Return to Video

35C3 - Locked up science

  • 0:00 - 0:16
    35C3 preroll music
  • 0:19 - 0:24
    Herald angel: And now please welcome our
    speaker Claudia.
  • 0:24 - 0:30
    Applause
    Claudia Frick: Thank you. So, hopefully
  • 0:30 - 0:43
    there will be my slides up there. I see
    someone running. Running fast. Laughter
  • 0:43 - 0:49
    Laughing
    OK.
  • 0:49 - 0:58
    Laughing
    Ah.
  • 0:58 - 1:01
    Here we go.
    Phew.
  • 1:01 - 1:02
    Applause
  • 1:02 - 1:08
    Yes. So hello everybody and welcome also
    from my side to one of the first talks of
  • 1:08 - 1:15
    this congress. Yeah my name is Claudia
    Frick or if you know me from Twitter, my
  • 1:15 - 1:21
    name is FuzzyLeapfrog. And I'm about to
    refresh your memories on scholarly
  • 1:21 - 1:28
    communication and scientific publishing.
    But since this is my first talk at a Chaos
  • 1:28 - 1:35
    Communication Congress, I'd like to start
    with two facts about me so that you know
  • 1:35 - 1:42
    who is talking to you. So fact number 1. I
    am an atmospheric scientist so I have a
  • 1:42 - 1:50
    PhD in meteorology. Fact number 2. I am
    now working as a librarian in the library
  • 1:50 - 1:58
    of a research center. The most common
    reaction I usually get when I say this is:
  • 1:58 - 2:05
    Why? There are actually several reasons
    why I left science and joined the library
  • 2:05 - 2:12
    world and for the next 30 minutes I'll
    talk about one of these reasons. And to be
  • 2:12 - 2:21
    honest it's the reason I'm most passionate
    about. OK, so let's dive into the topic.
  • 2:21 - 2:27
    And I'll start with a few simple questions
    that you can answer just for yourself: Do
  • 2:27 - 2:34
    you think science helps us - as a society
    - to be well-educated and to make rational
  • 2:34 - 2:42
    and fact-based decisions? Do you think
    science helps us to live healthier, longer
  • 2:42 - 2:49
    and to deal with diseases? Do you think
    science helps us to face global challenges
  • 2:49 - 2:58
    like climate change? If you answered at
    least one of these questions with yes,
  • 2:58 - 3:03
    then you must also think that restricting
    the access to scientific results is not
  • 3:03 - 3:11
    beneficial for our society. Unfortunately,
    that's what we are currently doing.
  • 3:11 - 3:20
    72 percent of scientific publications are
    locked up behind paywalls. Which means
  • 3:20 - 3:27
    that only those with money have access to
    science and those who don't have money are
  • 3:27 - 3:34
    either left behind or they are forced to
    go illegal ways. And this is not how it
  • 3:34 - 3:43
    should be. But how should it be instead?
    We should have open access to science and
  • 3:43 - 3:48
    open access means that everybody in the
    world should have access to science
  • 3:48 - 3:58
    without any financial, technical or legal
    barriers. At the end of my talk, I want
  • 3:58 - 4:03
    you all to know what we can do to tear
    down the paywalls in scientific publishing
  • 4:03 - 4:10
    and to achieve open access to science. But
    before we can talk about how we can change
  • 4:10 - 4:16
    a system like scientific publishing, we
    have to understand how it works. So we'll
  • 4:16 - 4:21
    start with a look on the question what the
    most common way of scientific publishing
  • 4:21 - 4:27
    currently looks like. So for all the non-
    scientists in this room or those who
  • 4:27 - 4:34
    haven't published a scientific publication
    so far, let me take you on the roller
  • 4:34 - 4:42
    coaster journey of scientific publishing.
    Imagine yourself to be an atmospheric
  • 4:42 - 4:48
    scientist, a brilliant atmospheric
    scientist, and you spent the past 5 years
  • 4:48 - 4:54
    of your life in your laboratory and you
    made some time consuming experiments. You
  • 4:54 - 5:01
    ran some complex simulations and after a
    lot of sweat and pain and a lot of tears,
  • 5:01 - 5:11
    you finally found it. You found the
    solution to climate change. Yes. And it's
  • 5:11 - 5:16
    absolutely great that you know how to
    reduce greenhouse gases back to a proper
  • 5:16 - 5:21
    level and how to stop temperatures from
    increasing, but the whole scientific
  • 5:21 - 5:26
    community, everybody in the world should
    know about it so that we can realize the
  • 5:26 - 5:32
    solution and finally stop climate change.
    So you have to communicate your research
  • 5:32 - 5:38
    in order for it to benefit society and
    that you can get the Nobel Prize that you
  • 5:38 - 5:44
    absolutely deserve. So, you write down a
    summary of your solution into a manuscript
  • 5:44 - 5:53
    of let's say 15 pages. But what's next?
    How to distribute this manuscript in the
  • 5:53 - 5:59
    community? Since I am at the Chaos
    Communication Congress and we are in the
  • 5:59 - 6:04
    21st century, I assume that most of you
    are currently thinking: Yeah, just put it
  • 6:04 - 6:11
    on the internet. Yeah. That's not what the
    most common way of scientific publishing
  • 6:11 - 6:18
    looks like. At least not yet. What you
    will do instead is that you will either
  • 6:18 - 6:25
    submit your manuscript to a scientific
    conference or to an academic journal.
  • 6:25 - 6:29
    Which one you will do mainly depends on
    your discipline. So if you are for example
  • 6:29 - 6:34
    a computer scientist, you will most likely
    submit your manuscript to a scientific
  • 6:34 - 6:39
    conference. If you are an atmospheric
    scientist, you will most likely submit
  • 6:39 - 6:44
    your manuscript to an academic journal.
    But both publishing processes are nearly
  • 6:44 - 6:50
    the same, so I will only guide you through
    one of them. So since you are an
  • 6:50 - 6:56
    atmospheric scientist, you now submit your
    manuscript about the solution to climate
  • 6:56 - 7:01
    change to an academic journal. And at this
    stage your manuscript is called a
  • 7:01 - 7:07
    pre-print. And your manuscript fits into the
    scope of the journal, therefore in the
  • 7:07 - 7:15
    next step a process of quality control
    starts. This is called peer review. Peers
  • 7:15 - 7:22
    are other scientists like for example
    these two guys. Yeah I know that this is
  • 7:22 - 7:27
    scary, but these two guys will have a look
    at your manuscript - and check whether
  • 7:27 - 7:34
    everything you did and wrote is valid and
    scientifically correct. Because maybe you
  • 7:34 - 7:39
    only think you've found the solution to
    climate change, but in reality you made a
  • 7:39 - 7:45
    really awful mistake already on page one.
    But that's not what happens to you,
  • 7:45 - 7:50
    because you're brilliant and your solution
    is perfect. So these two guys only have
  • 7:50 - 7:55
    some minor corrections and comments and
    you integrate them into your manuscript
  • 7:55 - 8:02
    and resubmit this new version to the
    Journal. And now you are lucky. Because
  • 8:02 - 8:07
    the Journal then says: Yeah okay, with
    these changes we'll accept your manuscript
  • 8:07 - 8:13
    for publication. And at this stage your
    manuscript is called the post-print.
  • 8:13 - 8:17
    Because the content is now the final one that
    will be later printed in the Journal or
  • 8:17 - 8:24
    published online since we are in the 21st
    century. And now in the last step some
  • 8:24 - 8:29
    typesetting happens, so your manuscript is
    brought into the layout of the journal and
  • 8:29 - 8:34
    then this fancy publisher's version is
    published on the Journal website, from
  • 8:34 - 8:41
    where everybody in the world can see that
    you've found a solution to climate change.
  • 8:41 - 8:46
    And this is what the most common way of
    scientific publishing currently looks
  • 8:46 - 8:55
    like. Simplified. But I forgot one very
    important detail and this is the paywall.
  • 8:55 - 9:04
    You published closed access. And at this
    point I'm sorry, but we have to talk about
  • 9:04 - 9:11
    money. Because there's a lot of money
    changing hands in this process. And the
  • 9:11 - 9:15
    first occasion money changes its hands has
    actually nothing to do at all with the
  • 9:15 - 9:20
    paywall. Because did you know that you -
    the author of the manuscript or your
  • 9:20 - 9:24
    laboratory - might have to pay money to
    the publisher in order for your
  • 9:24 - 9:30
    publication to get published? Yeah. Maybe
    your manuscript was too long and you have
  • 9:30 - 9:36
    to pay page charges or you included some
    colorful figures and you have to pay color
  • 9:36 - 9:44
    charges. Yes, color charges in the 21st
    century. And the second occasion money
  • 9:44 - 9:50
    changes its hands is at the paywall.
    Because there are a lot of scientists out
  • 9:50 - 9:55
    there that need to know the solution to
    climate change and some of them are lucky
  • 9:55 - 10:02
    - like her - and they work for an
    institution that has money and that has a
  • 10:02 - 10:08
    library. And this library will pay money
    to the publisher to grant the scientists
  • 10:08 - 10:13
    access to your publication. Either by
    paying a subscription fee so that they
  • 10:13 - 10:18
    have access to all publications in the
    journal or by just purchasing your single
  • 10:18 - 10:24
    publication. But there are a lot of
    scientists out there that aren't that
  • 10:24 - 10:30
    lucky. And they won't have access to your
    publication. And what about all the non-
  • 10:30 - 10:35
    scientists in this room that I'm sure also
    want to know the solution to climate
  • 10:35 - 10:43
    change? They won't have access either
    unless they are willing to pay. But who
  • 10:43 - 10:51
    said that we all together didn't already
    pay for this publication? Because who
  • 10:51 - 10:56
    funds you, the brilliant atmospheric
    scientist at your laboratory? Who funds
  • 10:56 - 11:02
    the two guys doing the peer review and who
    funds the library that grants other
  • 11:02 - 11:11
    scientists access? It's us. We all do.
    It's tax payers' money. So don't you think
  • 11:11 - 11:17
    we kind of already paid for this
    publication? OK, you might now think: But
  • 11:17 - 11:23
    hey, there will obviously be money coming
    back because authors and people doing peer
  • 11:23 - 11:30
    review will get paid for their work by the
    publisher. No. That doesn't happen in
  • 11:30 - 11:38
    science. Scientists are doing all of this
    work cost-free. For the publisher. OK, but
  • 11:38 - 11:42
    then you might think: But hey, then they
    maybe this is just the business model of
  • 11:42 - 11:46
    academic publishers. I mean they
    definitely have their costs that they need
  • 11:46 - 11:51
    to cover. So maybe they are just doing
    this: Covering their costs and they are
  • 11:51 - 11:59
    not making so much more money out of it.
    Huh. We are currently having three major
  • 11:59 - 12:05
    academic publishers. They are called
    Elsevier, Springer and Wiley. And let's
  • 12:05 - 12:11
    have a look at the profit margins of at
    least Elsevier and Springer. They are 35
  • 12:11 - 12:20
    and 37 percent. Pure profit. These margins
    are even higher than the ones of Google
  • 12:20 - 12:29
    and Apple. We are all together paying in
    every year 7.6 billion euros
  • 12:29 - 12:37
    for access of popular publications. Seven
    point six billion euros per year. And this
  • 12:37 - 12:44
    has some very weird practical
    consequences. Because publishers are
  • 12:44 - 12:50
    requesting so much public money to get
    access to mainly publicly funded
  • 12:50 - 12:57
    publications, that even those that really
    do have money like the Harvard University
  • 12:57 - 13:06
    can no longer afford them. And when I
    learned this, all of this, for the first
  • 13:06 - 13:14
    time, I only had two options left. Option
    number 1. Join the open access movement
  • 13:14 - 13:21
    and tear down these paywalls. Option
    number 2. Become myself an academic
  • 13:21 - 13:30
    publisher. Yeah my bank account this
    morning said I chose option 1. So let's
  • 13:30 - 13:38
    talk about how we can tear down the
    paywalls. There are generally a lot of
  • 13:38 - 13:44
    approaches we can take. Some of them are
    smaller, but persistent, and others are
  • 13:44 - 13:51
    more massive steps. But who can do
    anything about the paywall? Who are the
  • 13:51 - 13:58
    involved players in scientific publishing?
    Well we have the scientists that do most
  • 13:58 - 14:03
    of the work: they produce the content,
    they do the quality control of the content
  • 14:03 - 14:08
    and they are even the ones that later in
    the process mainly consume the content.
  • 14:08 - 14:13
    Then we have the funders that provide the
    money, we have the libraries that grant
  • 14:13 - 14:19
    access and we have the publishers that
    publish the academic journals. Since I
  • 14:19 - 14:24
    assume that we are not having so many
    funders and publishers in here and I don't
  • 14:24 - 14:30
    think that the number of librarians is
    higher than - 10, I'd like to focus on
  • 14:30 - 14:36
    what scientists can do to tear down the
    paywall. But I will also have a look on
  • 14:36 - 14:42
    what we can achieve if the first three
    players work together. But, let's start
  • 14:42 - 14:47
    small, with you - the brilliant
    atmospheric scientist. So you just
  • 14:47 - 14:55
    published your solution to climate change
    like this. And you just realized: Damn. I
  • 14:55 - 14:59
    published behind the paywall. And a lot of
    scientists won't have access to my
  • 14:59 - 15:06
    publication. And usually that's not what
    scientists want. Because most scientists I
  • 15:06 - 15:13
    know want their publications to be read,
    to be spread, to be cited and to be
  • 15:13 - 15:21
    discussed as widely as possible. And the
    paywall prevents this. So you might now
  • 15:21 - 15:24
    wonder whether there's anything you can do
    about the paywall when you publish like
  • 15:24 - 15:31
    this. Yes, you can do something about it.
    The first option you have is brought to
  • 15:31 - 15:37
    you by the publisher. The publisher offers
    you the possibility to remove the paywall
  • 15:37 - 15:43
    just in front of your single publication
    while all other publications in the
  • 15:43 - 15:49
    journal remain behind the paywall. This is
    called hybrid open access. And what does
  • 15:49 - 15:53
    the publisher want to remove the paywall
    in front of your publication?
  • 15:53 - 15:58
    Audience: Money!
    Claudia: Yeah, it's even more money.
  • 15:58 - 16:03
    Yeah, I do not recommend this. Is there
  • 16:03 - 16:09
    anything - anything - you can do about
    this publication without paying even more
  • 16:09 - 16:14
    money to the publisher? I mean: it's your
    publication; it's your work that you've
  • 16:14 - 16:19
    done. Can't you just take it from the
    journal website and put it on the
  • 16:19 - 16:25
    internet? This is called a secondary
    publication and there are places for this.
  • 16:25 - 16:29
    They are called arXiv, institutional
    repositories, or even the commercial web
  • 16:29 - 16:33
    site ResearchGate. Can't you just upload
    your manuscript there and make it
  • 16:33 - 16:39
    available via so-called green open access?
    The answer to this question is:
  • 16:39 - 16:45
    it depends. Because what happened when you
    decided to publish behind the paywall is
  • 16:45 - 16:51
    that you signed a so-called copyright
    transfer agreement and it is what it
  • 16:51 - 16:56
    literally says: you signed away the
    copyright of your work to the publisher.
  • 16:56 - 17:03
    Yeah. Laughter So if you want to re-
    publish your manuscript somewhere else,
  • 17:03 - 17:07
    you have to check whether this is okay for
    the copyright owner; that is, the
  • 17:07 - 17:13
    publisher. But hey, some good news here.
    Most publishers will allow at least some
  • 17:13 - 17:20
    form of re-publication. But this is where
    it gets really really tricky, because
  • 17:20 - 17:26
    publishers are having some very specific
    and very restrictive conditions on this.
  • 17:26 - 17:30
    So, you cannot just publish any version of
    your manuscript. Maybe you can only
  • 17:30 - 17:35
    publish the pre-print. That is the version
    of your manuscript without all the changes
  • 17:35 - 17:39
    that came in during peer review. So it's
    not the content that you finally
  • 17:39 - 17:45
    published. And they have some very
    specific conditions on where you can
  • 17:45 - 17:49
    publish. Maybe you can only do it on your
    personal website, but not on the one of
  • 17:49 - 17:55
    your university. And then they have some
    very specific ideas on when you can
  • 17:55 - 17:59
    re-publish, because you cannot just do it
    right away most of the times. You have to
  • 17:59 - 18:08
    wait an embargo period of 6 months, 12
    months or even 4 years and 4 years is kind
  • 18:08 - 18:17
    of a long time to wait for a solution to
    climate change. And these conditions. They
  • 18:17 - 18:23
    do not only vary by publisher, they vary
    by journal, so you really have to check
  • 18:23 - 18:30
    for each single of your publication what
    you are allowed to do and what not. And I
  • 18:30 - 18:36
    totally get it - that's not easy. That's
    confusing. It's time-consuming and believe
  • 18:36 - 18:43
    me, it's absolutely no fun at all. But if
    you are ever struggling with this as a
  • 18:43 - 18:48
    scientist, I have a very simple and
    convenient advice for you and it is to
  • 18:48 - 18:54
    just ask your librarian. Because that's
    our business and I'm absolutely sure that
  • 18:54 - 18:58
    even in your library there's at least one
    librarian that has specialized on
  • 18:58 - 19:05
    copyright and can do this for you. But
    wouldn't it be so much easier if you could
  • 19:05 - 19:10
    just do whatever the hell you want to do
    with your publication? If you could just
  • 19:10 - 19:17
    keep the copyright right away? Yes, it
    would be. And it's possible. So maybe the
  • 19:17 - 19:23
    next time you publish a solution to a
    global challenge, publish it gold open
  • 19:23 - 19:30
    access. This means that you will publish
    in a so-called open access journal. These
  • 19:30 - 19:35
    journals do not have any paywall at all
    and all publications in there are
  • 19:35 - 19:40
    published under a Creative Commons
    license, so you will keep the copyright of
  • 19:40 - 19:49
    your work. How do these journals work?
    Well let's get back to closed access. What
  • 19:49 - 19:54
    open access journals obviously do is that
    they remove the paywall, which means that
  • 19:54 - 19:58
    libraries don't have to pay money to the
    publisher to grant their scientists
  • 19:58 - 20:06
    access. And what also happens is that you
    are no longer asked to pay color charges,
  • 20:06 - 20:11
    but you have to pay an article processing
    charge, or your laboratory. But since
  • 20:11 - 20:15
    libraries are saving a lot of money by not
    paying for access to these journals, most
  • 20:15 - 20:21
    German libraries for example will cover
    these costs for you. But it can be even
  • 20:21 - 20:27
    better. Because there are a lot of open
    access journals out there that do not even
  • 20:27 - 20:33
    charge an article processing charge. This
    is called platinum open access. And these
  • 20:33 - 20:38
    journals do not ask for money from anyone;
    neither for reading nor for publishing.
  • 20:38 - 20:44
    But how do these journals even survive,
    because they are not making any profit?
  • 20:44 - 20:49
    Well we know that scientists are already
    doing most of the work in this process.
  • 20:49 - 20:55
    And some of them decided to just do the
    rest of the work, too. Yes, there are
  • 20:55 - 21:00
    scientists out there running their own
    academic journals. Several of them joined
  • 21:00 - 21:05
    forces with their libraries to have a
    powerful and experienced infrastructure in
  • 21:05 - 21:11
    the background and together scientists and
    librarians are providing this non-for-
  • 21:11 - 21:17
    profit service for science in the hands of
    scientists, without any commercial
  • 21:17 - 21:25
    interests. So this is already an example
    of what we can achieve. If we are no
  • 21:25 - 21:30
    longer only focusing on you, the single
    scientist and your single publication, but
  • 21:30 - 21:38
    if we look at what we can achieve if we
    work together and join our forces. And
  • 21:38 - 21:44
    there are a lot of more examples out there
    for this. I listed a few over here. And
  • 21:44 - 21:49
    for the rest of the talk I'd like to focus
    on one of them. Mainly because it's a
  • 21:49 - 21:56
    German project and it got some recent
    attention. And this is Project DEAL.
  • 21:56 - 22:01
    Project DEAL is commissioned by the
    Alliance of Science Organizations in
  • 22:01 - 22:09
    Germany and is driven by scientists and
    librarians together. And what they want to
  • 22:09 - 22:15
    achieve is a major step forward to open
    access with our three already known major
  • 22:15 - 22:21
    academic publishers. And project DEAL
    wants to achieve this by implementing so-
  • 22:21 - 22:27
    called nationwide consortium agreements.
    But what is a nationwide consortium
  • 22:27 - 22:35
    agreement and what can it do about open
    access? These agreements consist of two
  • 22:35 - 22:42
    components. They are so-called publish and
    read deals. And the first component is the
  • 22:42 - 22:49
    Read component. And it means that all
    participating institutions, universities
  • 22:49 - 22:54
    will have access to all journal
    publications of the publisher, when
  • 22:54 - 23:00
    there's a deal. And the publish component
    means that all publications with a
  • 23:00 - 23:04
    corresponding author from one of these
    participating institutions and
  • 23:04 - 23:12
    universities, will be published Open
    Access with this publisher. And both of
  • 23:12 - 23:19
    these components are covered with one
    single and one reasonable fee. So for
  • 23:19 - 23:25
    example if your university would be part
    of such a deal with Elsevier you would
  • 23:25 - 23:30
    have access to all Elsevier publications
    and all your publications would be
  • 23:30 - 23:37
    published Open Access with Elsevier. This
    would mean that there would be up to 16500
  • 23:37 - 23:47
    publications published every year Open
    Access under such a deal. And this is what
  • 23:47 - 23:51
    project DEAL wants to achieve. So these
    are the goals. But how is Project DEAL
  • 23:51 - 24:00
    progressing? There are currently ongoing
    negotiations with Wiley and Springer. So
  • 24:00 - 24:07
    there are two parties the publisher and
    Project DEAL sitting together at one table
  • 24:07 - 24:12
    and having a major common understanding
    about the future of scientific publishing
  • 24:12 - 24:18
    and about what the basic conditions of
    such a deal should be and they are now
  • 24:18 - 24:25
    discussing the details. The picture
    becomes quite different if we look at
  • 24:25 - 24:34
    Elsevier. Because there seem to be right
    away a major disagreement about the basic
  • 24:34 - 24:43
    conditions of such a deal should have and
    on what a reasonable fee is. So after a
  • 24:43 - 24:50
    long time, years of negotiating and no
    real progress, what happened is that
  • 24:50 - 24:56
    Project DEAL, so scientists and librarians,
    currently suspended the negotiations with
  • 24:56 - 25:04
    Elsevier. And this is something new. And
    it's definitely something big. And I can
  • 25:04 - 25:10
    tell you that the world is watching
    Project DEAL and Germany. And this is
  • 25:10 - 25:17
    where the power of joining forces really
    shows up. Because scientists and
  • 25:17 - 25:24
    librarians are really emphasizing the need
    for such a deal to Elsevier. For example,
  • 25:24 - 25:30
    scientists stop to offer their cost-free
    work to Elsevier. So they are no longer
  • 25:30 - 25:36
    publishing with Elsevier or doing the peer
    review. If you are one of them or will be
  • 25:36 - 25:41
    one of them after this talk please let
    your library know, because we collect this
  • 25:41 - 25:49
    information to make sure that Elsevier
    knows. And libraries, well they just
  • 25:49 - 25:55
    cancel their subscriptions to Elsevier
    journals. Yes. There are currently 200
  • 25:55 - 26:00
    German institutions without subscription
    access to Elsevier publications and there
  • 26:00 - 26:05
    will be even more next year. The Max
    Planck Society canceled the contract to
  • 26:05 - 26:10
    the end of this year. So these are a lot
    of scientists without access to Elsevier
  • 26:10 - 26:19
    publications. And it's a lot of saved
    money. And what happened after we got cut
  • 26:19 - 26:28
    off from Elsevier publications six month
    ago? Well, the world of science didn't
  • 26:28 - 26:33
    break down, neither did the world of
    libraries. What happens is that scientists
  • 26:33 - 26:39
    use alternative ways to get access. And
    libraries support these alternative ways.
  • 26:39 - 26:47
    I listed a few of the legal alternatives
    up here. But speaking of legal, some of
  • 26:47 - 26:52
    you might now wonder or wonder through the
    entire talk: Why should we even care about
  • 26:52 - 26:57
    subscriptions? Why should we pay for
    access to publishers or use alternative
  • 26:57 - 27:04
    ways that are legal because Sci-Hub. Sci-
    Hub is basically ThePirateBay of
  • 27:04 - 27:09
    science, so you can get nearly any
    scientific publication there. And I would
  • 27:09 - 27:14
    like to forward the question on why we
    should pay for access if we have Sci-Hub
  • 27:14 - 27:20
    directly to the publishers. But I think
    that they already know the answer. Because
  • 27:20 - 27:26
    they do what industries do that face
    piracy. They took legal action and filed a
  • 27:26 - 27:34
    lawsuit. They requested that Internet
    service providers to block Sci-Hub, but
  • 27:34 - 27:42
    you know Don't mess with the Internet.
    Laughing
  • 27:42 - 27:49
    Applause
  • 27:49 - 27:54
    So dear Publishers, let me put it this way:
  • 27:54 - 28:01
    as long as you publishers hold on to
    paywalls there will be piracy, no matter
  • 28:01 - 28:08
    what. And even worse as long as you hold
    on to paywalls there will be people,
  • 28:08 - 28:13
    scientists and librarians, building
    alternative ways of scientific publishing
  • 28:13 - 28:23
    without you. And the only way to stop this
    is to tear down the paywalls. And to you,
  • 28:23 - 28:27
    the brilliant atmospheric scientist and
    all the other brilliant scientists in this
  • 28:27 - 28:34
    room, please provide open access to your
    publications and support open access in
  • 28:34 - 28:41
    any way that you like or that you can. And
    if you have any questions or concerns or
  • 28:41 - 28:48
    any ideas I can only encourage you to talk
    to your librarian. Because, if we work
  • 28:48 - 28:55
    together, if we join our forces, I think
    that we can finally unlock science.
  • 28:55 - 29:06
    Thank you.
    Applause
  • 29:06 - 29:21
    H: Thanks for this amazing talk. OK
    everybody you know the rules if you have
  • 29:21 - 29:25
    questions please line up at the
    microphones. There's five of them,
  • 29:25 - 29:32
    two there, two there and one there in the
    corner. And if you are on the stream just
  • 29:32 - 29:36
    somehow asked the question I'm not really
    aware how it works and then we have
  • 29:36 - 29:42
    someone here to read the questions out to
    be our human interface device. So
  • 29:42 - 29:46
    please,... microphone number one.
    Microphone 1: Thank you for your talk.
  • 29:46 - 29:51
    I completely agree with your
    professional opinion, but
  • 29:51 - 29:55
    I think the publishers have one major
    advantage over the scientists and the
  • 29:55 - 29:59
    librarian here, which we did not address
    yet and I want to ask you this
  • 29:59 - 30:07
    question.The publishers, they have the
    brands, we as scientists need. What I mean
  • 30:07 - 30:14
    with that is, apart of the quality
    assurance scientists did is, we ranked the
  • 30:14 - 30:19
    journals. We gave them impact factors and
    other things. So the journal itself has a
  • 30:19 - 30:24
    quality number, so for a young scientist,
    at least for me, it was really difficult
  • 30:24 - 30:29
    to publish in a way that gives me the
    scientific reputation that I need, without
  • 30:29 - 30:35
    having access to the highly ranked
    journals of the closed source publishers.
  • 30:35 - 30:41
    So is there a way we can get out of this
    deadlock, where we need to publish in these
  • 30:41 - 30:48
    journals, we do not want to publish in?
    C: Yeah we can talk about the impact
  • 30:48 - 30:56
    factor. I love it. It's real love. It's
    absolutely difficult because this is a
  • 30:56 - 31:01
    self-enforcing system dealing with
    reputation. And if you think about it if
  • 31:01 - 31:08
    all scientists immediately stop to publish
    with Elsevier or the reputable journals
  • 31:08 - 31:13
    and would move to another one that has no
    impact factor at all after five or six
  • 31:13 - 31:18
    years this Journal would have a high
    impact factor. But it's true that it's not
  • 31:18 - 31:22
    that easy to just do it because you want
    to come forward with your career and it's
  • 31:22 - 31:29
    a problem but there's no real solution so
    far for this. So Project DEAL is kind of
  • 31:29 - 31:35
    addressing this idea by remaining with the
    major publishers, so this will be the
  • 31:35 - 31:45
    easiest way out for this problem. Yeah.
    H: Do we have an Internet question? Yes?
  • 31:45 - 31:49
    Can someone turn on the microphone for the
    signal angel, please.
  • 31:49 - 31:56
    Signal Angel: What influence do the
    university have on the publishing process
  • 31:56 - 32:01
    of their scientists? Can a university
    force their scientists to publish in a
  • 32:01 - 32:12
    certain way or with a specific publisher?
    C: No it's not that easy. There are
  • 32:12 - 32:16
    policies that state that you have to
    publish open access but most of them do
  • 32:16 - 32:21
    not define how you can do it, so you can
    do green or gold or hybrid whatever you
  • 32:21 - 32:26
    want but they just say that you have to
    publish open access.
  • 32:26 - 32:32
    H: Microphone number two please.
    Microphone 2: Hello. The internet has given
  • 32:32 - 32:42
    everybody access to their own screaming
    platform, how do we avoid the public
  • 32:42 - 32:46
    sharing of science to be tainted with all
    the bad science out there?
  • 32:46 - 32:49
    C: With what I didn't hear...
    M2: Bad science, there's a lot, if you
  • 32:49 - 32:52
    look at the newspaper, there's a lot of
    fake news in them.
  • 32:52 - 32:56
    C: You should absolutely not remove the
    peer review process at the moment out of
  • 32:56 - 33:01
    this scientific publishing process. So
    there should be some quality control but
  • 33:01 - 33:08
    there are some ideas to change the way
    peer review is done. But if you remove it,
  • 33:08 - 33:11
    yeah, then you have a problem at the
    moment.
  • 33:11 - 33:17
    H: Microphone number three, please.
    Microphone 3: Hello, do you have any
  • 33:17 - 33:23
    statistics about how many Open Access
    publications there are compared to I would
  • 33:23 - 33:29
    say classical Elsevier and stuff or if the
    movement is advancing, if it's getting
  • 33:29 - 33:37
    traction.
    C: Yeah I stated the source of the 72% are
  • 33:37 - 33:42
    closed access publications and there's a
    detailed analysis on how many articles are
  • 33:42 - 33:48
    closed, hybrid, gold, green. I published
    the slides already I will tweet them
  • 33:48 - 33:51
    later.
    M3: Thank you.
  • 33:51 - 33:58
    H: And the signal angel, please.
    S: What do you think about the Plan S
  • 33:58 - 34:04
    initiative?
    C: Plan S, for those who don't know: It's
  • 34:04 - 34:09
    a coalition of research funders in Europe
    not the Deutsche Forschungsgemeindschaft,
  • 34:09 - 34:17
    but all others and they want to have Open
    Access immediately so they say when you
  • 34:17 - 34:21
    work for us, if you're funded by us you
    have to publish Open Access and I think
  • 34:21 - 34:28
    that this is a good approach.
    H: Can we get microphone 2 please.
  • 34:28 - 34:37
    M2: Hi, Could the journals printed by
    various universities like solve that issue
  • 34:37 - 34:45
    which was raised here about having a well-
    known brand behind the publications. For
  • 34:45 - 34:53
    example if you have a university, which is
    very famous it can release their own
  • 34:53 - 34:59
    journal and solve that brand issue.
    C: If they release their own journal I
  • 34:59 - 35:06
    hope it's open access. But I think that
    it's in general an illusion to think that
  • 35:06 - 35:10
    the name of the journal or the publisher
    has anything to do with the quality of a
  • 35:10 - 35:18
    single paper in there. So this linked idea
    I think it's kind of broken.
  • 35:18 - 35:25
    H: Microphone number one, please.
    Microphone 1: I was wondering, why the
  • 35:25 - 35:31
    publishers move against Sci-Hub, but leave
    arXiv.org alone for all these years,
  • 35:31 - 35:35
    you essentially get the same thing from
    both. I know that there are differences in
  • 35:35 - 35:40
    the details...
    C: it's restricted to a specific community
  • 35:40 - 35:46
    and so it's not for all publications and
    it's still about prints and postprints so
  • 35:46 - 35:51
    it's not the final publisher version but I
    think that they didn't because it's a
  • 35:51 - 35:59
    powerful tool and it's a powerful
    community.
  • 35:59 - 36:02
    H: Could we get the Internet again,
    please.
  • 36:02 - 36:08
    S: Someone in the Internet has heard that
    scientists sued the editors asking for a
  • 36:08 - 36:13
    share of the profit of their work. Did you
    get any feedback how this ended?
  • 36:13 - 36:20
    C: No but that sounds interesting. No,
    sorry.
  • 36:20 - 36:25
    H: Number four, please.
    Microphone 4: Historically, journals
  • 36:25 - 36:32
    provided three aspects for scientists. They
    provided logistics like delivery of papers
  • 36:32 - 36:37
    to whoever wanted to read them, they
    provided editors which is like not peer
  • 36:37 - 36:42
    review, but the editors which are hired by
    journals and they provide reputational
  • 36:42 - 36:49
    engines. Obviously putting PDF online
    solves a problem, so logistics is no
  • 36:49 - 36:54
    longer a problem for a fully decentralized
    alternative to the journals. Can we
  • 36:54 - 36:59
    decentralize others too?
    C: I actually didn't hear the question
  • 36:59 - 37:03
    properly, I'm sorry!
    H: Try again.
  • 37:03 - 37:08
    M4: So journals are providing three
    services, they provide..
  • 37:08 - 37:14
    C: Free services?
    M4: Three like number three. They provide
  • 37:14 - 37:20
    delivery to whoever wants to read them.
    They provide reputation engine and they
  • 37:20 - 37:28
    provide editors - like not peer reviewers
    but real editors on salary. We can
  • 37:28 - 37:33
    decentralize with internet, we can
    decentralize delivery. Can we decentralize
  • 37:33 - 37:38
    editors, can we decentralize reputations?
    H: Is there going to be a question at any
  • 37:38 - 37:42
    point?
    C: Yeah I got the question I think. But
  • 37:42 - 37:50
    did you know that editors are also
    scientists? So they are already scientists
  • 37:50 - 37:57
    doing this work. So I really question the
    high value that publishers provide to
  • 37:57 - 38:06
    science. I think there is some value but
    it's not that high as we all thought.
  • 38:06 - 38:11
    H: Number 2 please.
    Microphone 2: Does project DEAL include
  • 38:11 - 38:16
    any incentives for the scientists to
    publish gold open access instead of
  • 38:16 - 38:22
    hybrid?
    C: So if you publish with a publisher that
  • 38:22 - 38:27
    has a deal with your university that it
    will be open access no matter what.
  • 38:27 - 38:32
    M2: Does it include incentives to publish
    in journals that are ONLY open access
  • 38:32 - 38:38
    instead of mixed open and closed access?
    C: No, no, not so far I know.
  • 38:38 - 38:43
    H: OK, just a quick interjection: Please
    remember when you leave, please leave
  • 38:43 - 38:47
    after the talk. But when you leave please
    use the front exit and not the entrance in
  • 38:47 - 38:52
    the back. Thank you. Could we get another
    internet question? OK the internet is out
  • 38:52 - 38:56
    of questions. That's excellent. Number one
    please.
  • 38:56 - 39:05
    Microphone 1: inaudible limited
    advantage to close access journals maybe
  • 39:05 - 39:10
    it would be a good idea to rethink the
    format of the publishing. I don't want to
  • 39:10 - 39:17
    advertise it, but I think it's a good
    example: There is distill.pub, which is a
  • 39:17 - 39:24
    journal for artificial intelligence at the
    moment mostly and they publish it in HTML
  • 39:24 - 39:33
    because it's the current year and you have
    interactive stuff so you can play around
  • 39:33 - 39:36
    with it and it's really nice.
    C: Yeah. I think it would be better if we
  • 39:36 - 39:42
    wouldn't have only PDFs published from the
    journal articles. There should be a other
  • 39:42 - 39:50
    formats definitely - machine readable.
    H: Mic number 2 please for the last
  • 39:50 - 39:55
    question.
    Microphone 2: Like you said your opinion
  • 39:55 - 40:00
    is at least questionable if what
    publishers provide to science and to
  • 40:00 - 40:04
    society that's worth something or worth
    what we think.
  • 40:04 - 40:05
    I also think this way and if I have a
  • 40:05 - 40:10
    manuscript now that I don't want to
    publish in this way the system. Do you
  • 40:10 - 40:16
    have any recommendations, maybe any project
    or something where I could maybe say
  • 40:16 - 40:21
    here's my manuscript and then especially
    have a solution for the peer review
  • 40:21 - 40:29
    process that is now facilitated by the
    publisher, but the publisher doesn't do
  • 40:29 - 40:34
    anything he's just facilitating. So how
    could I solve this and go around the
  • 40:34 - 40:39
    publisher in this way?
    C: So. I'm not sure whether I get the
  • 40:39 - 40:44
    question because if you have open access
    journals that's also peer review. Yes
  • 40:44 - 40:48
    there are publishers but if you have
    platinum open access this peer review
  • 40:48 - 40:53
    process organized with the library or
    scientists that are running the journal.
  • 40:53 - 40:58
    So this is already organized. The peer
    review process for other sorts of journals
  • 40:58 - 41:03
    that do not have a paywall.
    M2: But could these platinum open access
  • 41:03 - 41:07
    journals cover all fields of science.
    Could i come with my..
  • 41:07 - 41:11
    H: There are a lot of there. There are a
    lot out of there. I can tell you how you
  • 41:11 - 41:15
    can find them. There is a directory of
    open access journals where you can filter
  • 41:15 - 41:21
    through any subjects and filter for how
    much do they cost.
  • 41:21 - 41:25
    H: And now please thank our speak again!
  • 41:25 - 41:30
    Applause
  • 41:30 - 41:52
    35C3 postroll music
Title:
35C3 - Locked up science
Description:

more » « less
Video Language:
English
Duration:
41:52

English subtitles

Revisions Compare revisions