[Taxacom] Help with finding a paper
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Oct 7 22:41:00 CDT 2015
Mike,
Buying a research paper can be a valid use of funds, yes, but it can also be a way to dispose of funding that would otherwise have to be used unprofitably. The move to open access means that a huge proportion of research funding will have to be diverted to getting papers published. I'm speculating that both publishers and institutions with relatively unprofitable public good obligations both have a vested interest here. I'm not jealous/envious of anything. I'm just sick of seeing public money spent cheaply, instead of on the original taxonomic research that it was intended for. Perhaps not surprisingly, many scientists and managers are more concerned with making a living than they are with the actual science. There is a fine line here, but it is often crossed. We have umpteen digitisation projects all digitising the same stuff as each other. We have millions (worldwide) being wasted on databasing unrevised specimens. The list goes on. It simply IS
"driving an industry".
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8/10/15, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Help with finding a paper
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Thursday, 8 October, 2015, 2:24 PM
On 10/7/2015 6:10 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> Mike,
>
> So have you been a senior manager in an
institution which uses public funding for taxonomic
research?
Yes, I have, as well as serving as
a National Science Foundation Program
Officer giving away $13 million a year, dealing
with oversight, IDC
rates and approval of
expenditures. Everyone is under pressure to
think up projects that will bring in and spend
research money, but the
competition usually
means that they cannot be total bullshit, although
some occasionally are. Strangely, many great
advances are made by
people on projects
accused of such bs by the jealous or envious. But,
your example would require that this is
commonplace enough to drive an
industry.
Not a chance. And, your example suggests an institution
gets
a 100% ICD that becomes unrestricted
for unsupervised expenditures, and
I have
never seen such a thing, nor heard credible first-hand
examples.
Buying a research paper is a
valid use of funds, so your example of it
being done to waste money is ludicrous. Find
a librarian that would
agree to such an
example. Every library on earth has to prioritize
expenditures, and has a backlog of things that
are validly needed. Such
an example simply
would not allow such a person to survive in an
institution.
Mike
> I haven't, but, by your argument, if
you haven't either, then you don't know what you are
talking about either, so my speculation could be true as far
as you know. I am talking about a situation where the
institution has the opportunity to grab more public funding
than it can cope with if it had to use all of the
non-overheads for actual research, due to having too few
scientists, and occupying most of their time with other more
profitable commercial work. So, either, they turn down the
extra public funding because they don't have the
manpower/time to spend it on research, or they take it
anyway, grab the overheads, and spend the rest on things
which don't require any science to be done, but which
can still be spun as part of the scientific research (e.g.
subscriptions, databasing, travel, etc.) Someone I know who
does work as a scientist in such an
> institution has more than
once described to me how he and his colleagues are under
pressure from their employer to think up [quote]any bullshit
project[unquote] to spend research funding on. How
widespread a problem this is in the world I do not know.
>
> Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 8/10/15, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>
wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Help
with finding a paper
> To:
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Received: Thursday, 8
October, 2015, 12:06 PM
>
> Wow, glad you understand
> that this is speculation,
because this is
> really
nonsense. What possible economic model
> are you studying? Clearly
> you have never
> been involved in actually
keeping an institution open,
> done the books, administered
a grants program
> or
negotiated IDC rates.
>
> Mike
>
> On
> 10/7/2015 4:57 PM, Stephen
Thorpe wrote:
> > I have
long speculated that a primary goal
> of keeping science funding
flowing through the system
> explains most/all of the
economics. With that as the primary
> goal, what the funding is
actually spent on is very much a
> secondary concern. Many
institutions "recoup
> overheads" from public
science funding. So for every
> dollar that they can spend on
a subscription, the
> institution might gain a
dollar, and nobody has to do any
> actual science, so everybody
(institution, scientist,
> publisher) wins, except for
the public! I speculate that
> this is what is really
driving "Open Access", and
> possibly also the growing
restrictions on sending specimens
> between countries (so the
taxonomist has to travel to the
> specimen, paid for by public
science funding!)
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------
> > On Thu, 8/10/15, Dean
Pentcheff <pentcheff at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Subject:
Re: [Taxacom] Help
> with
finding a paper
> > To:
> "Fred Schueler"
<bckcdb at istar.ca>
> > Cc:
"taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
> "David Seburn"
<davidseburn at sympatico.ca>
> > Received:
Thursday, 8
> October, 2015,
11:47 AM
> >
> > I speculate
that it has
> > nothing to
do with
> taxonomists or
environmental
> > consultants.
Both of those
> constituencies are
> > so tiny
> and commercially
> > trivial
> that they
> > simply
don't
> count when
publishers develop policies.
> >
> > The people
who can pay are
> > commercial
biomedical and
> industrial
> > researchers.
> Their ability to pay (and
their
> > corporation's
legal
> obligation
> > to do
so)
> > drives the
system.
> >
> > -Dean
> > --
> > Dean
Pentcheff
> > pentcheff at gmail.com
> >
> > On Wed, Oct
7, 2015 at
> 3:20
> > PM, Fred
Schueler
> <bckcdb at istar.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > many
have
> > written:
> > >
> > > Hello
all
> > - I
am having trouble getting
> a copy of the following
paper
> > from
> > >> my
usual
> sources...
> > >>
> > >
> > > *
somebody should study
> who
is willing to
> > pay $39
> for a paper they've
only
> > >
> > known
through the
> publisher's website
abstract - if they
> > know
it's really
> > > good
they must
> > have known
somebody who has
> the pdf
or an institutional
> > >
subscription, and gotten
> a
copy that way,
> > and
> otherwise they just ask
> > >
TAXACOM.
> > >
> > >
You'd assume it
> > would be
commercial
> consultants who
would be willing to
> > > just
click $39 away, but
> in
their
> > environmental
> assessments they never
seem
> > > to
cite anything from
> the
peer-reviewed
> > literature.
A real mystery -
> maybe
> > > the
> > publishers
just put those
> whacking
great prices on the
> > individual
> > >
articles to keep
> libraries
> > terrified
into
> paying the whacking
great prices
> > > for
subscriptions.
> > >
> > > does
anyone know?
> > >
> > >
fred.
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> Frederick W.
> > Schueler
& Aleta
> Karstad
> > >
Daily
> > Paintings -
http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.com/
> > >
Vulnerable Watersheds -
> http://vulnerablewaters.blogspot.ca/
> > >
Mudpuppy Night in Oxford
> Mills - http://pinicola.ca/mudpup1.htm
> > >
RR#2
> Bishops
Mills,
> > Ontario,
> Canada K0G 1T0
> > >
> on the
> > Smiths
Falls
> Limestone Plain 44*
52'N 75* 42'W
> > >
> (613)258-3107 <bckcdb
> > at
istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > >
Taxacom Mailing List
> > >
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > The
Taxacom Archive back
> to
1992 may be
> > searched
> at:
> > > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > >
> > >
Celebrating 28 years
> > of Taxacom
in 2015.
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom
Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom
Archive back to
> 1992 may
be
> > searched
at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Celebrating
28 years of
> > Taxacom in
2015.
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back
to 1992 may be
> searched
at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Celebrating 28 years
> of Taxacom in 2015.
>
> --
> __________________________________________________
>
> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D.,
> F.R.E.S.
>
> Montana Entomology
> Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> 1911 West Lincoln Street
> NW
> corner of Lincoln and
S.19th
> Montana State
> University
> Bozeman, MT 59717
> USA
>
> (406)
> 994-4610 (voice)
> (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
> mivie at montana.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to
1992 may be
> searched at:
http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of
> Taxacom in 2015.
>
>
> .
>
--
__________________________________________________
Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D.,
F.R.E.S.
Montana Entomology
Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
NW
corner of Lincoln and S.19th
Montana State
University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA
(406)
994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 28 years of
Taxacom in 2015.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list