Science Journal Won't Publish Papers Because Authors Want To Put Them On Wikipedia
from the mine,-all-mine! dept
Over the last few months, we've been hearing more and more stories concerning some of the ridiculous levels of control that academic journals exert over the copyrights on the various papers and research they publish. Since many of those journals are ridiculously expensive, much of this important research is basically locked up entirely. This is especially troublesome when it comes to publicly funded research, which you would think should be available to the taxpayers who paid for it. While we've definitely seen a trend towards more open rules to publishing, many journals are still behind the curve. Reader parsko writes in to alert us to the news of the American Physical Society, which withdrew the offer to publish two recent studies in the Physical Review Letters because the authors wanted to be able to publish parts of the study in Wikipedia. Since the APS requires you hand over the rights to the study, they wouldn't allow it, and turned down the papers because of it. Not surprisingly, various scientists are upset about this, pointing out that it seems totally contrary to the purpose of the journal to hide such information using copyright claims. The APS has now said that it will reconsider the policy at its next meeting, but the fact that it even got this far suggests how locked down many of these journals are.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They built their empire
Whether we like it or not, it's common sense for them to try and sustain that exclusivity.
There is no adapting when it's your very foundation at stake. They will either succeed in maintaining their foundation, or they will fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irrelevant
It is rather amazing, the lengths that some organizations will go to in order to ensure they become irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From a former sci journal employee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scientific Feudalism
Isn't this a new kind of fiefdom? This culture is degrading the scientific community to new lows through "research" carried out by "experts" - because they can get away with it: Think of the tobacco scandals and everyday news where there is a newer and more ridiculous result published in the name of science. When I can't access their work, I can't question their methods. Inadvertently, we have established a scientific dogma that harms society more than it helps.
It was great that Newton started the peer review system and we reached where we are now. But with profit being the major motive of these publishing houses we need a fix. The net provides an alternate media and I think its time someone took on the mantle to create an alternate and nearly free scientific publishing process accessible to everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scientific Feudalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly, I usually agree with you
The issue here is the very nature of expert knowledge. If I spend 3 years research and executing a rigorous scientific project and then I put it on wikipedia, it is immediately open to distortion by any number of people who do not have the training or knowledge to actually even comment on my research.
This is not elitism, this is a fact - specialized knowledge exists and to attempt to completely eliminate it is as backwards as denying evolution.
The peer review process is flawed, we all know that, but it also holds sacrosanct that research meets certain crucial standards, something wikipedia does not.
Let's say I go and write a nice little paper I'm working on a beautiful little theory piece on specificity of place (I work in geography) and I publish it in an academic journal and in wikipedia.
Along comes someone who strongly disagrees with my research and edits out two of my conclusions based on some criteria, a researcher or student then quotes me from wikipedia and lists the publication as the journal, because it was published there.
Why lookie... I just found a big problem.
I love wikipedia, but it's not the place for rigorous scientific research.
Expert knowledge does exist and it has its place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sadly, I usually agree with you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sadly, I usually agree with you
I believe it is you who missed Jim T's point. I don't believe Jim was suggesting that scientific journals never get anything wrong. I believe he is suggesting that in a published journal (or in my view any content controlled web site) we know WHO got it wrong and can address it that way. On Wikipedia, pretty much anyone can rewrite the conclusions of a paper to suit their own needs. That right way to refute scientific research is to write a new paper under new authorship, not modify someone else's original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sadly, I usually agree with you
Scott makes some excellent points.
Re: Open Access
Graphs/figures are pretty easy to reformat and post around the copyright, if that's all this issue is than there is being a big stink raised about nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sadly, I usually agree with you
Graphs/figures are pretty easy to reformat and post around the copyright, if that's all this issue is than there is being a big stink raised about nothing.
Heh. Not so. In a recent case I'm aware of, the journal claimed that any research based on the same dataset was covered by their copyright. If the professor in question wanted to publish somewhere else, she needed to create an entirely new experiment...
It's not as easy as you might think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sadly, I usually agree with yo
I had a friend who did editing for a very well respected physics journal, oftentimes she completely reworked the images sent to her and then copyrights were placed only on said images, not the research.
But, it appears that this varies from journal to journal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sadly, I usually agree with you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sadly, I usually agree with you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sadly, I usually agree with you
The issue here is the very nature of expert knowledge. If I spend 3 years research and executing a rigorous scientific project and then I put it on wikipedia, it is immediately open to distortion by any number of people who do not have the training or knowledge to actually even comment on my research.
I think that's a totally separate point. Knowledge is knowledge. Having it published in a journal shouldn't exclude it from also being mentioned in Wikipedia.
I don't think anyone is worried about "distortion." Wikipedia is for publishing factual information.
Besides, that's clearly not the issue here because it's the researchers themselves who want it published on Wikipedia. So they're clearly not worried about the distortion.
The peer review process is flawed, we all know that, but it also holds sacrosanct that research meets certain crucial standards, something wikipedia does not.
But this doesn't take away from the peer review process. No one is saying ditch the peer review process. They're saying after the study is peer reviewed for the journal they'd ALSO like to have it published on Wikipedia.
Along comes someone who strongly disagrees with my research and edits out two of my conclusions based on some criteria, a researcher or student then quotes me from wikipedia and lists the publication as the journal, because it was published there.
That's a different issue altogether, and having something published in a journal doesn't change that. In fact, things would be worse if the researchers themselves can't publish the actual findings. Now, instead, you have the totally untrained people posting THEIR OWN summaries of the findings FIRST, without the actual research.
So, no, I think the problem is in the other direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peer reviewed journals
To reach the higher echelon of scientific work it is not about publishing your work than to be able to get a paper into a peer-reviewed journal. Peer approval is more important than getting the work published. That means that several peers (scientists that are considered experts in the field; and with proper credentials) have been able to verify the quality of what is stated in the published scientific work. Without this "peer reviewed" stamp of approval you might as well publish your work anywhere. Which is the obvious other option...and which is not under dispute either. The internet is free to everyone to use.
Again, ...to publish or not to publish... is... NOT the question. The question is if we want lots of seemingly scientific work published under the guise of proper scientific merit.
So lets let all the scientific work that is not peer-reviewed continue to be posted on the internet...oh wait...that is what we are already doing.
In the end...Much ado about nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Brave New World
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Brave New World
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Refusal should be on credibility grounds
If I were the journal, that is the reason I would give for denying the papers. Want to publish it on a free and public (but content-controlled) site dedicated to publishing research studies? Your argument might be convincing, especially if the study is publicly funded. Want to publish a respectable research study on an open wiki? No thanks. I'll exert my copyright control over it.
Perhaps the journal should reconsider the policy of restricting publication of papers to their own journal. Mr. Masnick makes a compelling point with that argument. But no self-respecting scientific journal should publish papers that are also published on any web site where visitors can modify its contents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refusal should be on credibility grounds
The issue is not about publishing as such in Wikipedia. It's about the reuse of the work they've already done in order to make it available on free resources with specific licensing requirements.
Example: An astronomer wants to put a picture of the exoplanet she discovered, the report of which she published in the hypothetical AJA (Antiquated Journal of Astronomy), on the Wikipedia. However, she can't, because for publishing her paper in the AJA, she had to agree to transfer the reproduction rights to all written work and figures to the publisher. So, either she goes and uses a different picture of the planet than the one she published (which she may or not have), she's screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Refusal should be on credibility grounds
"Want to publish it on a free and public (but content-controlled) site dedicated to publishing research studies? Your argument might be convincing, especially if the study is publicly funded. Want to publish a respectable research study on an open wiki? No thanks. I'll exert my copyright control over it."
and:
"Perhaps the journal should reconsider the policy of restricting publication of papers to their own journal. Mr. Masnick makes a compelling point with that argument."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refusal should be on credibility grounds
Shouldn't that be up to them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Refusal should be on credibility grounds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Refusal should be on credibility groun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Refusal should be on credibility groun
Wikipedia, like it or not, has a large following. Putting the research on the site would expose it to a larger audience than it would normally receive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Refusal should be on credibility g
Porn sites have large followings too, but would a self-respecting scientist want to publish a scholarly paper on one of those? Hardly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Refusal should be on credibili
Isn't that up to the scientist?
Porn sites have large followings too, but would a self-respecting scientist want to publish a scholarly paper on one of those? Hardly.
Ah, equating wikipedia with porn sites. If you can't understand the difference then it's not worth having this conversation.
The point has nothing to do with the fact that Wikipedia can be modified. The point is that the authors want to be able to repost their content and the journal will not let them. Your response is that the scientists shouldn't want to do that, but that's not even up for discussion. They DO want to do it, and why should the journal (or you) tell them they cannot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Refusal should be on credibili
While I will admit that many scientists are very bright and many, many have thought through and figured out problems I can't begin to tackle, they aren't better human beings, and I am not utterly incapable of following your logic even if I can't reproduce your process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Refusal should be on credibility groun
There are tons of reasons why they might want to do it. Getting more exposure for the ideas. Getting more exposure for themselves. Hoping others might build on their research and do something more with it. Access to more press. Get invited to more conferences. Get more grants. Etc. etc. etc.
For you to simply declare that no reasonable scientist should want to do this is clearly wrong. There are plenty of motivations, and for a journal to stop those scientists from doing what they want to do with their own research seems wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Refusal should be on credibility g
I agree that the dissemination of knowledge and visibility of scientific works are fine goals, and I already stated that I have no problem with allowing authors to publish their papers on content-controlled sites. My point is that Wikipedia allows the modification of works after publication, which is inappropriate for scientific papers.
If Wikipedia allowed the posting of articles that only the original author could edit, fine, have at it, but allowing the modification of scientific papers after publication is not appropriate and probably makes them invalid scientifically because the content now has no connection to the original research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Refusal should be on credibili
That's not looking at it another way. That's still missing the point entirely. When I post my content here I do so as is. You are then free to take my content and do what you want with it. You could even put it in a wiki and edit it. But the original source remains here. I am fine with that.
That's the same thing that's going on here. No one will be able to edit the peer reviewed journal piece. That is the original source. The scientists would ALSO like to put that content into Wikipedia RECOGNIZING that others may edit it. They're doing this of their own free will.
Except that the journal won't let them.
Your point seems to be that they shouldn't want to. But that's not what we're discussing. It's a given: THEY WANT TO DO THIS. The problem isn't whether or not they want to do this. It's that the journal won't let them.
My point is that Wikipedia allows the modification of works after publication, which is inappropriate for scientific papers.
But that's not even what's being debated here.
If Wikipedia allowed the posting of articles that only the original author could edit, fine, have at it, but allowing the modification of scientific papers after publication is not appropriate and probably makes them invalid scientifically because the content now has no connection to the original research.
The SOURCE (the published journal article) remains.
Do you really think that no scientific research should be published in Wikipedia? Wikipedia is an open forum for a reason. You can't tell it what content should not be published there.
You seem to be arguing over a point that isn't even relevant here. Step back and realize what's being discussed here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Refusal should be on credi
You seem to be arguing over a point that isn't even relevant here. Step back and realize what's being discussed here.
There are two debates here that you don't seem to distinguish between:
Step back and realize what's being discussed here.
Maybe you should step back yourself. Maybe then you would realize that the original article (which I agreed with, by the way) spawned additional points of debate. I answered the original argument in the article then extended it. Isn't that what an open forum is for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Refusal should be on c
Heh. Actually it was me who was distinguishing between the two all along, which is the point that I was making.
So, if you really want to debate the point nonrelevant to the story, let's go there:
Is Wikipedia the proper forum to post scientific papers? My answer is no precisely because of the open editing concept that defines it.
This is based on faulty reasoning.
1. It's based on the idea that someone would put up information on Wikipedia as being the definitive source. No one is claiming that.
2. It's based on the idea that they're putting up the full content there rather than publishing it in a peer reviewed uneditable journal. No one is claiming that.
3. It's based on the idea that you shouldn't put research findings on a site like Wikipedia because it would be editable. That's an argument against the entire concept of Wikipedia. You really think it's better that this information be kept entirely off Wikipedia than putting it there where a discussion can take place about it?
You seem to have set up a strawman that just because the content can be editable, it shouldn't be up at all. This either shows a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works in practice, or a misunderstanding of how information flows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Refusal should be
Let's say that I post research on Wikipedia stating that cars with bumper stickers on them are "67% more likely" to suffer rear-end collisions. Someone sees that and disagrees with the findings. Maybe that person thinks my sample was too small or my tests were faulty or that I didn't have enough fingers and toes to count up the results properly. Is it better for that person to edit my text to read "67% less likely" or to respond to my findings or start a discussion about them?
I do not argue against the wiki concept and, in fact, have considered implementing it at my job for user documentation. But neither do I suggest that, because it is good for some applications, it is necessarily good for every application.
Now, to the specific points in your previous post:
This is based on faulty reasoning.
No. It's called a difference of opinion.
1. It's based on the idea that someone would put up information on Wikipedia as being the definitive source. No one is claiming that.
2. It's based on the idea that they're putting up the full content there rather than publishing it in a peer reviewed uneditable journal. No one is claiming that.
Neither am I. I never stated it nor did I infer it.
3. It's based on the idea that you shouldn't put research findings on a site like Wikipedia because it would be editable.
Precisely. Findings are what they are: one author's conclusions to a study. If someone else comes to a different conclusion, the way to handle that is to post a response or start a discussion about it, not edit the contents. How can you even discuss the original findings on the site if someone edited them?
That's an argument against the entire concept of Wikipedia.
Arguing that scientific research papers are not appropriate content for wikis means precisely that I believe scientific research papers are not approprtiate for wikis. Nothing more. Nothing less.
You really think it's better that this information be kept entirely off Wikipedia than putting it there where a discussion can take place about it?
I never stated that it shouldn't be open to discussion only that it shouldn't be open to editing. You cannot have a valid discussion if the starting point keeps changing. The fact that the paper may or may not be published elsewhere is not relevant. It is published there and being discussed there so the baseline for the discussion there should not change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Refusal should
I get the feeling from reading your comments that you don't know how Wikipedia works.
What I stated (also repeatedly) is that the content should not be editable which is entirely different than making it open for discussion.
Any edit on Wikipedia is the equivalent of a discussion. All edits and history are saved.
Let's say that I post research on Wikipedia stating that cars with bumper stickers on them are "67% more likely" to suffer rear-end collisions. Someone sees that and disagrees with the findings. Maybe that person thinks my sample was too small or my tests were faulty or that I didn't have enough fingers and toes to count up the results properly. Is it better for that person to edit my text to read "67% less likely" or to respond to my findings or start a discussion about them?
But in Wikipedia that kind of edit wouldn't stand. It requires you to cite a source for the information you post, or it's quick to get edited out.
Arguing that scientific research papers are not appropriate content for wikis means precisely that I believe scientific research papers are not approprtiate for wikis. Nothing more. Nothing less.
So, you think it's better to have no information on scientific findings then to have it?
Please explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Refusal sh
So, you think it's better to have no information on scientific findings then to have it?
This is why this debate is going nowhere. Taking specific discussion points out of their original context and rephrasing them as absolutes is a debate-ending tactic, not a legitimate response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Refusa
I wasn't taking it out of context.
I am legitimately asking you: why shouldn't you be able to put the results of scientific research on Wikipedia?
As far as I can tell, there are two options: having the info on Wikipedia or not. I would think that it's better to have it on there, even if it there is a debate over how it's edited than not to have it at all. I'm asking you why you think the alternative is true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Refusal should be on credi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Refusal should be on credibili
What the scientists in the OP want is to be able to put *parts* of their paper on Wikipedia, such as useful pictures and graphs. This sort of stuff treads the line, but is often fine if it is informative for the article.
Then, at the bottom, you link to a canonical version of the actual research paper in the References section! Everyone's happy!
Seriously, have you ever really *looked* at Wikipedia? This is standard practice. You pull a bit of information out of a paper to add to a Wikipedia article, and reference it right there. Then the link to the full paper appears at the bottom automatically. It's quite easy to do, and neatly solves your entire objection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am working on under and FDA and DOE grant. While my work will be published in a peer reviewed journal, I will have also submitted progress reports (usually quarterly) which are available to all.
Progress reports may not be pretty with a bow like a peer reviewed manuscript, but it certainly alleviates the issue of taxpayers money/compyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
surely
Time for a rethink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: surely
Copyright law is not quite as draconian as the above might suggest to some ("Fair Use" does provide considerable leeway), but your basic point is quite valid. Why would one who is the author of a paper give away copyright to a publisher without even knowing if the paper will even be later published in a journal?
Having faced this issue numerous times as counsel for a corporation whose scientists routinely prepared papers for publication, my response to journal policies such as this was quite easily stated to them. "We keep the copyright and you get a license to go do your $$ thingy." Each of them squealed like pigs and threatened not to ever publish papers submitted by those in the corporations' employ, but in the end every one of them capitulated once they understood that the license they would receive was more than sufficient to meet all of their "needs".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia has accountability issues.
Wikipedia is hardly regarded as a serious or credible source, and there is little control on how or by whom content may be edited, so why would anyone publish serious or credible work there?
As an IT journalist I've stumbled across a much more appropriate forum, if indeed research scientists are willing to consider publishing work in an open, free are online. It's called citizendium, and it's a fledgling spin-off from wikipedia where the key concepts are accountability, accuracy and collegiality. detail here
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080318/074802570.shtml
The main page is found here
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page
I have no affiliation with the citizendium project, I'm merely hoping to encourage serious scientists who may not be aware of the project to at least go and take a look. It's potential value to the scientific community is not insubstantial.
Regards
N.D.White
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wikipedia has accountability issues.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Fundamentals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wikipedia has accountability issues.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Fundamentals
ps if a moderator could perhaps clean up my mess, that would be wonderful. Thankyou.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about the money.. just like everything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think they should not have even asked the journal this. The journal probably thought that they wanted to publish their article verbatim in a free media.
I don't have problem about writing about things in wikipedia. Every one should undertand that it is not a peer-reviewed publication and thats it. It has its uses regardless and is a lot more accessible than regular scientific journals.
However due to the nature of the wikipedia as a public access media I think it strange that the authors wanted to use original figures at all. They are usually too detailed and confusing for non-scientists to understand. This seems like a lot of hot air about nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]