Fighting To Free Knowledge Paid For By Taxpayers -- And Winning
from the adding-a-pebble-to-the-cairn dept
One of the pioneers of open access is Michael Eisen, who helped found what has become the leading open access publisher, Public Library of Science, back in 2000. Since then, he's been a pugnacious defender of the public's right to read the research it has paid for, so perhaps it's no surprise that he decided to take direct action in the following case involving NASA:
The Mars Curiosity rover has been a huge boon for NASA -- tapping into the public's fascination with space exploration and the search for life on other planets. Its landing was watched live by millions of people, and interest in the photos and videos it is collecting is so great, that NASA has had to relocate its servers to deal with the capacity.
It's a great point: here was a fantastic opportunity to build on the evident excitement among the general public brought about by the Mars Rover project, and to deepen people's interest in science, and yet NASA prevented that by stupidly locking up its papers behind a paywall. Eisen decided to do something about it:
So what does NASA do to reward this outpouring of public interest (not to mention to $2.5 billion taxpayer dollars that made it possible)? They publish the first papers to arise from the project behind a Science magazine's paywallThis whole situation is even more absurd, because US copyright law explicitly says that all works of the federal government -- of which these surely must be included -- are not subject to copyright. So, in the interests of helping NASA and Science Magazine comply with US law, I am making copies of these papers freely available here
Unlike the tragic story of Aaron Swartz, who also believed that knowledge should be shared, this one has a happy ending:
As of today [27th September] these articles are now available to download from the JPL [Jet Propulsion Laboratory] website. I assume this was done in response to this post and the attention it received. (They were not there on the 26th when the press releases went out -- I looked. And you can see from the PDFs that they weren't downloaded from the Science website until the 27th.) Let's hope that in the future that all NASA papers -- and indeed the results of all government funded research -- are made immediately freely available.
It's great news that Eisen's actions did not end in the usual legal threats from publishers, but in the release of the papers on the JPL site. However, as he points out, this isn't about a few papers from NASA, however interesting they may be. This is about free access to all research that the public funds. Despite huge advances over the last decade, we're still some way from achieving that, which makes Eisen's latest victory for open access all the more welcome.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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
Filed Under: knowledge, michael eisen, nasa, open access, publishing, taxpayer funding
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The real win would be for the practice to cease and the works to be published in the open for free from the beginning, not after somebody had to make noise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who to manage this output
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keep the stories coming
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JPL employees are not government employees
Good on them for doing the right thing, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Who to manage this output
Subscription-based publishers argue that OA publishers are merely check-cashing operations - no reviewing, just send 'em money and they'll post anything you send online. OA publishers claim subscription-based publishers game the peer-review process by sending potentially sensational articles to sympathetic reviewers. Michael Eisen writes about this scientific knife fight.
Peer-review seems to be a fractal of a larger issue online: believability and reputation. Perhaps the science community would benefit from looking at reputation systems built into online commerce (e.g., eBay) and personal reviewing of the reviewers (e.g., upvoting/downvoting).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simple Solution
So very simple- JPL will not list itself as an author in future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Who to manage this output
> merely check-cashing operations
They would, wouldn't they now... Are you talking about the "expose" done by Science magazine (as seen on Slashdot)?
As many people on Slashdot noticed, this study only answers the question "Are there open-access science journals which are substandard?" and not the real question which is "Are there proportionally more substandard open-access journals compared to traditional ones?". For example, it is well-known that some traditional journals have been mere fronts for special interests (e.g., pharmaceutical companies).
Your idea about copying reputation models from the Web is quite interesting, I have to admit I thought about that also.
[ link to this | view in thread ]