Good evening, everyone. Thank you very much for
being here. Thank you to our Panelists for being
here. We are here to celebrate open access Week
and to talk about journal publishing and Oh, thank
you. Hi. My name is my name is
Anita Walls. I work as a faculty member here
in the library, on open educational resources, satellite
communications and other things. And yeah, we're delighted
that you're here. Thank you for coming. And
we hope that this is fun and that you can
have We can have a relaxed conversation about these topics
. I want to also thank our director of scholarly
communication scale McMillan and our dean, Dr Tyler Walters
, for sponsoring this event. Um, and our
co chair. I'm sorry, Our committee chair,
Philip Young. Um, Philip is going to see
a three routes about access. Sure. I just
wanted to point out for everyone that we have the
handout on the back table of our schedule for the
week. We have eight events this year, so
and we had three just yesterday. So this is
our fourth. We have events about our open access
suspension fund. Coming up Thursday in particular is an
interesting event because we have the Center for Open Science
coming here to this room at three o'clock to run
a workshop on reproducible research practices. So that's,
uh, sort of a last minute addition. And
we hope we get a really good turnout for that
event. And on the reverse side, we have
some of the services that we're developing here in the
libraries, such as our open access, some pension
fund for those journals that have article processing charges,
we have journal publishing here, which we've actually had
for years and years. We have more than 20
journals hosted here in the library. So when we
host the open journal systems O. J s here
for any faculty for graduate student who wants to start
a journal, um, or transition on. It's
got a society journal to open access. We certainly
would like to talk to anyone who wants to do
that. And, of course, we have V
. Tech works as our institutional repository, uh,
to host all sorts of styling materials, not just
journal articles, book chapters, presentations, um,
data, Anything else? Uh, that needs archiving
, uh, as well as access. We also
provide some copyright guidance. So We'd love to hear
feedback on how these services can be improved as well
as any new services that we can provide to help
. Uh, scholars here at Virginia Tech provide their
work openly. Yeah, we also have sign up
sheets at the back of the room. Uh,
there's a list for if you like. You know
, like Reddit for this event. We also have
a checkmark. If you'd like to be added to
our open V. T. Uh, email list
. So that list is focusing on the three areas
that are committee focuses on which is open access,
open data and open educational resources. So we're trying
to do is create a community here at Virginia Tech
that discusses these issues, um, and develops new
programs and sort of creates a culture of openness here
at Virginia Tech. We also have evaluations, but
on the back table. So we owe on the
seats as well. So we'd love to get any
feedback that you have about this and that other events
that we can provide you. So thank you very
much for coming, and I'll turn it back over
to an even fact. Okay, so we have
selected Panelists from a wide range with a wide range
of experiences in scholarly publishing and other types of publications
. Um, we hope that this will be engaging
and lively. We want your questions. We want
your comments. So don't be shy. Um,
the For the university libraries, open access is a
really important topic. We spend around$7 million a
year on subscriptions for scholarly publications. This is a
huge amount of money and a lot of respects.
It's not very sustainable, um, to be producing
research in the university and sell and buying it back
from publishers. So part of the reason to have
this conversation tonight is to hear about your experiences with
publishing, um, with open access, your thoughts
about the benefits, the drawbacks, um, these
types of things. And, um, we all
have to learn to learn something. So I'd like
to introduce our Panelists. Um, this is Juliana
Lazar, Dr Juliana Star. She's an associate professor
in the biological Sciences. Next to her is Michelle
Sutherland. Michelle is currently the advertising advisor of Educational
Media Company. She's a Virginia Tech grad and former
editor's editor of The Collegiate Times, as well as
below to the student run journal, Open access journal
. Um, Dr Nicholas Tiedemann is the chair and
professor of the economics department. Dr. Randall Wins
is the, um, is a professor of forestry
research and environmental conservation. Um, Christian Mattias is
the past is a doctoral student in the past,
editor of Spectra. Uh, and you do something
else to which I have forgotten. Um, and
you're a doctoral candidate, not a student. Excellent
. Um, in ethics and political philosophy. And
Caitlin Rivers, um, is also a doctoral student
, and, um, is in the genetics,
bioinformatics and computational biology department and is also a fellow
of the Please remind me, Department of Defense.
Thank you. And we will hear more from her
. So, um, we'd like for each of
you to talk for about five minutes. Um,
tell us about your experience in publishing your thoughts about
open access. We will tell you when you're out
of time, and then we'll go through. We'll
talk through some questions and also take questions from the
audience. Would you like to go first? Sure
. Um so Good evening. I'm in biological sciences
. We do research on breast cancer, south cycle
and essentially all our research is using advanced mass spectrometry
and proteomics technologies. As a result, we generate
very large data set. We spend a lot of
time in analyzing this data and, uh, as
it evolved in the past years, we are looking
at open access to as a better way to disseminate
our findings, the knowledge to reach a broader audience
outside our own field and also as a result of
page limitations. The number of publications is increasing every
year, and in regular journals lately, they limit
your publication ability to, let's say, 7000 pages
, 7000 words. Sorry. And we cannot make
our case in that many words. So open access
groups to be very good Alternative shell Sutherland. Um
, I worked with philology when I was an undergraduate
, and that is a completely free publication available on
our website. Um, it is the undergraduate research
journal for the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences
. So it features research from all those various disciplines
. Um, I guess I became very interested in
open access after I graduated, because between being a
student and before beginning working with tech, uh,
there was a gap where I didn't really have access
to a lot of information that I found previously Very
interesting. Um, and what struck me is really
interesting was as a student, I was really encouraged
to, um, you know, look beyond the
classroom and read more. But then once I graduated
, um, and I didn't have access. It
was kind of like a switch, um, which
was a little bit troubling for me. Um and
so it really kind of made me think a lot
more about philology and the role that, uh,
that journals and magazines like that can play. And
, um, sort of really enhancing the undergraduate experience
after the classroom. My experience as an economist or
my perspective as an economist is probably more interesting than
my publications experience. Or I'd like to give you
an economist perspective. An open access. It's a
good idea. Um, the opposite of open access
, you might say, is gated access and the
trouble with gated access has What was your name again
, Michelle pointed out, is that it deprives people
of a valuable opportunity, huh? The cost of
providing information to one additional person with an Internet system
is essentially zero. And so there's some loss of
efficiencies of something that costs nothing to provide isn't made
available to people to whom it's worth a lot.
Uh, and if we tried to collect from everybody
who could use it, there would be excess profit
. The monopoly profits and such monopoly profit is,
uh, not very useful you. Now we do
need some kind of system to make sure that people
who do productive things are rewarded and giving people a
monopoly when they provide knowledge is a second best solution
that has been derived, uh, to make sure
that people at least have some incentive to come up
with information. So it's interesting to ask, Is
there some other way of providing the incentive that people
will need to do these valuable things? We might
look first at Ireland, which has an interesting picture
that income from artistic work isn't subject to the income
tax. So it seems to me that might be
interesting as a kind of compromise to propose that copyrights
to be shortened to something like three years. In
exchange for a provision that nobody would have to pay
income tax on the money that they earned from the
three year period of copyright, I think that most
novelists make enough money in the first three years of
the publication that we, uh, much more valuable
than, uh, yeah, lifetime copyright subject to
an income tax. So that's one interesting thing to
think about, but it's also interesting to think about
trying to do it without copyright altogether. Now,
you could propose that, uh, money B provided
by the public sector to compensate people for their artistic
efforts. But there are two problems. One is
how you decide how much money and what do you
do about the fact that taxes generally have what economists
call an excess burden the cost more than the money
that they raise? Uh, so I've been thinking
about the possibility of integrating copyright into a theory of
global social justice that I have. This theory begins
with the proposition that people have equal rights to the
Earth so that any country that uses more than its
share of natural opportunities those compensation to those who have
less than their share. And if this proposition were
accepted, then one of the ways in which nations
who owe something to others because of taking more than
their share of natural opportunities might compensate the others is
by providing technology or providing new ideas. So I
envisioned a system of global assessors that assess how much
, uh, more than their share nations appropriate,
and then how much the rest of the word world
benefits from the things that they provide. And if
we had such a system, then it would be
natural for the nation's to pass on to the creators
of knowledge the benefits they got from having their contributions
of the world counted as part of their compensation for
having more than their share of natural opportunities. Mhm
, yes, well, I'm ready when I'm in
forest resources and environmental conservation and have been very involved
in this whole movement for a very long time.
And, um, it's been trying to engage myself
with the library as they've been engaged with it as
well. My subject area is remote, sensing research
and using remote sensing, financial resource assessment, environmental
monitoring. So there are some very specific issues that
arise as you start to think about this kind of
work because the data themselves are increasingly openly available and
we're making moves towards more open access publishing. I'm
an associate editor for a journal called Remote Sensing that
is actually probably fourth or fifth of the 20 or
so remote sensing journals that are in terms of rank
. I saw impact factor and that sort of thing
. But one of the things that's been a really
interesting challenges how to really kind of foster this culture
of reproducibility in an era where you can download data
, but you can't take your algorithm to the data
. And so we've been actually trying to foster a
computational environment where actually, as you publish, you
could actually have your data set there, your code
set. Their people could actually, um, you
know, at least for a sample, dataset could
actually run it themselves and take a look right as
they are evaluating the work. And the whole idea
is to bring algorithms to data to kind of enhance
that reproducibility so you can download the code. You
can do it yourself, you can modify it.
But the data themselves might not necessarily have to be
pulled every time to a user because the data could
sit in a repository. We take the algorithms to
the data. So we've been working very closely with
our, uh computational team here at Virginia Tech with
Arc and basically turn to foster that kind of environment
for selected subsets of the data types that we commonly
utilized. So there you know, some interesting things
in which we've been trying to work a couple other
issues and that I wanted to bring up for this
kind of broader discussion. One is the occasionally perverse
incentives that open access journal publishers have because the model
has changed. If essentially the scientist is paying or
their institutions paying for publication, your incentive as a
journal becomes, let's get as many of those papers
in as I can because I'm gonna get$1000 or
$1500 or whatever it is for every paper. And
that's how I'm making my money. Whereas before your
l severe and you want to sell a package to
Virginia Tech, what you want is the journals that
have essentially are the go to places for the scientists
, such that the scientists are going to basically lobby
the library to get that journal so that they can
be up on the field. And so the journals
incentive in that instance is to be the best possible
journal they can. So sometimes you'll see that some
of the open access journals, especially those that are
, you know, a little less reputable, are
essentially just trying to publish papers because their their model
is very different. There there, there's some kind
of strange and perverse incentives that sometimes go on,
and I see this as an editor. It's very
, very tricky. Um, and our rejection rate
has gotten sky high because people are just throwing anything
in that you have to. At this point,
we don't even be review at all. It is
rejected before it goes to peer review. Only the
highest caliber things are sent on to to peer review
. The other thing I wanted to bring up for
this group is the possibility, and our does this
frequently with the library's assistance is essentially to develop inability
to cite your data. Actually get a digital object
identifier for datasets uh, to essentially have those accessible
in your journal articles openly, hopefully open access and
essentially have two streams were developing a really need A
to set becomes as big a contribution in some instances
as the science that results from this particular data.
The other thing is having been a Peace Corps volunteer
. I wanted to bring up this issue of open
access, which vastly improves access to information in places
that can't pay for the gate, as you mentioned
. But again, there's a an additional complication and
that if you're a scientist in one of those places
that has limited resources, you might find it harder
to publish under this model. You know, if
you're having lived in places where the per capita income
is less than half of what it would take to
publish one article, it becomes a very difficult sort
of a barrier in a different way. You know
, it's a barrier to being a contributor instead of
a barrier to being a consumer. So, um
, you know, it's not. There are things
that we as you try to fix one thing.
You sometimes see some interesting things evolve as you as
you migrate floors. I just thought I'd bring some
of those to the fourth chatting. I didn't think
I was this involved in open access until I got
the invitation and then and sort of put the pieces
together. Oh, yeah, about seven years ago
, Uh, there was a movement by some underrepresented
communities, uh, were trying to set up campus
centers, try to set centers of data and centers
of resources on campuses around the country. And I've
been involved with setting one of those up, um
, and found it frustrating how difficult it was to
get the wheel. I knew people that invented the
wheel, and I didn't want to invent the wheel
. So after spending a couple of years inventing the
wheel I took from Oregon State University of Penn State
, a database of the wheel and this wheel is
the metaphor for all of the stuff we used to
set up a centre to set up staffing and all
sorts of things. And, um, about two
years into my time at Penn State started talking to
colleagues about what we made an open access. I
didn't actually use the language of the time. What
if we made this available? And we then ask
colleagues around the country to take all of the stuff
that they had very carefully protected, are very suspicious
of everyone using, and we created a an accessible
database for people trying to set up these sorts of
centres elsewhere around the country, if not internationally,
found a group of private donors, very wealthy private
donors in Manhattan, and had to convince them that
we were going to convince our colleagues to give up
access to things that they had built their careers on
, put it in the public forum, and an
undergraduate student came to us. He was actually very
good at coding. We wanted to develop the weapon
or face, and he said, um, I
think we need what you want is open access open
content and, um, we set up the database
. We got it running, we got the money
. And since then, I've been involved with about
six or seven different open access publications in various ways
as a contributor as an editor, and I actually
think, um, I've learned more from people doing
open access, and I've contributed, so I contribute
my work to an open access for him. But
the people who are really involved in open access keep
teaching me about these bizarre restraints I placed on myself
when I write the quality of what I let me
make a comparison, there's, um, a burgeoning
model of distributive justice called Universal Basic Income. But
if you want to count, your society is just
you count your society is just depending on what is
the basic income that everyone can count on. Without
question. It's pre work. You turn 18,
you are guaranteed by our society to receive a certain
kind of basic income. And when I started to
put this stuff together, I realized I should worry
about the quality of what I'm writing and publishing if
there is not universal basic access to it in the
general public. Because while peer review among scholars with
similar training matters a lot, if I have any
commitment to land grant mission, if I any commitment
to my scholarship having any importance in the public,
some of the quality of my work depends on what
people in the public can do with it and how
they can access it. And putting the U.
B I Universal basic income model into a universal basic
access model in my head made me start worrying about
open access issues and quality of publications. In a
way, I hadn't and had that obnoxious little undergrad
not like nudged me with this really cool anarchist ideas
. Um, I would never have noticed I think
so. I'm still learning, um, and trying
to maintain some suspicion about publication forums that try to
get me to close access and who benefits ultimately or
what's the What's the quality of work I produce in
that narrow minded frame? Um, yeah, I'm
still figuring it out. My name is Caitlin Rivers
. I'm a PhD student in computational epidemiology, and
my research really drives a lot of my ideas about
open access. So I'm interested in tracking and modeling
emerging infectious diseases. So in something like age seven
and nine, or murders or Ebola comes around,
I take publicly available data, for example, media
reports. And I use that to assemble my data
set. And from there, I build models that
hopefully helped to inform outbreak outbreak response as the outbreak
is happening. And so the whole pipeline from start
to finish really has to be open because how are
you going to help inform outbreak response? If first
of all your results are available to the people who
really need it most, most people in West Africa
do not have journal subscriptions. Um, and second
of all, if if I'm using these open data
sources as my research inputs, and it really makes
sense that my outputs should also be publicly available.
So I think that open science is a really important
movement for global public health, and that's sort of
the direction that I approach it from. So I
would love to hear from our Panelists or from the
audience. What do you understand open access to be
because we're all talking around it, but we haven't
decided. So does anyone want to take a staff
? I can try, uh, so I understand
open access and a journal perspective to be research that
is published without eating a subscription, basically, so
you can access it for free. Um, usually
, as other Panelists I mentioned, that means that
the researcher has to pay to get it published,
so it's not a completely free system, but it
is free for the readers. I would I would
want to pull something out from that. I like
that. Whoever accesses it gives as little thought as
possible to having to pay for it. I mean
, the idea of any compensation just never enters their
mind. It's just available. So none of these
cues none of these strange little, uh tweaks that
make people think they're going to have to trade something
for it. Uh, sort of pre cognitive there
. Oh, I think I would take issue with
Wikipedia is a fantastic resource for me. And every
now and then they asked for contributions, and I'm
happy to contribute to Wikipedia. Now, I understand
that some people may not be able to contribute other
people who contribute a lot, but it seems to
me that it's really nice to think that Wikipedia can
get by without restricting access. But just by asking
every now and then for contributions and enough people are
willing to contribute to keep the thing going. Yeah
, I actually like this a lot. Let me
me let me take a different version of it.
Um uh, more like more like a gift.
Yes. Um, something a bit more like a
gift where there's a gifting relationship which I think harmonizes
between both of what you said. And I've said
I just didn't say eloquently enough. Uh huh.
Mhm. I don't have all that much experience with
open access, but it's a puzzle to me that
it should be expensive to put things into open access
. Now I'm trying to figure out what the payment
from the contributors pays for it. And to some
extent it's to compensate the editors, I suppose.
And yet it seems to me that it ought to
be possible to, uh, find ways of sorting
through what's worth publishing what isn't without it being so
expensive. Uh huh. Maybe some of the costs
would be put on two people. Some of the
costs would be put on the people who submit things
. But still, if 95% of the stuff you
take a glass at and you say no, not
interested, that shouldn't cost that much. Yeah,
I want to take a sort of circle back around
to the beginning of the introduction, and this is
really a question for the faculty on the panel.
But it was sparked by this is the our doctoral
students and Michelle and the way that they became involved
in open access. And I think both Michelle Christians
, but really eloquently about what triggered the need to
follow open access for Kushner was a need for a
tool, right? And for Michelle, it was
like a switch. It turned out access has really
turned up when she was no longer a student.
Um and so that right there points to one of
the incentives for for open access, sort of beyond
the academy or at the student level in practical terms
. But my question for you guys, the fact
that you know for a while and I think there's
a shift now, especially in the sciences, maybe
more blatantly in the humanities a sort of stigma in
the past has been associated with open access. That
peer review wasn't as rigorous or radio alluded to effective
. It could be a perverse incentives the author pain
publication fee and so forth. So my question is
really is at what point, um, did open
access sort of loon on your horizon. And at
what point? Whether being involved in publishing itself or
publishing an open access article open did open access to
become a viable route for getting your scholarship and your
information? At what point do become a viable for
going down the okay, I want to grab,
disappoint you by act, answering a kind of opposite
question. Uh, one of the places where I
published is the journal Public Choice. Public Choice was
founded here at Virginia Tech. By Gordon Talaq Back
in 19 sixties, perhaps, uh, in the
19 eighties the Public Choice Society so public choice to
one of the European publishers journals for, uh,
Inter, immediately large sum. And within a few
years the subscription price has gone up from$50 to
something like$800. The commercial publisher realized that it
was worth a lot more as a monopoly game,
severely gated thing that it had been as a scholarly
thing, uh, published on a non profit basis
. So I was really disappointed in Public Choice society
. They didn't realize that when a lot of money
was offered for their publication, that was a sign
that it was worth a lot and therefore probably shouldn't
be sold. So, uh, it seems to
me that sometime in the 19 eighties, uh,
the world of big publishers got the idea that here
was a chance to make a lot of money by
putting up a lot of gates, and that was
a a bad thing to happen in the academic community
. We had a model before then of publications that
were run by mhm academic societies and cost a bit
, but not all that much. And then in
a relatively short time that got turned around. So
it it really would be nice to go back to
the old way of doing things, man, to
continue just a bit. I was interested to hear
the idea presented by yesterday speaker of having a time
when all the universities got together. They said no
more subscriptions. And he mentioned that there might be
antitrust problems with that. This conspiracy in restraint of
trade against the publication. I'm not enough of a
lawyer to know the INS and out of that one
, but I can see possible trouble there. And
there's also the possible trouble that that might say,
Okay, uh, you don't stop your subscriptions,
but we're now going to, uh, live in
your online access to all the things we've done in
the past, and you're going to have to go
to the library with the paper copy. If you
want to look at anything that's been published in the
past, which would be a severe restriction on our
access, um, or maybe maybe pear use would
say that we can make a copies available on the
line to our citizens and faculty from the paper.
Copy. We have that. That would be something
that would have to be thought through to, uh
I've also thought about the possibility of trying to persuade
Congress to seize these copyrights by eminent domain with compensation
. It's interesting to think about whether something of that
sort could ever happen. So I'm sorry. Your
question provoked me to say, uh, go off
in a different direction. But maybe somebody else would
like to answer your question. Mhm. I remember
the question was, Are a need for open accent
is driven by the nature of the data, the
nature of the results we want to publish in terms
of concerns. Costs for us are always a concern
in for the open access journals in my area that
cost between$1,702,500. At this stage, it wouldn't
be possible to publish all our results to open access
. Our research responded to brands. We cannot over
that published publications from a grant and pay for each
of them in terms of reviews you mentioned. And
if you are review quality yeah, we had a
pretty good experience. We published in BMC Cancer one
of the second publication was was handled a little bit
slowly, so that tended to be a bit annoying
. Other than that, I think it was handled
very fairly. And given the fact that the name
of the reviewers are known, I think they also
make an effort to make a fair and just review
. So I don't think I would have concerns about
that. This being said the impact factor for some
of these scientific journals open access tend to be lower
than conventional journals. Mhm. Can I ask a
question about the 1700 to$2500? Would you clarify
? Is that the cost of making a closed article
open access? Is that what you're saying? That
is publishing in an open access journal? That is
the fee that they require We published in BMC Cancer
. Actually, Virginia attack covers 15% of that.
It's part of a consortium, Um, and for
this article, in fact, I received more support
from the Library, the capital, so I'm very
grateful for that. But there is some variation because
the Journal for German associate editor, it's$800 a
pop. So you know. So that's it's the
same. You know, it's the same sort of
model, just much less expensive. So, you
know, for, uh, any kind of scholar
or the outlet does still matter. Even though essentially
you could put the exact same thing on the Web
, write and edit it yourself and pop it up
there. You know that that imprimatur that you have
from the journalists is really quite vital, you know
, because it's been through the peer review process.
It's this journal, this review, this editorial board
, this kind of group of people, you know
, in our journal there. So the editorial,
whoever was the associate editor for the paper is listed
on the paper. So when it's published, it
says, Okay, this was edited by me or
, you know, one of five other people or
whatever, but not the reviewers. Those are still
blind, and they in fact, I think the
i s I listed you have to have a blonde
review process. Maybe somebody can clarify, but I
think it has to be a a blind review process
. You can't, because otherwise there's this concern that
reviewers might not be as candid as they might otherwise
need to because not every not every year, but
they also want to provide. That's right. That's
right. Yeah. So I think there's quite a
variety and practices in price because$2500 seems quite high
. It's as high as maybe as as I've heard
of. Yeah, I think this question of the
article processing charges an interesting one because they seem to
be most prevalent in the fields with the most grandma
. Which raises the question. You know, as
I mentioned earlier, we have more than 20 journalists
who are operating essentially on a zero budget. Um
, so are the article processing charges of response to
the fact that there's lots and lots of grant money
in life sciences and other fields. Or is it
other things like having to post the data having to
do lots of figures may be higher volume of papers
. I'm just curious because there are some new models
that are much lower price as well. As you
know, the vast majority of open access journals right
now have no article process in charge. And then
there's new models like Pure J, which have very
low charges which enable you to publish once a year
that you know, like about 102$100. So
I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on APCs.
And, of course, the library is trying to
set a safety net for people who may not have
a grand but want to publish them on those journals
. It's still it's an interesting question. How are
those set where they come from? What feels they
? I guess. I mean back to the Wikipedia
model. It's not free. So it's a question
of how you pay for is it is it?
Gifts is an institutional support from the library. It's
not free. I mean, if you think about
the fact that you even if it's an online journal
, it's there's an immense I back end that that
has to be done. Well, I mean,
this idea of being seamless you've got, you've got
to be able to go to it, find it
there's no barrier of any sort, and I think
that is an important piece and setting up something comparable
in the review process such that it's a seamless for
the reviewers for the editors, you know, that
whole kind of back in I also have, at
least in our experience, since It's quite international.
They have been funding essentially English editors for the international
community so that in order to maximize quality, they're
essentially hiring people to do the final kind of editing
for grammar and syntax and whatnot so that you can
encourage international submissions but not burden the editorial board with
essentially grammatical issues. So there, you know,
I think there can be a wide variety of costs
, and I think there often quite legitimate. I
think you're right about this issue of if people can
pay, they're asked to pay with respect to individual
fields. I think that's quite clear, but it's
not clear to me that it really costs any less
to publish something in political science versus a classic natural
science or something of that nature. I don't think
it's any less. I just think that in fact
, if you can't pay, the other mechanisms are
being used to pay for the essential debate. Put
the whole thing on right so one of the primary
journals in my sub sub field is actually plus currents
outbreaks, which is part of the plus family,
and I'm sure that pluses money system helps to fund
it, but it's free to publish a plus current
outbreaks, and the way that I think they manage
that is, they use WordPress. It's an online
only journal, and as an author you format your
own journal. Excuse me, your own article in
WordPress, which is actually kind of hard, but
so far I've managed it, Um, and then
when it goes to review, they basically just hit
publish. And there it is, Um, and
what's interesting to me is this journalist quite knew it
was launched, I think two years ago, and
I wasn't sure how well it would do. But
it's actually all of the top Ebola modeling. Scratch
that nut top. Just all of the Ebola modeling
papers overall about Ebola have gone to this journal.
So every time you read in the news, something
about the math of Ebola or models predict they are
all in this journal and it's free, so that
could be an alternative. Although it's not seamless,
it's it's free. So has that advantage. I
predict that as time goes on, we will find
cheaper and cheaper ways of doing these things that will
be template that people can adopt that will reduce a
lot of the present costs. And while people who
are charging$2500 for article will keep their exclusivity as
long as they can, I think that the barriers
to entry will be sufficiently low. Yeah. Uh
mm. We can expect prices to come down over
. That was actually something that I've thought about as
well. You know, the new transparency of this
new model with having a crisis right there in front
. You have to have them right there. Because
the authors have to know how much they need is
much more transparent than the card system, where even
the library sometimes has trouble telling you exactly what specific
kernel costs. But, um, I think I
lost my train of thought. Um, mhm.
We'll circle back. Yeah, they have to do
with transparency. Oh, I think the problem with
the transparency argument is that prestige is so important now
, as Randy said earlier, matters where you published
. So, um, my concern is that prestige
will still be there, and prestigious publishers can charge
the higher NBC's$7000 whatever and the lesser journalists will
be charging less. So that's one of my concerns
. Is the role of prestige and publishing it.
I think it's how to Uh huh uh huh,
Bad effects currently. And it could also have an
effect if things switch over to the model. So
the unlucky open access community will have to find a
way to replicate prestige at a lower cost, not
just journals. And I think that you might possibly
get Uh huh. The people who contribute prestige by
their own prestige, to read, to participate for
the sake of getting those submissions down. Are there
other questions from my still the open access journals that
you published? They give you feedback about the number
of times your article was downloaded or anything like that
that you can use as a kind of a way
to say you're you've written an article that is wanted
by the public that is read by the public.
Could that that measure somehow compensate me before that quote
official impact that mhm um, I published only in
one journal, but they have a metric number of
accesses to that journal, and you can see,
was it 102 100 or 6000 is a number of
accesses to your particular article, right through that journal
. So that's what it comes. Doesn't count access
to other channels we can with at least the platform
we've had Specter on. We can look at the
Web stats and see which particular links, right?
So each of the essays or contributions has its own
link, including when we publish images of artwork we
can show where it's been access to how many times
we're moving to a new platform at the library.
I hope that stays the same, yes, but
just to reiterate, though, it's still Citation driven
when you can get all these statistics. But in
the end, if nobody among your peers cares enough
about what you wrote to then build from it,
then it's you know, I mean, there could
be a lot of people reading it, and we
would encourage that. In fact, the one big
missing link has been that it doesn't always have to
be a scholar that benefits from an article. And
I think that's something that's an intangible that maybe these
other statistics might tell us more. But you probably
need to follow up with some surveys and some things
that are more targeted. But in the end,
you know, in terms of our one of the
reasons that prestige matters is that increases site ability.
And one of the open questions, so to speak
, is that does open access have, uh,
also a positive effect on citations. And I'm not
fully convinced we've been running our own little experiment as
we, you know, put articles in different places
. You know, the last several years I'm not
convinced that it's made a tremendous difference one way or
another. But that's good, too, because the
open access journals are usually because they're newer. Tend
to be a you know, like the one in
which you know which I'm an editor's, maybe number
five. And there are several that are, you
know, 12 and three that are higher prestige,
and maybe you get more citations, but we're not
really seeing a vast difference in that way. But
I think there's some interesting questions in what you raised
because we're still all about. Does anybody in our
community care enough to build from it and therefore cited
? I think that's I was wondering, too.
Yeah, you have this. If you reported like
in your tactics order, um, or putting together
and t dossiers that anything that about open access,
you mean or these other site it's What would you
cite? Hits like Minus Hagen? Two years got
500 just like the hits. Well, personally,
the only thing I've ever put like that is that
we that we had the 10th most downloaded paper one
year. I put something like that in, but
I don't know about, actually, if you call
it out and the people who leave those reports,
those dossiers will begin to right. So I'm not
sure those numbers per se because they are going to
vary so much inside some information about it can become
meaningful, just like impact craters. You know,
they don't mean anything by themselves, either. I
mean, they did initially well, and it's been
so gained. I'm not sure, really. It
does this. I guess you can look at the
contribution of that article to your age index, right
? I mean, is your aging that's coming from
regular from articles published in regular journals or from open
access? Is the impact higher there? You might
be able to say my article was accessed by the
public X number of times and my article has this
impact factor, which is another tells you can tell
us the lead or something else, huh? That's
a cool. Yeah, I don't know that I
know of anybody that's done that, but it's an
interesting idea. So I do that because I release
a lot of the data that I collect from media
reports and stuff either posted on picture or get help
or something like that and a couple of the things
I've done. I've actually gotten quite popular, so
I'm right now. I'm maintaining a repository of Ebola
data and it it gets between 1,502,002 years every day
right now, and that's something I'm quite proud of
. So at the end of the year, when
I do my PhD review thing, I will.
I will be sure to put that and I have
in years past also. So it's a useful metric
for me because I know that the thing that I
spend a lot of my free time doing is valued
, and so whether or not other people care,
I'm not sure, but I'm going to tell them
about it anyway. We assume right nobody's sitting there
clicking hits just to generate that. It's one variable
among all sorts of other variables, right? I
mean, just with, like, the citations there
are. There are prominent scholars whose work is cited
, whether or not it matches the quality of new
scholars. Um and so they get citations because of
a certain trajectory, you know, whether they earned
it or not. Here's a question about you see
, the article is, except we have a lonely
contract assigned. So you guys are negotiate that you
keep left copyrighting lost before they pretty enough for the
journal. And that way you can then put in
the open access format like a hot story. Okay
, thank you. Oh, I have sort of
. It's interesting but incomplete knowledge about that subject.
I've never tried to do such a thing, but
I understand it has been quite common for people to
violate their copyrights by keeping an article the copy of
their article on their own website. And I have
the impression that journalists given up trying to stop that
. It's so widespread and seems so reasonable that they
said Okay, you can do that. Now.
I've heard one variation on that where you have to
what the art of your post has to be.
The manuscript you submitted to them rather than the a
printed article. But if you have that, anybody
who's interesting ideas as opposed to exactly what? Which
page did you say such and such? Uh,
the manuscript that went off to the Journal is good
enough. I was thinking that kind of black cast
$2500. Well, the hybrid model committed it within
a year. After a bargain. You negotiate with
publishers saying, after one year I can. Now
I make my version, but there's a just a
counter. I think there's a discovery ability issue.
I think that, you know, for those of
us that have done that kind of off the record
for a long time, that if you were to
count the number of downloads, it's really just on
on a couple of hands because people have to know
to go look for it. And so it's the
it's ultimately, you know, somebody says, Oh
, gosh, I have I have to pay 40
bucks. I think I'll go see if they have
it on their website has to be that kind of
thing, but it's not this seamless integration that you
were talking about earlier. I disagree with you.
I have. I noticed that when I Google an
article or look at Google scholar, Google scholar tells
me who happens to have signed it to their class
and put it on their website somewhere. As soon
as you put anything anywhere, Google will notice it
and tell people where to find it. Yeah,
um, just when you say that I have been
kind of following copyright agreements in journals here and there
, often in the health and it's the people I
work with and more and more publisher reserves, specifically
allowing authors to retain the right to post either the
final interviewed version of the manuscript or some other version
, we specify which one. But they specifically tell
them you may. There are these things and and
then people still are not only can find it on
someone's random website, but they they also one of
the provisions adopted in two posted in your institutional repository
, which we're lucky to have one. Um,
if you don't have one, that's kind of a
limitation that can be annoying. But then Google Connect
. You'll have to see those PDS is that most
of them are going to when those are possibilities,
a legitimate thing more and more these days. So
that's been an interesting, absolutely come up more if
I may. I want to bring up research gate
, any of you are any of you on research
? So it's essentially a social media for researchers,
and there's an immense number of people at Virginia Tech
that are on. And I mean, just because
I get all their updates without wanting them, I
can see them. Um, but what's interesting is
they are essentially be common a an archive for your
work. They When you log in, they'll say
we are these following, you know, articles.
Yours. And once you did it, they it's
there. And I was reading and I met some
of your library may follow this more closely, but
I've been reading. Essentially, the publishers are actually
fostering is they're not. They're not in any way
trying to hinder research gate. Um, it's actually
Gates Foundation that funds it. Um, and it's
a really interesting model because it's the equivalent of the
, you know, putting it up on your website
, except that you're not doing it anymore. And
therefore you're not incurring the liability, its research gate
that's incurring the liability, you know, because if
you're going, you know, kind of counter to
these, uh, institutional copyrights. It's really quite
intriguing development and the fact that the Gates Foundation is
involved. I think it's also very intriguing, and
they're just an immense number of people that increasingly are
are involved. And if the Journal has an explicit
no share policy because there are some journals that that's
the case, it will not automatically upload your article
. But I don't know if any of you remember
those three by five cards we used to send to
ask people for copies of their They have the equivalent
research gate. So I just got an email today
, like so and so wants a copy of mine
paper, of course, in an l severe journal
that they can't essentially, I couldn't get an automatic
upload on research game, but it's the equivalent I
can send them through Research gate that article, just
as if it was the old three by five cards
. And so it's a really intriguing additional kind of
, uh, you know, muddies the water is
a little bit because even something that you didn't intend
to be open source. If you participate, research
gate might end up essentially having a defacto open source
nature, which is a bit of an interesting change
. How similar different is academia that do, because
the copyright the copyright transferred, academic deputy, you
makes me, um, as as open access or
into, as I am a little suspicious about then
their claim to your copies. Um, and I
i when I first started looking at academic e d
u. I posted on Facebook in this forum where
I knew other people with open access interest to respond
. And I said, What do you think about
this? And overwhelmingly people interested in or working with
open access publications were really against academia dot edu that
if you put something in there for, um,
then they have a copy of it. So as
research gate explicitly said that contributors retain their copyright,
they do. Yeah. There's no copyright assignment of
any sort, Mr Hope. Yeah, So I
would like to visit a slightly different direction and talk
about the other. Well, 26,000 people are at
this university. Talk about students and what kinds of
things. Students who are possibly going into academia,
possibly going into industry, doing something else. What
do students need to know? And how could they
benefit from open accessories? We're talking undergrads and grad
students. I kind of want to point that question
to Michelle. Your most recently involved with student published
. Mm. What kinds of things do you wish
you had known? Well, for undergraduates. Um
, a lot of students are encouraged to publish.
And, um, student run to undergraduate research journals
. Um, like the lucha, um, it's
free to submit its a free print magazine free online
. Um, but then a lot of other schools
also do that to, um and there's actually a
network online of, um, various undergraduate research journals
that accept submissions from outside schools. Um, Philadelphia
has limitations on what other schools we can submit.
So right now it's pretty much exclusively Virginia Tech students
. Um, but yeah, I mean, I
feel like it's a lot simpler for undergraduates. If
you're sort of doing it in in that regard,
there's no fees. You submit it, you hear
back, and it's make provisions are there needed,
and it's just a very different model I guess it's
a lot more focused on sharing with as many people
as possible, including family, friends, members of
the public. Um, so I guess it's that's
kind of my perspective on Uh huh Do you?
Is there? Oh, I don't even sure.
I think it's important to get people excited and engaged
in open access early because I feel like it's a
lot easier to commit to it as a career choice
and as a personal research mission from the beginning and
sort of making the transition in the beginning. Excuse
me mid career. So I think teaching students about
the importance of it and why it's important to send
their best work to a journalist because that's how we're
gonna raise the impact factors if everyone sends their best
work there, um is really important to start from
the beginning. Somebody's We serve as a hub or
a relay station. The the what little reporter authority
we might have when somebody who hasn't published much or
is getting started comes to us and wants us to
referees something we can get it read by people who
are relatively prominent in the field. We can write
them or one of our editorial board members will send
it to them and say, Can you get this
red? By so and so So the person who
sent it in may never know. That's who reviewed
it, but we're getting it read by people,
you know. Then, later on, when the
essay gets published or whatnot, you know, we
still have in our editorial board. It's been looked
at. It's been vetted by people who were top
folks. We can say to the people who are
sending in their work, Um, we'll do our
best to get it read by people who are very
prominent and accomplished in this field. So we try
to service that relay where, um, you know
so other other in other places where graduate students are
not publishing an open access. I don't know.
You know, I don't know where we pay really
close attention to that. Can we get it red
by people at the top of the field? Um
, I think that's important. Students who commute a
graduate programs and for faculty. What would you What
are your objectives or your names for your students to
as they possibly enter the professor? Other things that
you want to instill in them or cause intimate critically
about. Yeah, I think that it's natural that
young scholars, we're most concerned with getting a job
in getting tenure, and they will be very reluctant
to do something that might risk that process. It
seems to me that the responsibility for making the shift
open access lies with the people already have tenure rather
than people who are struggling. So I I wouldn't
want to put a burden on them. I want
to, but I know about it and, uh
, say that maybe someday they could help in the
process, but I wouldn't try to tell them they
have to do it right away. Mhm Mm,
I encourage my students always access all kinds of information
. Um, not just from journals, but I
also cautioned them about the quality of the information they
extract and about finding ways to future the information because
it can become a very time consuming process. And
at the end, you just don't get the quality
. And this is especially true when you want to
access scientific data and making them aware how well I
do not believe necessarily everything that is posted have a
way to somehow sort out through that information. I
want to say a bit about, uh, some
work 50 years ago or so on this topic.
In the sense, right? Uh huh. This
is my former colleague, Gordon Politics wrote a book
, the Organization of Inquiry, published in about 1970
45 44 years ago, and in the organization of
inquiry, he proposed a system if I remember,
right nowhere when you submit an article the you would
. Well, when it was eventually published, you
would just all the people, uh, and the
journalist who had rejected it, as well as the
one who eventually accepted it so that later became famous
people would suffer some reputational loss from having rejected it
unfairly. And then after it was published, uh
, various people who thought that others would be interested
would give them article evaluation. Perhaps a number of
stars like we have on the Amazon reviews. And
so a If you're thinking about reading an article,
wanted to know whether there was anything worthwhile in it
. You can see how many people of what reputation
had given a credit of one kind and another,
uh so I think that people who are interested in
open access might go back and look at Gordon Tallix
organization of inquiry. I have a question for all
the Panelists, especially since I think all of you
, with the possible exception of Michelle, have relationship
with Virginia Tech now. So you have access to
everything that Virginia Tech subscribes to first. How often
do you hit pay walls now to cortical that you
need? And second, how do you address that
? Mean to go through? I allow. Do
you right off for what do you do? So
, uh, I suppose that happens to me once
every month or two. And sometimes I find the
article on somebody's website somewhere. Sometimes I use inter
library loan. Sometimes they just do without it.
Sometimes I go to Google books and see whether in
Google books they happen to have scanned pages that I'm
interested in. Uh huh, just the other day
, I was looking for the earliest use of the
term morally ill, and it turned out to be
Lord Shaftesbury in 17 25. And, uh,
Google had the bear quotations, but they there was
a copyright issue somehow of this book from 17 25
and they weren't able to give me the whole page
. Definitely, I'm copyright, I guess, for
me personally. The most common issues whole journal that
might not be present in the library in which colleagues
published. And in that instance, we've had one
case where, really, it's also a society journal
. But the other in Francis makes it available to
libraries for an exorbitant fee. So what we've essentially
done is they have personal subscription. I'm on the
record here, so but essentially, what we do
is we. We have a personal subscription that we
does not circulate through the library, but we make
locally available to students, in fact, and that
way we're paying through the society it's in. Instead
of$7000. It's less than 200 by the time
you mean it comes from the U. K.
So that's the international shipping. But essentially, it's
a lot of journals, and we're we have access
to it, including digital access for a fraction of
the costs for the people that use it most.
Um, and so it's an unfortunate model because somebody's
got to still come up with. I mean,
we basically parts this around our group, but basically
somebody's still got to join the society and be able
to foster that access for the students and for the
other faculty members. And so, you know,
there are people I think come up with all sorts
of mechanisms to deal with this type of data.
Virginia Tech doesn't seem to have subscriptions to a lot
of the top medical journals, and I feel like
it might be me, because I'm just so surprised
that, like, I can't get the New England
Journal, someone please tell me if I'm completely wrong
about that, because I run into this all the
time. Usually what I do is you use I
can, has pdf on Twitter. So you post
the link of the article you want and you post
your email address and people just monitor this and they'll
email it to you within minutes. Like I've never
waited more than 10 minutes to get an article I
wanted. And there's this whole protocol around it,
So you never thank the person who sent it to
you publicly, and after you get it, you
delete the tweet so that it's not on record that
you asked for it. I don't know. I
don't really. I'm not that worried about it,
but I try to here, but yeah, that's
how I've always gotten things that I can't find.
What should we do? Can I turn the question
around? It's and so hypothetically, right? You
know, I may have once written the librarian and
said, Can we get access to this and was
told the faculty member in your department will have to
ask for that? I mean, what are the
What should we do? I want to. I
mean, you're talking about the journal. You want
the entire journal? You want subscription to the journal
? Okay, I guess I was asking more on
paper paper basis. I do. What I do
is, uh, you know, like I think
Jenny mentioned If you use Google Scholar a lot of
times, it'll college things and will say, Here's
one version, but right under it, with a
little length will say, See all four versions,
so I'll click that it will bring all four and
I look at the links. And if it's a
university address or something like that, it's probably coming
from Repository. It's not coming from El severe or
TNF dot com or something like that. So that's
one way I do things, find stuff. You
know, I find the the author's manuscript online somewhere
. But if I can't do that, then I
use so anyone else have methods or problems. I
guess we were very fortunate because probably 95% of the
journals that he was you can access them to the
attack occasionally. Books We got them, then alone
. All right, spreading what in your library loans
. Statistics also give us so if you request an
article the Inter Library loan, rather than going through
a personal network, which can be used to be
fast and effective. But if you go through inter
library loan and also the statistics and information what people
need So if there's a journal that we don't subscribe
to the fact that has been requested, X number
of times tells us that this is a resource that
people here are using find useful, Mhm. Recent
. We shouldn't subscribe, and we do want to
know if there's something that you need that we don't
have. We can't can't buy everything, but mhm
. Mhm, yeah, and I think that somebody
might also tell Have a question asked is that if
it was so specialized that it would would, you
know? So your needs while you were here,
nobody else where we use it, That's the only
thing I can possibly think. Then somebody hesitated looking
into it. Not that you're adventurous, right?
Mhm. I hope that was years ago. Yeah
, Yeah. Questions at the have forensic Columbia University
, and she can stay. And I sort of
do a personal version of the Twitter thing where we
just have this agree with each other. Really?
An article. And just But now I'll also after
that when requesting a library. I'm usually very late
. Desperate have particle in that building. So that's
the only thing that matters. You know, the
statistics are getting it was like a library. Yeah
, it's like potential. Everyone is getting faster,
though. And especially on an article versus a book
you can get an electronic scan in such okay Isn't
as much of a like kind of things. Mhm
. Yeah, that statistic, like Patrick, says
that we can know what's wanted that we can.
This is about Yeah. I've noticed the same couple
of people that will routinely send anything. So I
think that people just keep opening a column and their
Twitter client and just monitor it. So it's an
open. It's not a back channel. This is
like an open. It's just a tweet. Yeah
, I mean, the idea is that you deleted
after you received the the pdf so that there's no
record of it. But yeah, it's just a
tweet special hashtag and just a hypothetical question. Some
of you seem to be really involved in creating open
access publications of different types. You mentioned that message
that pops up on Wikipedia occasionally asking, and they
do provide, like an explanation, too, which
is kind of nice. And then they ask you
some questions about who you. But recently with along
with Creative Commons, some authors have started publishing their
work on A like How much you like to pay
for it. Basically, do you? Do you
think that's and seemingly managed to do Okay, It
may be partly the prestige of the author for a
doctor of being one of them, but do you
think that's something? The journals kidding. Kidding?
Yeah, well, I think it's worth exploring.
Uh, certainly we've had software that has been financed
on that basis for a very long time. And
was it Stephen King, who published a novel chapter
by chapter and said, Keep on publishing chapters?
If people paid him$5.10 dollars, whatever it was
, maybe less than that breach chapter it must have
been, I would guess it would have been less
than that for a chapter, but I don't know
. So anyway, that model is emerging. And
then there's also the interesting model of self publishing where
people are publishing things for a dollar or two,
a copy and selling lots of copies sometimes. So
, uh, that's another. That, along with
the idea of asking people to pay, I guess
some some musicians have published, uh albums and said
Pay whatever you'd like and sometimes they've done very well
by that. So, uh, that deserves to
be explored. And if I could add, it
brings up a really interesting point because almost everything,
all of our discussion thus far has been predicated on
the fact that somebody is already paying us that our
creativity, in fact, is financed. Ultimately,
in most instances here publicly So in fact, that
is a slight worry, because these other kinds of
models that you've that you've talked about are really important
for independent scholarship because you don't want to have a
situation where you're limiting a kind of a collective ability
to contribute by institutional affiliation. So I think these
kinds of things are actually really quite interesting and need
to be kind of explored. Just ensure that kind
of getting back to my point earlier, that you
might have completely open access for consumption, but maybe
not completely open access for contribution. And that's the
that's, I think, in part what you're maybe
didn't directly allude to. But I think it's quite
important we had a really interesting case just happened.
This really just three days ago. We're were approached
by a group that wants us to list one of
our projects for crowdsourced funding so they actually want to
just have random people will kind of donate for the
for the effort, and it's, um it's really
fascinating. I mean, they're just like, Hey
, you know, we think you could do this
and, um so that's a wholly different uh,
it's It's not really in this rubric, but it's
pretty darn close because They're basically saying, Look,
you could put something out there and we've had,
you know, folks getting 25$50,000 for these discrete
projects that the public cares about. Imagine Ebola.
You can, Uh, So, um, but
I think it's an interesting model because, you know
, again, just to reiterate. I mean,
we've had a model that's partially predicated on public financing
of our salaries and public financing of of our research
, the results of which we want to make publicly
available. But there are instances where that's not the
whole Yeah, thanks there. Similar in that my
research was funded. What do you say? I
used to grant through my office, and so I
definitely support of the access of data want to contribute
to that. But it also costs a lot of
money in for me, too. Girl, spend
five months in jail and collect data. So if
you do and it was really challenging and it's a
very expensive and now there have ideas for several pictures
, and some of I figured I can publish the
parts of the data that they're relevant to. Those
things and published doesn't correspond forever. But there are
other parts that I'm just not ready to part with
this thing because I know that there are a lot
of people that you could do a lot of things
. Decision to renounce this lot faster than here.
Yeah, better publications with it. And it's sort
of weird to feel this conflicting like ownership of the
data because it was difficult to collective costly, but
then also at the same time wanting to put it
out there and share it with people are emailing requests
and saying, Yeah, you have this primary social
never missed and also let me use my tool on
it. It's like, Well, how many tools
can we use on before it becomes exhausted? So
I don't know if there's anybody who's had some experience
with that, but, well, uh huh,
one of my research interests is how voting rules and
I was in England and visited the Electoral Reform Society
, went down to the basement and found rooms and
rooms full of boxes of used balance, and I
took one look at that and said, There's an
NSF grant and I was right. Uh, I
applied for a number of NSF grants. That was
one of the few that I got, Uh,
so I told him, I'll take some of this
data and get it coded and make it available to
people who want to use it. And a member
of papers have been written on the basis of that
data. And in this particular case, I was
confident enough that I could do things with the data
that other people couldn't. I didn't mind giving it
everybody right from the beginning. And if I just
might interject on this, I think first off you've
got to find a fine line because you've got to
get the main thing done that you know, that
that's going to be the out output of your work
. But I had just as a vignette I had
a student who insisted he had something cool enough to
patent, and he did, and I really advised
him. I don't think this is a good idea
. He had another student with an equivalently good idea
. Several minutes. I've had others, but basically
, I said, I said, Please don't do
that because the moment that you don't release it,
people can't build on. It's just getting back to
the citation, you know, That's kind of cool
. I mean, and so the trajectory of those
two students is vastly different. The person with the
patent has collected. He's got a financial return,
albeit not a huge one. But what he's lost
is the career trajectory where he could have started a
whole field of inquiry because that whole area is dead
. That that he started that could have been this
, like branch that would just flowered out. So
I think you have to find this fine line where
you're basically saying, Hey, look, you know
what's my real goal? I just had this discussion
with a post office the other day. I was
like, Get your stuff out there So people can
use it because once they use it, they'll cite
it. They'll build on it and you'll see that
, you know, citations to go from, you
know, tins or scores to hundreds, because suddenly
there kind of building out from your work. So
that's the big trade off, right? So you
it's just, uh you have to find the fine
line. But if you get too much like this
, you haven't really done the right thing. It
will be out there eventually. Yeah, within.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, That's a
couple papers Is fine waiting to do 20 papers on
it. It's not a good idea. I would
also suggest that you may want to reach out to
someone with complementary expertise. I mean, you generated
the experimental data to someone who has computational expertise or
bioinformatics expertise. And I think you will find people
who would want to help you. And ultimately,
together you can generate faster, better quality publication.
This would be a case where data citation might be
a solution. I mean, if that was more
accepted putting the oi, David said. But post
publication because otherwise, you know she could end up
losing the ability to publish her work as somebody else
to jump to. Uh, have you guys heard
of neon? The National Ecological Observatory network? It's
like this NSS response to kind of ecological uniform ecological
observations. It's a huge program, and the director
of the program came and gave us a seminar.
And he said, We think most of the papers
from Neon are going to come out of China because
there's so it's basically he basically said that anybody in
the world could get at the moment that it's collected
and there's an immense interest in the science of it
and that you know you could. And there's just
more people. And so there's this, you know
, once it's there, anybody can write on it
. And so and people will. And so just
to have the director of a major National Science Foundation
program saying I don't think the U. S scientists
are major contributors using our$60 million network was telling
because And that's the thing you have to, you
know, if you're if you put five months into
it, it's sweat equity, get what you get
out of it and then get, you know,
and then put your data for data site question.
No great future for open, obvious sources. One
is just re use of resources. So my question
is, should we keep the trace for all the
parts because from the operation should be a law student
. What kind of better if we can get Yeah
, well, the cool. Maybe it's just that
backs we create a new publishing and from somehow open
sources and but part of this has a different emotions
and the mobile arm, maybe we build a new
feature on the new new worship. Those, uh
, those are open sources. So to me,
it's basically keep those information for this new publication.
That's just fine on point. But I need to
know from the open resource exports, expertise view,
how do you think about caring for those information?
Because maybe many women would make resources much complicated because
there were many resources being involved in a new publication
. So that may be the information is much complicated
. Feature is half the keeping people that collect information
about. So how do you think? Yeah,
Yeah, I'm not so sure. Personally, I
think that might be something that will emerge as these
systems develop ways to keep straight sort of the source
of the data and where who they originated from and
so on. Yeah, I think that's a tough
question, though. I think I mentioned before that
I'm digitizing data and providing it to the public,
and people tend to credit me with the data.
But I I didn't collect it. All I did
was trying it from pdf into C. S V
. And I feel a little uncomfortable about that.
But I can't run around the Internet and make everyone
changes. So it is sort of a difficult thing
to to keep straight. But I'm hoping that practices
emerge over time that clarify one thing I've seen in
some sources the first citation style. So we were
the aggregated putting together a creator. You have a
spot. So it's actually the spirit. You kind
of need them to write citations giving the credit.
Yeah, the library. And I really appreciate when
I go find citations and oh my God, I'm
not the author. You know, that's a good
idea. One thing I've heard about recently from whatever
other colleagues of data journals where you can, depending
on their guidelines, you can sometimes publish your data
. That and then have sort of the credit for
it. But then sometimes even, maybe be a
person to publish on it for a certain period of
time and then. But it's still open to the
people. Look at you. Have you all encountered
this is new to me. And have you encountered
anything like that? Yes, we were contacted ones
from such a journal and asked us whether we want
to. Actually, I'm considering it. We published
already some results out of the data set. You
want to publish more, but ultimately, I can
choose to deposit the data in the data repository or
publish it as a data set and it's an additional
publication. It would be the product. Yes.
Yeah, and it's a two page, maybe not
even that much text. And it's heavily focused the
road data itself. Does it ask you to describe
how you, uh, that is required? This
is what I mentioned earlier. I open access.
I'm thinking not just journalists, data repositories, And
in our area, there is plenty of data available
. They are not annotated completely. So you have
access to it. You can browse through the information
, but not having all experimental details. You have
to be very cautious about how you interpret or how
you use that information. Yeah, a lot in
standards for possible. So we have amendments. Companies
, there album is also possible. So what?
This this time? Uh huh. Is there anyone
or any company working on the standards for the path
that means on the on the divide, your,
uh, open results possibly could be in the active
together and actually, in the future, you can
have a central send a parcel open source website in
which good upset All the different different outcomes are possible
in the back hand. Mhm. So is any
committee working on this stand up for We are mhm
have such a potentially spend working on these this country
? Uh, actually, uh, industry fields.
We do have a simple that a GCR for the
positive systems. Constantly. Currently exports to Well,
that would be involved by open source piece. Yeah
, they ought to be interested. You know,
I think about where we're up. Sure there are
. I mean, again, coming back to large
scale data they process is in development. So they
set minimal standards for genomic data, proteomics, micro
data and even for some of the data depositors that
research. So you have to fill in a fairly
lengthy form with experimental details before you can deposit your
data. So I think the idea is working,
but I, I assume, still can be improved
. But regardless of that, it's uh huh generating
some of these data there. Hundreds of parameters.
And essentially, I wouldn't want to say impossible,
nearly impossible to provide all experimental details. So there
is always some room for misinterpretation. But Jesse asked
, You cover some of the future. You just
mentioned that whatever you say, that industry field is
very common stand. So maybe the future vehicle we're
looking for. I think it's very important. It's
very important for the nexus for this type of this
has to meet those standards. Mhm. Um,
let's give our panel the round of a very much
for spending this time and coming and talking with There's
lots of food in the back. We expect that
it will be all gone by the time it's time
to go, so Oh, God. Enjoy.
Thank you very much. Mm hmm.