print journal stops paying, and 
> gives 1/10th of that amount to a single online journal. That would 
> more than cover the operating budget (and almost non-existent 
> printing costs), at 1/10th the net community-wide cost. Just think of 
> the hundreds of thousands of dollars we are cumulatively presently 
> wasting on subscription and publication fees paid to print journals, 
> and imagine putting 90% of those funds back into our research, while 
> the remaining fraction of those resources supports a copyright-free 
> publication venue for all.
>
>   
>> This is a problem that many societies face (I'm not talking about you or
>> me publishing our own work independently).  Currently, the codes require
>> hardcopy publication, so what are the options?
>>     
>
> The best option, obviously, is to revise the Codes! Having 2,000 
> specialized taxonomic societies each with their own journal is 
> ridiculous and incredibly wasteful. You can have one universal 
> publication venue, and if you have specialized interests, then all 
> you have to do is make your subscription filter specialized to suit 
> your tastes (e.g. "Show only articles on Carabid beetles"). But this 
> means reducing the publication format to a digital one, with or 
> without the blessing of the Codes. Which, ironically, means papers 
> can have more total content (no page limits), better quality content 
> (color photos for all), more *types* of content (complete data 
> matrices to download, full molecular sequence data, video and sound 
> files, etc.), faster review times, more reviewers per paper, and a 
> pile of additional benefits, all for LESS than what it now costs us 
> to publish via print journals.
>
>   
>>  > Load publication costs into grants - $2500 is insignificant compared to
>>     
>>>  staff costs for a 3 year project.
>>>  
>>>       
>> I guess you live in the best of all possible worlds - everyone has grant
>> money to support their research.  That's not the world most of us live in.
>>     
>
> All the more reason to switch to electronic distribution of 
> print-on-demand files. Vastly cheaper for everyone involved.
>
>   
>>  > Pdf's are a click away from a word processing document.
>>     
>>>  
>>>       
>> Of course it is - if we have access to the facilities to do that. 
>> Again, you are assuming that everyone has access to the same facilities,
>> which is clearly not the case (see Rod's previous post - his institution
>> doesn't provide access to the journal in question).  My institution has
>> a very restricted JSTOR subscription (no systematics journals included)
>> and does not subscribe to BioOne.  I sometimes have to pay a fee if I
>> want to see something "right now".
>>     
>
> Then that's a bad subscription model - you're assuming that we would 
> knowingly adopt a BAD business model, should we launch an online 
> taxonomic journal. Why assume that "for profit" is the only possible 
> business model for taxonomic publishing?
>
>   
>>  > I have a server which cost about $500 that runs five web sites, all
>>     
>>>  database driven (SQL Server) including the IF web site (million hits per
>>>  month) and the British Fungi site with a 1.2 million record table. Is it
>>>  slow ... No, do the CPU's sit around doing nothing 99.9999999% of the
>>>  time (like modern servers) ... No, are the disks all but empty (like
>>>  modern servers) ... No, but there is still enough space for everything
>>>  (and expansion) in 40GB.
>>>  
>>>       
>> Who paid for the server and who pays fro replacement and updates? Not
>> everyone is savvy enough to run a personal server nor has access to
>> someone who will do it gratis.
>>     
>
> It doesn't take that much, if every taxonomist in the world is 
> publishing via a single online journal; volume is not an issue in the 
> digital domain. There's no reason a digital journal can't publish 
> 1,000 papers in a day, if that's the actual number that people are 
> writing and reviewing. All it takes then is one properly mirrored 
> server to accomodate the entire taxonomic community (or, at worst, 
> one server each for prokaryotes, fungi, botany, zoology...)
>
> Peace,
>
>