{"id":3479,"date":"2011-07-02T18:40:06","date_gmt":"2011-07-02T22:40:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/?p=3479"},"modified":"2011-07-02T18:42:58","modified_gmt":"2011-07-02T22:42:58","slug":"open-access-publishing-an-archived-discussion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/2011\/07\/02\/open-access-publishing-an-archived-discussion\/","title":{"rendered":"Open Access Publishing: An Archived Discussion"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>In a post titled “Why Journals are the Dinosaurs of Academia<\/a>,” I recently considered whether traditional journals may, increasingly, be serving to hinder the communication of ideas, rather than optimally facilitating such exchanges.\u00a0 I argued two main points:\u00a0 1.)\u00a0 We need to get beyond the notion that the mere fact that journals is printed makes it somehow more legitimate than digital-only journals.\u00a0 2.) In the age of the Internet, conventional articles may no longer be the most efficient way to communicate some ideas (which was the original justification for making journals the centerpiece of disciplinary discourses).<\/p>\n

Over the past few days, Twitter has been abuzz with academics discussing another, related issue: Whether disciplinary discourses are better facilitated by non-profit, open-access journals or proprietary, pay-walled journals.\u00a0 I have archived that discussion below and will follow up with my own thoughts later in the week.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nSharing Open Data Increases Citations http:\/\/bit.ly\/mGV6n0<\/a> (from 2007) cc: @techsoc<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
JessieNYC<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\nUnilever Centre for Molecular Informatics, Cambridge – Heather shows that Open Data increases Citations \u00ab petermr’s blog<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nOn the other hand: Questioning the ‘Citation Advantage’ (2011) http:\/\/bit.ly\/hM3JEj<\/a> @techsoc<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
JessieNYC<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\nNews: Questioning the ‘Citation Advantage’ – Inside Higher Ed<\/a> <\/p>\n
What if everything you knew about the incentives for publishing in an open-access journal was wrong? That is the provocative idea put forward in a new working paper by two scholars of scholarly publishing: Mark McCabe, an adjunct professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Information, and Christopher Snyder, an economics professor at Dartmouth College.<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nUnfortunately, regression does not control for author prominence. RT @JessieNYC: Sharing Open Data Increases Citations http:\/\/bit.ly\/mGV6n0<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@JessieNYC I have no problem believing open-access leads to more citations, though I think partly affect of who publishes there.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nSeems to compare online vs print, not open-access RT @JessieNYC: OTOH, Questioning the ‘Citation Advantage’ (2011) http:\/\/bit.ly\/hM3JEj<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nI just don’t see why scientific articles should be offensively pay-walled when academics write for free & other academics review for free.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nYes, databases cost money but that can be solved. For-profit publishers w\/ legacy monopolies are profiting at the expense of scholarship.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nAcademia really needs the tenured-folk to take the lead on developing high-quality, open-access, peer-reviewed journals.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nSome exist but the untenured cannot, by themselves, get them established. We tend not to be as prominent & risking tenure is very costly.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@techsoc Yeah, lots of problems still in that research. The question I was wondering about was blogging as citation advantage.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
JessieNYC<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@JessieNYC I’m going to blog more about my academic research. I do it just to share but will see if any overlap b\/w blog commenters & cites<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@techsoc Costs 40-50K$ 2 run a free journal. Managing (grad student) editor to herd authors, referees; released editor’s time; offc xpnses<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
barrywellman<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\ntotally agree @techsoc, est scholars need to take lead. this is good ex http:\/\/t.co\/CGCqr1G<\/a> cc @JessieNYC<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
BiellaColeman<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\nHAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory<\/a> <\/p>\n
As every experienced fieldworker knows, the most difficult task in social anthropological fieldwork is to determine the meaning of a few key words, upon an understanding of which the success of the whole investigation depends. – E.E.<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@barrywellman Considering how many million of ever-increasing dollars univ libraries pay each year, this should be doable w leadership.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n4 me personally it is as important to publish in classical journals and new formats like Triple Canopy cc @techsoc @JessieNYC<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
BiellaColeman<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nUniversities shld allocate $$$ to a consortium to lead the open-access movement. Save all in the long run from price-gouging from publishers<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nSame here. RT @BiellaColeman: 4 me personally it is as important to publish in classical journals and new formats like Triple Canopy<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nI swear I heard a presentation at ASA a couple of years ago that linked blogging + citations in trad’l journals. @BiellaColeman @techsoc<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
JessieNYC<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@BiellaColeman I’m mixed on the open-access (OA) b\/c cost is often prohibitive, esp for those of us at public institutions. @techsoc<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
JessieNYC<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@BiellaColeman @techsoc @JessieNYC academic publishing totally f-ed. Next week I will have journal article out; paywalled, rsch done in 2008<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
Chanders<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@BiellaColeman @techsoc @JessieNYC now- because I do a shit ton of extra work to get my ideas out, folks know ideas in there. But still.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
Chanders<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @JessieNYC was told not to blog about my work but i ignored it. didn’t think anything of it til stuff started being stolen<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
Nick_Lalone<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nWhat abt this? RT @Nick_Lalone: was told not to blog abt my work, i ignored it. didn’t think anything of it til stuff started being stolen<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@Chanders @techsoc @JessieNYC honestly, i worked my ASS off 4 2-3 years mostly on the peer reviewed stuff and only now i feel more free<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
BiellaColeman<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@BiellaColeman @techsoc @JessieNYC thats other thing- gotta do the peer review thing first, almost for sure, or be open to diff career path<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
Chanders<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@Chanders Right, I think that’s the situation most academic bloggers face. @BiellaColeman @techsoc<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
JessieNYC<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@Chanders: @BiellaColeman @JessieNYC Peer-review and open access are not opposites. Q is legacy journals vs newer, open-access ones.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@Nick_Lalone Most trad’l advice in academia is = don’t blog abt work.”Stealing” is an interesting issue. @BiellaColeman @techsoc @Chanders<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
JessieNYC<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@BiellaColeman I tend to work on parallel tracks, both\/and peer-reviewed, trad’l + OAblogging, tho’ hard to get balance @Chanders @techsoc<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
JessieNYC<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @Chanders @JessieNYC 4 sure. but like you said, you need prestige for them to work and MUCH better design<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
BiellaColeman<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nI got some Marx lying around here if you’d like. \ud83d\ude42 MT @techsoc: I just don’t see why scientific articles should be offensively pay-walled?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
academicdave<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@JessieNYC I’ve blogged abt ideas which I could have turned into journal articles w more work. Still could, I suppose. Time is biggest cost.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @barrywellman yes. Univ could spend 50k on hosting one journal or millions on buying others. Prisoners Dilemma<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
academicdave<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@JessieNYC @BiellaColeman @Chanders Not asking for short tenure clock at UNC b\/c of this. Trading time for security so can do trad+new media<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@academicdave: @techsoc @barrywellman Need a consortium to solve the collective action problem.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@JessieNYC @Nick_Lalone @techsoc @Chanders hybrid formats like New Everyday and Social Text Periscope imp in this regard.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
BiellaColeman<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @Nick_Lalone 1.can’t steal sharks being given away. 2. Blogging is better protection than secrecy, time stamped proof of idea<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
academicdave<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @Nick_Lalone Should be can’t steal what is being given away<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
academicdave<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @Nick_Lalone best to blog after your paper is “accepted”?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@academicdave: @Nick_Lalone Guess depends on field. But I thought of it first means very little to career if other guy has Nature article.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nI’ve turned blog posts into drafts for journal articles a couple of times now. Blogging as rough drafts. @techsoc @BiellaColeman @Chanders<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
JessieNYC<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc #icantbelievewearestilldebatingthisshit #academicsareaconservativebunch<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
academicdave<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @academicdave I’ve taken to blogging about source searches and theory surrounding what i’m working on instead of direct referencing<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
Nick_Lalone<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@academicdave @techsoc in case you missed it, and FWIW, here’s my bit: http:\/\/bit.ly\/scholar20<\/a>. Now writing a follow-up on “impact factor”<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
jonbecker<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\nUCEA || University Council for Educational Administration – Special_Feature_52_2_PCP – Scholar 2.0: Public Intellectualism Meets the Open\u00a0Web<\/a> <\/p>\n
NOTE 1: As a little background, I fought against including any text in the print version of the UCEA Review. I have become so used to publishing directly to the Web that I felt shackled by the constraints of the print medium.<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc Language Learning & Technology (journal) has been published free online since 1997, and has a high impact factor<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
markwarschauer<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nRT @markwarschauer: @techsoc Language Learning & Technology (journal) has been published free online since 1997, & has a high impact factor<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc have you seen @mendeley they got some interesting things going on<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
simoncast<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc seems to me there are plenty. See e.g. doaj.org. So, why reinvent the wheel? Folks should just submit to existing OA journals.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
jonbecker<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc LLT receives US Dept. of Ed grant funding to hire admin support; otherwise it would be difficult. Money is issue for free journals.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
markwarschauer<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@mendeley is for-profit. Fire to frying pan. RT @simoncast: @techsoc have you seen @mendeley they got some interesting things going on<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@jonbecker Only few OA and they don’t count as much as legacy journals.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc I think there are more than a few. And if everyone stopped publishing in legacy journals, the OA journals would have to “count”<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
jonbecker<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc where are our professional associations (other than in bed with the publishers)? Why don’t they make OA resolutions?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
jonbecker<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@jonbecker It would work if tenured, most established folk took the lead. Very risk for someone like me, untenured.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc I’m in the same boat. I told my dept. chair that I will ONLY publish in OA journals. It’s a hill on which I’m willing to “die.”<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
jonbecker<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @simoncast #mendeley isn’t a publishing equivalent though, and we’re very focussed on supporting OA journal content.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
subcide<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@jonbecker @techsoc I did the same. Willing to die on that hill.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
academicdave<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@subcide not being a publishing equivalent is why I think mendeley is disruptive @techsoc<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
simoncast<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@subcide @mendeley is FOR PROFIT & proprietary. They’ll do what they want once they are established enough. NOT where academics should go.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nYes yes yes! RT @techsoc: Academia really needs tenured-folk 2 take lead on developing high-quality, open-access, peer-reviewed journals.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
DiscourseMarker<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc Maybe I don’t get the difference between Mendeley, and things like WordPress, Twitter, or Youtube, all of which are also for profit<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
subcide<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc which all serve a useful purpose, and are tools academics can (and do) leverage.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
subcide<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@zotero is non-profit, academic & excellent. MT @subcide: I don’t get the diff. b\/w Mendeley, & WordPress, TW, Youtube, also for profit<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@subcide Academics MUST avoid locking databases, libraries, notes, etc. into FOR-PROFIT & PROPRIETARY platforms like Mendeley.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @zotero @subcide Even though #Zotero is non-profit, I believe #Mendeley is easier to use than #Zotero, and more sophisticated.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
cambgirl<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @subcide What’s the problem with #Mendeley?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
cambgirl<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@subcide Our print past is already locked in proprietary, for-profit platforms. We should NOT also lock our future. Mendeley is dangerous.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nFor-profit, not open-source, propriety. Can do whatever they want to squeeze you in future. RT @cambgirl: What’s the problem with #Mendeley?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc using caps and saying “must” isn’t an argument. Data within Mendeley can be taken out at any time, and is accessible via API.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
subcide<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc Well in theory, so could #zotero? Keeping aside all politics, which one is better to use and has more advanced features?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
cambgirl<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nThey can change that anytime RT @subcide: using caps isn’t an argument. Data in Mendeley can be taken out at any time, is accessible via API<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@cambgirl @zotero is open-source and maintained by an academic consortium. If they went crazy for some reason, we could fork dev & survive.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@subcide I understand you work for @mendeley–point is you have no power to promise anything. Its owners want to make money. They will try<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc So can any non-profit solution, and being a business is an excellent reason to *not* want to piss off your users for no reason.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
subcide<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nSo is squeezing yr locked-in customers. RT @subcide: Being a business is an excellent reason to *not* want to piss off users for no reason.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc thanks for this discussion on mendeley. I hadn’t heard of it and it’s a serious issue.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
substitute<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc I understand your concerns, but making money and serving our user base’s needs are not mutually exclusive.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
subcide<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc and if you’re going to argue that they are, then that’s interesting to me, and I’d like to see that qualified.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
subcide<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nBut can be. We are not in control w mendeley . MT @subcide: .. making money & serving our user base’s needs are not mutually exclusive.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc totally agree they can be. No question there. It’s a concern we can only address by being as open as we can.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
subcide<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nMendeley at least goes open-source, we can talk. RT @subcide: It’s a concern we can only address by being as open as we can.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@subcide Look at legacy publishers –for-profit, lock-in & proprietary just like Mendeley. They do make a profit at the expense user-base.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc yes, I agree. But you can’t say something is inherently bad because there’s a possibility of something bad happening.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
subcide<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@subcide I can say Mendeley to be be avoided unless it gives up the power to squeeze us through lock-in. It’s refusing so far to do so.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc Yeah absolutely, I was just trying to understand your position so that we can try to address the concerns behind them. Thanks \ud83d\ude42<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
subcide<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@techsoc All your citation data can be exported or pulled out of your local SQLite database. No lock-in w\/ Mendeley<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
jasonhoyt<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@katypearce I don’t object to paying for projects. I’d pay for Zotero. I just object to proprietary for-profit corporations gaining control.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc I hate that Mendeley’s not open but it is so superior to Zotero for sharing.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
katypearce<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc so could any non-profit – it is about the people not whether for profit or non-profit @subcide<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
simoncast<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc comparison is mostly incidental to their recent API collab, but how might you say Mendeley is any better\/worse than PLoS?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
axfelix<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@jasonHoyt For the moment. Neither you nor can any employee can give me a iron-clad guarantee this won’t change. Why not open-source?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@katypearce May be but we’ll be in trouble if sharing happens on a platform dedicated to making money. Could replicate the print nightmare.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@katypearce Academics should campaign\/push\/pay\/contribute to Zotero etc. & avoid non-open source, for-profit platforms. Honeytrap:-)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@simoncast A non-profit ruled by an academic consortium has no incentive to squeeze academics to make money. Mendeley does.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@lucyskylar @thesiswhisperer @techsoc @Anthroprobably i need to look at one that is i think 4 now free but all online (not ideal)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
BiellaColeman<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc you have to much faith in academic character. Power corrupts the same. The difference will be the squeezing is professional<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
simoncast<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc I tried to make zotero work for me so many times. \ud83d\ude41<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
katypearce<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc the only real freedom is a standard data format. A database is immaterial to control<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
simoncast<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @jasonHoyt “why not OSS” is all but rhetorical – rights reserved to monetize premium SaaS model.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
axfelix<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@simoncast I agree standard data format would be best. Still, potential for problems so much less w academic\/non-profit\/open-source venues.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @jasonHoyt if mendeley turns evil, geeks will be around to help migrate from SQLite to zotero. for this reason, they won’t.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
axfelix<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @subcide Not just even. Not just a little better. But so much better that you become like YouTube for scholars. At LEAST.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
tcarmody<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc given the nature of academic professional rivalries I struggle to agree.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
simoncast<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@tcarmody I would not want the future of academic digital sharing to be owned by one for-profit company. Open-source at minimum.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@axfelix There’s the sharing part in the cloud. There would be friction & legacy power. Why not avoid the clash? Seen it happen w journals<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @jasonHoyt I speak from (but not on behalf of) an OSS project that badly needs SaaS model for sustainability.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
axfelix<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @subcide google (gmail), twitter, github, etc are also for-profit and proprietary. Yet people use ’em.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
CaptSolo<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@katypearce What doesn’t work for you? I use it fairly productively. Agree needs improv. but not willing to become hostage to corporation<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @jasonHoyt the cloud architecture is exactly why it’d be a considerable burden on them to go OSS. imagine dropbox doing so.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
axfelix<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@CaptSolo We are talking about the future of digital academic sharing. Should avoid corporate monopoly while there is time.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@axfelix And that’s what the road to another corporate monopoly potentially squeezing scholarly practices to make money is paved. No thanks.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc APA formatting was poor (always had to fix), like Mendeley’s group sharing options.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
katypearce<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc OS is great and everything but will you reprogram these tools towork how you need them too instead of how others think they should?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
Nick_Lalone<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @jasonHoyt fair enough – I’m glad someone is still indignant \ud83d\ude42 Zotero is great too, but they’re clearly squeezed for development.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
axfelix<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@axfelix And hence why academics should put their weight, data and effort behind it and other projects like it.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@katypearce Sorry! I don’t doubt that it could improve but academics need to put weight & effort behind projects for us, not profit.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@katypearce I don’t object to paying for projects. I’d pay for Zotero. I just object to proprietary for-profit corporations gaining control.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc if we make it a moral issue, OA is more important here than OSS. it’s -hard- to build academic OSS dev communities. progress wins.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
axfelix<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @cambgirl That’s not correct. The Mendeley API is open, so there’s no lock-in, plus you can export your data at any time.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
mrgunn<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@mrgunn For the moment. Anything could change anytime. You get paid by Mendeley and have no power to promise me about the future.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc This debate has danced around the impact programmatic expression and the lack of computer literacy within academia. Disappointing.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
Nick_Lalone<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc – The belief non-profits run by academic consortiums have no incentive to squeeze academics 4 money doesn’t grok w\/Journals<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
mattBernius<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc – Totally sympathetic to the @Zotero argument (and hope one day to switch back), but right now @Mendeley “better” for my needs<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
mattBernius<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc private company provided services (e.g., Mendeley) can be good and useful. not necessarily evil.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
CaptSolo<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc most of online web services are proprietary. would be nice to have them open source and volunteer driven, but we still use ’em.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
CaptSolo<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc – I totally agree about paying for @Zotero (I wished they shifted their plan to it – especially if it helped them release faster)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
mattBernius<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc in fact, volunteer-driven service w\/o financial backing might be less trustful. what if it just goes down and your data with it?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
CaptSolo<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc – Beyond citation\/doc sftwr, I’d luv a non-profit version of “Evernote” w\/tight legal protections of data & kick ass encription<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
mattBernius<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc Mendeley is a good thing (compared to status quo). we just need to hold them to openness, open APIs, linked data, …<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
CaptSolo<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@mattBernius @techsoc You *can* pay for Zotero: see the two buttons at the top of zotero.org (add storage and donate).<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
stakats<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 29, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@geopoetic @SMEasterbrook. It really is time we took a stand against these outrageous academic paywalls.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
GeorgeMonbiot<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nScientists tell us they want public to understand their disciplines. But the journals charge $30, $50 or more per article.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
GeorgeMonbiot<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot to be fair, majority of scientists hate that. It’s the publishers. There’ll be big move to online, open, very soon I think.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
davidjcraven<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot I’m a PhD student. It makes me mad that in order to get my work recognised I have to give copyright to for profit journals.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
SciPolTech<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nMy guess is that the adverts probably pay most of their costs anyway. Can anyone enlighten us?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
GeorgeMonbiot<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Results of publicly funded research should be freely available to the public. No printing costs, dont see how fees justified<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
SciPolTech<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Just discussed it on Twitter w\/ some academics yesterday. Issue is legacy publishers have monopoly lock on best journals.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@Georgemonbiot Many scientists\/academics are fuming at this situation. Unfortunately, it’s a collective action problem. But it is changing.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Just discussed it on Twitter w\/ some academics yesterday. Issue is legacy publishers have monopoly lock on best journals.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nI’m not blaming the scientists for this. But journals must be coining it. Pay nothing for papers, charge fortune to read them.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
GeorgeMonbiot<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nElsevier, Springer etc make Rupert Murdoch look like a socialist.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
GeorgeMonbiot<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Heard about page charges? Lots of US journals charge the lead author about $70 per printed page. Sucks on every level.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
DrMarkBurnley<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nThey even the charge the full whack for papers 30 years old! And letters. $31 to read 200 words. #OpenAccessScience<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
GeorgeMonbiot<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Yes, for-profit “academic” publishers are highly-profitable and rates increase outrageously every year. Libraries drowning.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Yes, for-profit “academic” publishers are highly-profitable and rates increase outrageously every year. Libraries drowning.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Here’s what we need. Scientists should post their articles on own pages. At worst, they can post the pre-print, 100% legal.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot They can also post the published version often within a year, legally, or immediately. I doubt publishers will sue everyone.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Univs. need a consortium to put resources to create high-quality open-access journals rather than paying these profiteers.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nAny inside info on production costs and profits of academic journals gratefully recvd. In confidence via george@monbiot.info if you prefer.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
GeorgeMonbiot<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Yesterday, @barrywellman, very-experienced, well-respected academic, said on Twitter that it costs 40-50K annually.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@techsoc No, I said Free online journals probably cost 40K to run. Basically for Managing Editor $$ & for Editor’s course release<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
barrywellman<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot See, @barrywellman’s tweet for correction\/clarification.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot You can DM me but I can’t DM you? Twitter issue? Anyway- http:\/\/chronicle.com.edu\/article\/U-of-California-Tries-Just\/65823\/<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Also check this out — http:\/\/t.co\/wlpOxqJ<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Also, another big problem is for-profit publishers push “bundles” on libraries–i.e. if you want Nature, gotta buy 400 others<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot And then they raise the prices of those bundles every year. And change the content so huge costs to just figuring it all out.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@grant_mcdermott: recent Economist article: economist.com\/node\/18744177 “Elsevier… made… an operating-profit margin of 36%.”<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
GeorgeMonbiot<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\nOf goats and headaches<\/a> <\/p>\n
HOW much would you pay for an annual subscription to Small Ruminant Research, Queueing Systems or Headache? University librarians pay rather a lot. In Britain, 65% of the money spent on content in academic libraries goes on journals, up from a little more than half ten years ago.<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot This is inevitably going to be phased out but in order of decades unless someone really organizes an effective campaign now.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot There’s an interesting plot on publication costs on my blog at http:\/\/goo.gl\/Jcg57<\/a> You can get the source there.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
bnlawrence<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nGreat info coming in folks, thanks. I feel an article coming on.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
GeorgeMonbiot<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot details on cost models of journal publishers here: http:\/\/bit.ly\/4Nfkka<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
SMEasterbrook<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\nThe Business of Academic Publishing<\/a> <\/p>\n
Glenn S. McGuigan, Business and Public Administration Reference Librarian Penn State Harrisburg, USAgxm22@psu.edu Robert D. Russell Department of Management, School of Business Administration, Penn State Harrisburg, USArdr7@psu.edu Academic libraries cannot pay the regularly escalating subscription prices for scholarly journals.<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc But would the public understand their writing? Some of it is hardly accessible.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
antonioaprado<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nOk, this is how it looks to me. Let me know if I’ve got it wrong. 1. The public pays for scientific research, as we should.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
GeorgeMonbiot<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n2. The journals pay NOTHING for scientific research and NOTHING for peer review. Their costs are confined to skeleton ed staff + production<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
GeorgeMonbiot<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n3. Those costs are probably covered by advertising. If not, they need new business managers.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
GeorgeMonbiot<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n4. They then charge libraries – ie the taxpayer – a humungous fee for access to the science we’ve already paid for.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
GeorgeMonbiot<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n5. They charge individuals proportionately even more, again for access to science we’ve already paid for.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
GeorgeMonbiot<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n6. If someone isn’t salting away millions, I’m a banana. Any of these steps wrong?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
GeorgeMonbiot<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nOh yes. 7. @jimineep: The journals also charge the scientist for publishing with them, i think you forgot that part<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
GeorgeMonbiot<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Scientists responsible for journal content, publishers responsible for profits. Publishers are not accountable at all.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
DrMarkBurnley<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot I’ve rarely seen prominent advertisements in academic journals and would not want to. Otherwise, yep. It’s incredible.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Every academic should create a homepage and posts all their articles. 100% legal w\/ pre-print, 100% moral w\/ post-print.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @GeorgeMonbiot my supervisor does this. http:\/\/t.co\/f1ih23q<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
geekofhearts<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@SMEasterbrook @GeorgeMonbiot I can think of several commercial ones that do charge, often charge more for colour figs, extra pages etc.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
jimineep<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Standard contract is all rights in one year. Ppl can post immediately, temporarily take it down if asked w\/in first 12 months<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@SMEasterbrook @GeorgeMonbiot @jimineep Instead of being gouged by publishers, univs should assume journal costs upfront. Cheaper, moral.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Don’t forget that most academic editors are also unpaid – least not by the publishers – we do it for the fun and the glory!<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
RobbieAMcDonald<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Also, people should search through Google Scholar which pulls in the PDFs posted by academics posted in their own homepages.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot But also note – some learned societies (good guys) share the profits and many are kept afloat by their publishing activities<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
RobbieAMcDonald<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @GeorgeMonbiot I think academia.edu allows you to do this, excellent idea<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
domcavlan<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@techsoc I forgot to add $$ for copyeditor & for webmaster. Figure another $20K. In short, “free” costs $$s<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
barrywellman<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Also, people should search through Google Scholar which pulls in the PDFs posted by academics posted in their own homepages.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @GeorgeMonbiot Every academic should have access to an institutional repository; usually managed\/housed at library.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
janeschmidt<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nAcademics should have a website & posts all their articles. 100% legal w\/ pre-print, 100% moral w\/ post-print (legal w\/in 12 months anyway)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot RT @barrywellman: @techsoc I forgot to add $$ for copyeditor & for webmaster. Figure another $20K. In short, “free” costs $$s<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nI like this idea but doubt the publishing housing will argee. RT @techsoc: @GeorgeMonbiot RT @barrywellman: @t\u2026 (cont) http:\/\/deck.ly\/~EtQ92<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
Jwillia2<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@barrywellman @techsoc The issue may be who pays not whether it is free. Reader pay? Institution pay? someone else?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
jovanevery<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc How do you solve ‘certification’ issue, which Academic Journals provide now, with self-posting? How do ‘new’ scholars get noticed?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
jobermallow<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@jobermallow Self-posting peer-reviewed articles. Nothing different regards to certification, just changing the accessibility.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc But if academic publishing is in trouble, what can ‘new’ scholars turn to to achieve that ‘certification’ journals now provide?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
jobermallow<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc BTW, I totally agree with academic self-posting. Greater access & circulation prompt more refined iterations of arguments, ideas.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
jobermallow<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@GeorgeMonbiot Taylor & Francis subs increased avg 12% at my library last year. One title costs went up by 42%. I shit you not.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
julieakon<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @GeorgeMonbiot and many publishers now allow postprints on non-commercial websites<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
dirkvl<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@techsoc My own feeling is that there are too many unread journals out there: really vanity presses, vita-padders.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
barrywellman<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@barrywellman Completely agree. I’ve seen many bad examples. Challenge is to get out from under drastic paywalls w\/out further diffusing.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n+1 RT @techsoc: Academics should have websites, post all their articles. 100% legal w\/pre-print, 100% moral w\/post-print (legal w\/in 12 mos)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
jaykaydee<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@techsoc ideally academics should also post anon’d raw results, and articles written-not-published (like @jpom – http:\/\/bit.ly\/jjpcPD<\/a>)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
jaykaydee<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@techsoc I love this idea & wondered abt legal issues. Now, if we can just get that whole “website” idea 2 catch on w\/ academics…<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
JessieNYC<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@JessieNYC Academics have full rights to pre-print and almost always full-rights to self-archive post-print w\/in 12 months.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc right – it was post-print I wasn’t sure about. Thx!<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
JessieNYC<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n.@techsoc I’ve started 2 journals, Connections & City & Community – but each had an existing cadre of scholars\/potential readers.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
barrywellman<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc Lots of open-access preprint archives exist already, and this is the norm in physics. A FAQ: http:\/\/t.co\/0d58CCc<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
benjamingeer<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc a directory of open-access repositories: http:\/\/t.co\/3nPIYX9<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
benjamingeer<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc agreed. I recently posted articles on Scribd and the editor of the journal had it removed! I wrote it for Chrissake! @alanalentin<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
mcincrisis<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@mcincrisis Put it in your own homepage. That’s called ‘self-archiving’ and will be hard for them to touch. At a minimum, the pre-print.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @georgemonbiot the problem with that would be the difficulty of finding them. Now if each University would use their website…<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nadinehengen<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@nadinehengen Google Scholar pulls them together. RT @nadinehengen: @georgemonbiot problem w\/ that would be the difficulty of finding them.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc I’m planning to post mine via my public Facebook page, starting with my thesis after I’m done in a few weeks.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
antonioaprado<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc Oh and on Academia.edu. Great website.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
antonioaprado<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc Hmm, it may be legal w\/ pre-print, but most academic journals will not published pre-released articles #AsFarAsIKnow<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
EHarrisonDotOrg<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@eharrisondotorg I’m talking abt posting once accepted &\/or published. That’s totally cool , no req to hold back pre-print post acceptance.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc mind you, I’m not saying online is worse than journals, just that it will bring it’s own set of challenges that need to be overcome<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nadinehengen<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc points to consider: does Google Scholar require registration? Is it wise to rely on one US company to index all research long-term?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nadinehengen<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"June 30, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

powered by <\/a>Storify<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In a post titled “Why Journals are the Dinosaurs of Academia,” I recently considered whether traditional journals may, increasingly, be serving to hinder the communication of ideas, rather than optimally facilitating such exchanges.\u00a0 I argued two main points:\u00a0 1.)\u00a0 We need to get beyond the notion that the mere fact that journals is printed makes […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":563,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[12047],"tags":[12048,10478,10651,12049,2025,184,4521],"class_list":["post-3479","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-archive","tag-barry-wellman","tag-jessie-daniels","tag-journals","tag-open-access","tag-publishing","tag-twitter","tag-zeynep-tufekci"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3479","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/563"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3479"}],"version-history":[{"count":24,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3479\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3504,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3479\/revisions\/3504"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3479"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3479"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3479"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}