
Harvard Faculty Adopts Open-Access Requirement 147
Vooch writes "Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences adopted a policy this evening that requires faculty members to allow the university to make their scholarly articles available free online." I may not be smart enough to go to college, but at least I can pretend to have a Harvard eduction. I don't think that will be enough to get a gig as a Simpsons writer.
Do you mean education? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Do you mean education? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Eduction (Score:4, Funny)
eduction [merriam-webster.com] transitive verb
Maybe everyone who attends Harvard has an eduction ceremony before they leave?? I just hope whoever ends up to educting their scholarly articles uses a better method of spell checking. :-P
Nice of Them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
PS FArts&Scienceslol
Re:Nice of Them (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd almost think their purpose was promoting the advancement of human knowledge.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Nice of Them... Open Source? (Score:2)
Would be nice to seem them plow ahead even further into Open Source and give a resurgence to Open Source-friendly magazines, able to cite Harvard faculty/staff/professor/tutor/student achievements and projects.
I bet that would infuriate Gates. Chairs might even start populating Harvard's lawns...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
--Mike
Re:Nice of Them (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with Harvard's finances. In any case Harvard does not make money out of scholarly publications.
This is a coup against publishers, the likes of Elsevier and Springer. What Harvard is saying is that, as a condition of sponsoring research at Harvard, the results MUST be accessible in open form. Hence, when faculty transfer the copyright of their papers to the publishers (a step that happens each time a paper is published), a clause will have to be added that Harvard reserves the right to make the works available in an open access way.
This is great, and other universities are thinking the same (but acting with less courage).
This leaves open the point of why one must transfer copyright when publishing papers -- why would a license to use the content not be enough? But traditionally, faculty and researchers have been slaves to publishers. Harvard's decision is a sign that the balance of power is changing, due to the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just what the opponents of the Bill of Rights said. We need this stuff spelled out, or a generation from now some people will find it convenient to discard the unwritten agreements and will be allowed to get away with screwing the public over because most people are conditioned to obey authority, and believe authority figures when there could be some doubt about the laws and customs. That's why the Magna Carta was written. The king was taking everything because there wasn't anything explicitly lim
Springfield (Score:2)
You mean Springfield's Springfield Alderman Simpson? [illinoistimes.com]
Faculty members can publish in any journal that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Faculty members can publish in any journal that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think their theory is that journals that don't allow this will have to change their policy, as they wouldn't want to lose out on publishing articles from Harvard profs.
Ah, good old fashioned Harvard arrogance. Let's see how long this lasts. In my field, the number of decent journals I can think of that allow open access and reproduction could be counted on the fingers of one hand. After playing with a live hand grenade.
Re:Faculty members can publish in any journal that (Score:5, Interesting)
You call it Harvard arrogance, I call it a noble effort. They have a strong hand, and I think they have every ethical right to attempt to enforce a more open atmosphere of knowledge in the face of academic journals which seem to be working contrary to that end.
Whether anything comes with it is another matter, but I'm glad they're trying.
It's *BIG*! (Score:5, Insightful)
Junior faculty, in particular, are currently *forced* to publish in the "best" journal they can, with the bulk of those being the "sign it over" variety. To publish in a lesser journal is to risk tenure.
Now, suddenly, the University is providing a new list of top journals, and tenure will come from posting to the rest of those.
The academic publishing industry is a dinosaur in desperate need of elimination. It charges tens of thousands of dollars per school for journals that would be more useful as web sites--, not and available several months earlier. As it exists, journals are for the benefit of the publishing companies, not the world at large, academia, or the authors. The economic model is that the faculty write, are paid nothing, and the libraries pay huge fees to the publishing houses.
Will the publishers react to open up? I doubt it; they can't.
The *real* result of this will be top articles going to online journals, which will first rival and then displace the printed journals. This is a good thing for everyone except the publishing houses.
hawk, formerly junior faculty but now back in practice and paid well enough that *his* kids can go to school, too
ack, a bit more (Score:2)
The big deal is that this will make it the norm, and the *expectation of the university*, that faculty will publish in freely available journals. Right now this isn't an option to those seeking tenure or promotion. (OTOH, if Harvard suddenly expects faculty to get waivers for most of their articles, the whole thing becomes a bunch of dead letters).
Again, the big deal is that it makes it *possible* for faculty to publish in these journals.
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
There. Does that qualify as understating the importance?
Or, perhaps you meant, "The importance of this *cannot* be overstated"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My university has the same policy, although it is only recommended, not mandatory. So far I had no serious issues, as most publishers will accept copyright forms that retain the right to make the paper available on-line. Change is certainly happening, and it is about time to hop on the band wagon.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The research is paid for by tax payer dollars.
That's not always true in a great many cases. Much research is sponsored by companies or private institutions. And if you think publically funded equates to free public access in this country, go try to stay a night in the White House.
The reviewers work for free. They add literally no value besides their name.
That's true, but it editing and production costs aren't free. Additionally, many, many of the journals published by professional societies (nonprof
Re: (Score:2)
1. A paper is not physical property so the whitehouse analogy is just plain silly.
2. Just because YOU don't value quality above authority does not imply the same intellectual weakness is prevalent amoungst scientists. It does however hint at the kind of sour grapes often expressed by those who lack the insight and/or work ethic required to perform quality research.
3. Allowing anyone with an internet connection to read quality re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is an obvious and important adjustment to the internet.
Go to SSRN and look at the law articles. A lot of very nice ones, the best ones published in a journal that allows a free copy to be distributed. I've seen first hand this trend. Journals will take notice and adjust.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But wouldn't that just accelerate the demise of those journals, since then there would be little reason to subscribe? I know that lately I've been chaffing at the cost of IEEE and ACM journal subscriptions. The main reason I bother is to get access to the articles I need for my research.
This conversation reminds me of the dilemma face
Re: (Score:2)
But wouldn't that just accelerate the demise of those journals, since then there would be little reason to subscribe?
Only if the only value those journals add is distribution. They will still provide a very important role in aggregating articles of interest, so you're not digging through hundreds that you don't care about. They can also provide a forum for criticism and defense of articles.
Distribution is easy money, because you don't have to create anything to gain profit, so I'm sure many of these journals will be upset by this new way of doing things, just like the RIAA companies are upset by even legal music downlo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. Knowing that an article got published in ACM's Transactions on Programming Languages is a great sign that it's a paper worth making time to read. I think it's terribly important that we somehow retain a set of reviewers who
Re:Faculty members can publish in any journal that (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see why Science or Nature should get a pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Faculty members can publish in any journal that (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Faculty members can publish in any journal that (Score:4, Informative)
My understanding of this system is that it's opt-out rather than opt-in. Faculty members retain the copyright to their papers if they're included in the archive, and they have to right to remove them from the archive (opting out). Publishing to many (most?) journals entails signing over the copyright of the final form of the paper to the journal.
It seems entirely conceivable that some journals will require Harvard profs to remove the article from the archive as a condition for publication. On the other hand, in some fields it's common for "working paper" versions of a paper to circulate widely before they are officially published. Official publication does not usually entail the removal of these working paper versions. I suspect that this is part logistical (it's hard to revoke something that's been made available free on the web), part non-competing (the final version of the paper tends to be more polished and you'll almost certainly prefer citing it over the working paper version), and part publicity (it's easy to find working papers, and if you really like it you'll seek out the published version, serving as advertising).
So basically, this archive can serve as a working paper repository for Harvard profs. They don't need to put it up on their own web page or have a website in their field dedicated to it, so hopefully this will make it even more convenient to have research available freely on the web.
Re:Faculty members can publish in any journal that (Score:3, Insightful)
What about those journals (Nature and Science, maybe?) that do not allow this.
They'll just have to change their policy. I'm sure this is really what this whole policy is about. If enough research institutions make this a policy, the journals which have had so much control over controlling publication will have no other choice.
Re:Faculty members can publish in any journal that (Score:4, Informative)
My guess is that within a few more years, all the journals will be preprint-friendly. After all, the journals need the authors more than the authors need them. Any journal that refuses to allow these kinds of policies will find it difficult to attract high-profile publications in coming years.
Re: (Score:2)
Although many journals are not yet supportive for open access (I can't find a preprint policy for Science Magazine), the trend is clearly towards allowing preprint archiving.
Looking at their licensing agreement here. [sciencemag.org] it would appear that you can post your work in a very limited fashion... in some cases you'd need to ask the AAAS for permission to reprint your own material once submitted.
...but I'm not lawyer-shaped, so mayhaps one here can render an opinion...
Re:Faculty members can publish in any journal that (Score:4, Informative)
Overall this is a very good move. The default will now be to publish articles openly, at least "author's versions". Yes, some authors might request the waiver to not do so, but this applies pressure on them and the journals. Very nice, Harvard, hopefully others will follow you soon.
already true in lots of fields (Score:2)
citations please .. (Score:2)
How would Havard publishing online prevent them getting published in Nature or Science. Do you have any citations that say this?
"the author grants AAAS exclusive rights to use and authorize use of the work, but retains actual copyright [sciencemag.org] and substantial reuse rights"
"Nature Publishing Group offers a range of reprints and permissions [nature.com] services for authors, readers, writer
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't have any citations that say that. I was just throwing some high impact factor journal names out there. Furthermore, you misinterpreted the article I think. Harvard would not allow the authors to submit their papers to a journal whose policy didn't allow Harvard to post the papers, unless the authors apply for a waiver (as somebody later pointed out in this thread).
Not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully, we'll be able to see some more of this sort of thing in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that the authors themselves feel frustrated as well, since they usually want their work to be as widely available as possible, but at the same time want to publish in leading journals.
Wasn't there some U.S. legislation on this?
Re:Not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We provide, in the western world, a basic education free of charge to everybody. This is in order to impart basic life skills that everybody needs in order to contribute su
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you wish to dispute that also?
It's easy to say "you're wrong"--but one thing I've learned over time is that in order to be taken seriously, one must do two things:
1. Provide substantiation for your opinion. Proof, in other words, why you're more correct than the other gent.
2. Stand behind your words. Take responsibility for what you say, and acknowledge any mistakes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Educators != professional educators (Score:2)
Only people affiliated with a university should be trying to make use of scholarly materials to tell others how they believe the world works.
Is that how you believe the world works? If so, would you continue to make that assertion, or any other assertions, once you get your M.A.?
Educating people is not your concern if you are outside the community of educators itself.
I agree with KublaiKhan that "education is everyone's concern." There's a difference between the community of educators and the community of professional educators; this difference [wikipedia.org] consists of non-professional educators. People who post on forums or wikis are
Re: (Score:2)
You are a moron.
TWW
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I do wonder if this applies only to universities, however. Does it apply to schools which offer bachelor's degrees, but do not offer post-graduate programs? How about community/junior colleges which only offer associate's degrees? High schools? I would posit that the faculty at all of those institutions are also educators, and that both they and the students are in equal need of research
Re: (Score:2)
But I already graduated (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why are you suggesting that the use of scholarly materials be restricted only to those currently enrolled as a student in a university?
Re: (Score:2)
...if you are a mere alumnus, you are not affiliated with a university in such a way that you should be using scholarly materials to make points to others. Just getting a degree without holding a position does not qualify one to do such things.
I sincerely hope that you're just trolling and don't believe this garbage. By your logic, do you imply that an active second-year biology student is more qualified to educate his peers than somebody who holds a PhD with 20 year of experience working at the CDC [cdc.gov]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I see the argument in other places many, many times (and, in fact, there's a 'documentary' by Ben Stein coming out that uses the same thing shortly): "Academia must be wrong because they're ignoring any controversial ideas in favor of their own status quo." This is discussed in the context of the evolution/ID nonsense, but leaving that particular 'controversy' aside, there are other considerations.
Both sides--I'll label them "Ivory Tower" and "S
Re: (Score:2)
Is this not the norm at other universities?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the single stupidest statement I have ever read on
pfft... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
More and more, the tools needed to learn about something are out there and cheap or free, so it kind of the eliminates the "I cannot get access to an education" argument. I think it is fantastic!
Re: (Score:2)
Eduction? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was all set to make a snide comment about the esteemed Mr. Taco's spelling and/or typing abilities, perhaps combined with a Billy Gates Harvard dropout reference, but then I Googled "eduction":
Eduction [thefreedictionary.com]
*Sigh* I am NOT smarter than a fifth grader.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you should be making snide comments about Mr/Mrs Vooch. Yes Taco posted the story, but the submitter wrote the title, introduction, and beginning comments.
Enjoy,
As opposed to . . . (Score:1)
As opposed to being inducted, subjected, injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and selected for the school-for-learning-to-talk-through-your-teeth?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reading d.n.e understanding (Score:2)
They're making PR of federal regulation (Score:1)
Bullshit!! (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I beg to differ. Have you spoken to many Harvard undergraduates recently? There is good reason for the high price (and resultant status) of a Harvard education.
(No, I'm not a Harvard undergraduate/alum/whatever, but I have had to compete with them at a few engineering design competitions, and it's rough! If they aren't getting an education, I don't know where you'd get one!)
Re: (Score:2)
I would think the reason why the students who graduate from harvard are smart is because they were smart before they started school there. They already had the work ethic and the ability to do well in tests and study and a competitive drive to be the best. If you created a college and found a way to attact these type of people they will exceed even if you hire undesirables to teach. Because the students are so driven they will learn the information
Perhaps OP meant, "induction" ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me that's a joke.
Thank God! (Score:2)
It seems to me that it's in everyone's best interest to make this information freely available. Think about it, as a programmer, having access to this information
Great move (Score:2)
I wish the NSF would follow suit (Score:2)
Anyone have an idea whether this has been discussed or might be realistic?
This demonstrates what University is for: (Score:2)
Moving in the Right Direction (Score:3, Informative)
This is a move in the right direction towards an acceptable model of academic publishing. I find it interesting and not surprising that this policy was proposed by a computer science professor, I think this is the open source philosophy spilling over into non-computer-code realms. For those that are not familiar with the publication process, and who might have some misconceptions as to where money and labor comes from, here's a basic rundown:
In order to access the published material, one must have a paid subscription, either individual or institutional, the latter often being tens of thousands of dollars per year per journal, pushing total subscription costs for institutions well into the millions of dollars per year. So, for the revenues generated from both authors paying publishing fees and institutions and individuals paying (often hefty) subscriptions, the journal arranges unpaid peer reviewing and typesets and publishes the manuscript, that's it. In addition to the subscription fees, the journal retains copyright to the works published. So we have a situation where taxpayer-funded research is stuck behind a very expensive wall. In my opinion this research must be freely available to the public, period. The question then is, if journals are not replaced with a different model, who pays them to keep them in business? I propose that the journals be contracted by the federal government and paid directly. Government (whether state or federal in the U.S.) is already paying the journals, both through grant money for author publishing fees as well as institutional subscriptions, but what it is getting is closed to the public. A direct payment keeps the journals in business (they do provide an important service) and the information is publicly available. I don't know how feasible this scheme is, but it's an idea to fix a broken system.
Re: (Score:2)
journal publishers are the problem (Score:2)
So publishers
Missed Opportunity (Score:2)
If you wanted to be a Hollywood writer you missed your opportunity now that the strike is over.
college does not imply intelligence (Score:2)
Since then is formal education correlated with intelligence?
No-longer-leading journals (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, but has someone told the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) this? Here's some excerpts from their policies...
ACM versus Harvard - clash o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PDF [adobe.com] (working toward becoming ISO 32000)
HTML [w3.org] (ISO 8879)
I don't see the problem.