Archive for the 'academia' category

The Canadian war on public science, basic research and the free and open exchange of scientific information

You would think that such apple pie issues as public science, basic research and the free and open exchange of scientific information would be hard to disagree with. You would think that a resolution in the Canadian parliament would to such effect would meet with resounding support, resulting in a unanimous vote, the room resounding with shouted Yays.

You would think that anyone who would vote nay to such a resolution would be a virtual pariah in an open democratic society, a society that values an informed citizenry and evidence-based decision making.

Apparently you would be wrong. Apparently Canada has become some sort of Mirror Universe when red is green, good is evil, war is peace, science is superstition, sharing is wrong, communication is risky and silence is speech.

Here is a resolution in the Canadian House of Commons from Wednesday, March 20, 2013. It was sponsored by Kennedy Stewart of the NDP, the MP for Burnaby—Douglas in BC.

That, in the opinion of the House: (a) public science, basic research and the free and open exchange of scientific information are essential to evidence-based policy-making; (b) federal government scientists must be enabled to discuss openly their findings with their colleagues and the public; and (c) the federal government should maintain support for its basic scientific capacity across Canada, including immediately extending funding, until a new operator is found, to the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area Research Facility to pursue its unique research program.

The motion was defeated 157 to 137, with the NDP and Liberals all supporting and every single Conservative voting Nay. Including the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.

And most damningly, including Gary Goodyear, the Minister of State for Science & Technology.

The Minister of State for Science and Technology effectively voted against:

  • the free and open exchange of scientific information
  • evidence-based policy-making
  • federal government scientists must be enabled to discuss openly their findings
  • federal government should maintain support for its basic scientific capacity across Canada
  • the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area Research Facility

And don't get me started on muzzling librarians. Which now that I think of it, is likely the next post.
And here are some of my recent posts about the Harper government's war on information in general and science in particular:


20 responses so far

Around the Web: Cool stuff for undergrad science students

Mar 11 2013 Published by under academia, around the web, culture of science, education

I have a son who's currently a first year physics student. As you can imagine, I occasionally pass along a link or two to him pointing to stuff on the web I think he might find particularly interesting or useful. Thinking on that fact, I surmised that perhaps other science students might find those links interesting or useful as well.

By necessity and circumstance, the items I've chosen will be influenced by my son's choice of major and my own interest in computational approaches to science.

If you know of something that undergrad science students might be interested in, please feel free to add it in the comments.

3 responses so far

Friday Fun: An update from the Founder and CEO of World Wide Web, Inc.

Just like the author of this piece, I too attended a recent talk by Cory Doctorow -- a brilliant talk relating the life and death of Aaron Swartz with the theme of his latest novel Homeland -- and similarly I often marvel at how lucky we are that the web is free and open.

Enjoy this wonderful little satire and shudder at the possibilities.

The World Wide Web is Moving to AOL!

The World Wide Web has been great, but to be honest, it's also been a lot harder than it needs to be. I know some of you love creating new web pages and participating in online discussions, but the last thing most people want when they get home is one more thing that makes them work. That's why television is so much more popular.


Our team will be working with first-class partners to bring you the content you deserve, from the best magazines in the checkout isle to in-depth reporting from your favorite network news programs. We want your new World Wide Web to be a place you can trust.

As Dave Winer says (quoted in the postscript), "Ask not what the Internet can do for you, ask what you can do for the Internet."

No responses yet

Around the Web: Updated list of posts about the Aaron Swartz story, in chronological order

(This post supersedes the previous post listing items related to the Aaron Swartz story. That post was from January 20, 2013.)

A few comments.

Aaron Swartz's story has had a huge impact, it has reverberated far and wide not just through the interlinking worlds of technology and online activism but far into the mainstream. The library world has been no exception, with quite a few of the items below being from our world.

How has the library world reacted? If anything, I would hope that we have been challenged to examine our core values very carefully, to reflect deeply about how we make collections decisions for our communities, how we balance their short term needs with our longer term goals to reform scholarly communications. After all, we're not trying to create a fairer, more open system purely for our own edification, but because it will ultimately benefit our communities as well. And I define communities very broadly, not just to include the institutions we work at but the larger context in which our institutions operate.

If we have learned anything from this tragedy, it's that we need to redouble our efforts to make the entire body of scholarly information accessible not only to our institutions but to all the people of the world. We're getting there but with Aaron Swartz's inspiration, we can get the job done.

Bohyun Kim asks whether academic libraries have become too comfortable with the status quo:

Too-comfortable libraries do not ask themselves if they are serving the public good of providing access to information and knowledge for those who are in need but cannot afford it. Too-comfortable libraries see their role as a mediator and broker in the transaction between the information seller and the information buyer. They may act as an efficient and successful mediator and broker. But I don’t believe that that is why libraries exist. Ultimately, libraries exist to foster the sharing and dissemination of knowledge more than anything, not to efficiently mediate information leasing. And this is the dangerous idea: You cannot put a price tag on knowledge; it belongs to the human race. Libraries used to be the institution that validates and confirms this idea. But will they continue to be so in the future? Will an academic library be able to remain as a sanctuary for all ideas and a place for sharing knowledge for people’s intellectual pursuits regardless of their institutional membership? Or will it be reduced to a branch of an institution that sells knowledge to its tuition-paying customers only? While public libraries are more strongly aligned with this mission of making information and knowledge freely and openly available to the public than academic libraries, they cannot be expected to cover the research needs of patrons as fully as academic libraries.


If libraries do not fight for and advocate those who are in need of information and knowledge but cannot afford it, no other institution will do so. Of course, it costs to create, format, review, and package content. Authors as well as those who work in this business of content formatting, reviewing, packaging, and producing should be compensated for their work. But not to the extent that the content is completely inaccessible to those who cannot afford to purchase but nevertheless want access to it for learning, inquiry, and research. This is probably the reason why we are all moved by Swartz’s Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto in spite of the illegal implications of the action that he actually recommended in the manifesto.

And Jenica Rogers sees a parallel between the circumstances surrounding Swartz's death and her own experiences with cancelling American Chemical Society journals:

I spent 11 years paying ACS invoices because in my case, at my institutions, my professional responsibility to do right by my users meant I needed to keep paying. Last year I encountered a rare moment in which my professional responsibility and my philosophical beliefs about my profession lined up, and I had the opportunity to not only continue doing my job well, but to do it right. We in libraries don’t have those moments all that often, those moments when we can do it right guilt-free, in a profession in which the rest of academia drives many of our decisions… and the rest of academia has been ignoring the reality Swartz saw and railed against. But maybe they’re seeing it. Maybe we’re all seeing it. Maybe, just maybe, they don’t want to live in that world either.

And so maybe, just maybe, we won’t have to.

Keep on believing. Keep on asking hard questions. Keep on challenging authority. Keep on fighting.

And, this I hope: May no more idealists be driven to suicide by an irrational, over-reactive, and hysterical government and industry response to challenge. EVER.

"Keep on believing. Keep on asking hard questions. Keep on challenging authority. Keep on fighting."

Some general resources.


The story:

(This is a very long list. There are 263 items in list of posts that tell the story. This update has added 140 items to the previous list. But please do feel free to suggest ones I've missed or to point out any errors I've made.)

Update 2013.03.03. Added one item from today.

4 responses so far

Friday Fun: The 5 Most Badass Things Ever Done in the Name of Research

Feb 22 2013 Published by under academia, culture of science, friday fun

Cracked is as Cracked does. Especially in this case, where some researchers do some especially cracked things. Or more precisely, things they only could have thought of after being cracked on the head.

Librarian researchers, don't try this at your library!

The 5 Most Badass Things Ever Done in the Name of Research

5. Thor Heyerdahl Crosses the Pacific Ocean on a Raft

On the 101st day, they made it. The "boat" hit a reef in French Polynesia and beached on an uninhabited island. But it didn't prove his point; even though Heyerdahl had proved that the journey was possible, no one believed that this was actually how Polynesia was populated. Science basically patted him on the head for trying his best and told him to run along. Only recently has DNA testing revealed that there was definitely some DNA swapping between Polynesians and South Americans before Europeans made it to the islands in 1722, so everyone would decide that he was at least partially right, decades later. Totally worth it.

4. Alain Bombard Shipwrecks Himself on Purpose

3. Graham Hoyland Climbs Mount Everest With No Modern Gear

2. Tom Avery Sleds to the North Pole Using 1909 Methods

1. Well, you'll just have to click over to find out for yourself...

What's your favourite badass thing done in the name of research -- especially badass things you've done yourself!?

One response so far

Publisher hits new low: Suing librarian for criticizing their books

So here's the rather strange story.

Way back in 2010, librarian Dale Askey, then of Kansas State University, wrote a blog post critical of the humanities monograph publisher Edwin Mellen. Basically, he stated that the publishers' low quality did not justify their high prices. No big deal, really, librarians have lots of opinions about publishers and share them all the time around the water cooler, at conferences and online. But perhaps foreshadowing what was coming, Askey remarked in his post: "Given how closely Mellen guards its reputation against all critics, perhaps I should just put on my flameproof suit now."

Fast forward to 2012, with Askey now Associate University Librarian at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario:

Edwin Mellen Press, an academic publisher with offices in upstate New York and Britain, filed two lawsuits in June in Ontario’s Superior Court. The first implicates Askey and McMaster, his current employer and employer for some of the time the blog post was live, as "vicariously liable" for his statements, and claims libel and exemplary damages in the amount of $3.5 million. A second suit, filed against Askey alone, claims more than $1 million in similar damages (the individual suit names Herbert Richardson, press founder, as plaintiff and alleges additional, defamatory remarks directed against him personally on the blog).


Suing a librarian for being critical about your products is clearly a massive overreaction. There are better ways to respond, surely.

But here we are. Academic librarians have academic freedom in their positions to protect us from just this sort of undue influence on the exercise of our judgement while doing our jobs. This intimidation is unacceptable.

So what are next steps? First of all, we should all keep up the pressure on blogs and twitter and other places online. It would be great to see more faculty blogging and tweeting about this, and faculty all across the disciplinary map too. Librarians work for the interests of their entire campus constituency and I'd hate to think this could set any sort of precedent.

Sign the petition, if you're so inclined. I have. And most of all, we should continue to air our honest opinions about publishers and their products, both in person and online.

As is my occasionally obsessive practive, I've gathered the various commentaries I've seen around the web below.



The story chronologically:

If I've made any errors in the above list or missed any other relevant items, please let me know in the comments or at jdupuis at yorku dot ca.

(Academic librarianship is a small world. I've met Dale Askey once or twice at conferences.)

Update 2013.02.10. Added a bunch I missed.
Update 2013.02.11. Added another bunch, some new and some I missed.
Update 2013.02.13. More added, mostly new with a few stragglers.
Update 2013.02.13. Added MUALA statement.
Update 2013.02.13. Added OCULA statement.
Update 2013.02.14. More added, mostly new and a few older ones.
Update 2013.02.15. More added.
Update 2013.02.20. Fairly sizable update, including a couple of more historical background items at the end of the General section.
Update 2013.02.27. More added, all from February 19th on.
Update 2013.03.17. Big update with 60ish items added.
Update 2013.03.30. Update mostly about threatening letter to The Scholarly Kitchen. The withdrawn posts are here and here
Update 2014.02.24. Big update, long delayed. Prompted by Dale Askey being awarded the 2014 Award for the Advancement of Intellectual Freedom in Canada and the Progressive Librarians Guild Toronto Area Chapter being awarded the Les Fowlie Intellectual Freedom Award. Both are richly deserved. Since it's been so long since I've updated, there's probably a greater than average chance I've missed stuff. Please let me know in the comments or at jdupuis at yorku dot ca.

23 responses so far

Around the Web: Aaron Swartz chronological link roundup

The recent death of Aaron Swartz has provoked a lot of commentary on the web so I thought I would gather some of it here. This is by no means an attempt to be comprehensive as the amount of commentary has been truly vast. I've tried to gather enough so that someone working through even a small selection of the posts would get a good idea of all the dimensions of the story. I've also tried to perhaps give a bit of a library/academia slant in the selection.

As usual with these compilations, readers should feel free to suggest further readings in the comments especially those that add a dimension that I've missed.

My own personal thoughts are here: Library vendors, politics, Aaron Swartz, #pdftribute

Some general resources.


The story:

One response so far

Library vendors, politics, Aaron Swartz, #pdftribute

On January 10, 2013 Rick Anderson published a post at The Scholarly Kitchen published on six mistakes library staff are making when dealing with our vendors. Most of them were fairly standard stuff like don't be rude, don't waste people's time. That sort of thing. (Yes, sometimes I think that every time I link to a Scholarly Kitchen article, an open access journal loses its wings.)

The sixth, however, was a bit different.

Putting political library concerns above patron needs. I’ve saved for last the “mistake” that I know is likely to be the most controversial, but I think it must be said. Because the issue is so complicated, this will be a topic for a full post at a later date, but for now I’ll just say that it has long seemed to me (and comments from my vendor-side informants seem to confirm it) that too often, we in libraries put politics ahead of mission and service. By “politics,” I mean our personal views about how the world ought to be, and more specifically our views about how the scholarly communication economy ought to be structured. Again, I realize that this is a very complicated, even fraught, issue, and I also realize that one’s beliefs about how scholarly communication ought to be shared will inevitably have some effect on the purchasing decisions one makes on behalf of the library and its constituents. The question isn’t whether politics ought to enter into such decisions. The question is one of balance. More specifically, the question is: To what degree is it appropriate to sacrifice the short-term good of our patrons in the pursuit of long-term economic reform in scholarly publishing (or vice versa)? I will write more about this soon, but for now I’ll simply say that it seems clear to me that, in too many cases, we are making that sacrifice in an ill-advised way.

Basically, don't challenge vendors when it comes to creating a fairer, more open scholarly communications ecosystem if that goal conflicts with short term patron needs. (Some other reactions to the Scholarly Kitchen post: Jacob Berg, Wayne Bivens-Tatum.)

Upon reading this, I'll admit to being curious as to exactly what examples of this behaviour Anderson had in mind. After all, "we are making that sacrifice in an ill-advised way."

His response (And some of Anderson's other relevant writings here, here and here.):

One example would be when a library chooses to maintain conventional interlibrary loan practices at a per-transaction cost of $20 rather than take advantage of a $5 short-term loan option, based on the belief that giving up ILL would endanger traditional first-sale rights in the ebook realm. Another might be canceling a high-demand Big Deal package—not because it’s no longer affordable, but because the library wants to help undermine the Big Deal model in the marketplace or believes that the publisher in question is making unreasonable profits. (And yes, I know of specific examples of both of those decisions being made in research libraries.)

I’m not saying either one of those decisions is wrong. But each one does constitute the sacrifice of a definite, short-term, and local benefit in favor of a theoretical, long-term, and global benefit, and the appropriate balance between those two sets of considerations is what I think could usefully be discussed.

Fair enough. Defending first sale rights in a era of licensed ebooks and patron driven acquisitions is very likely tilting at windmills. That battle may be more important in public libraries than academic libraries, so I'll grant that the short term/long term issue is difficult to decide here. The second example is more problematic. I'm assuming he's referring to something like the decision by SUNY Potsdam to cancel their American Chemical Society subscription in the face of unsustainable price increases. Those kinds of price increases aren't in our patron's best interests in anything beyond a ridiculously short time frame and here I think the best course is to work with those patron communities to push for reform together. Our political responsibility as librarians, as academics, as faculty at our institutions, as members of society, is to find ways to maintain the long term viability of the academic enterprise.

Balance, of course, is important here. We can't cut off our noses to spit our faces. But it's also possible to go too far with a false notion of what balance might be. In a sense we need a higher level of balance, a meta-balance if you will, that enables us to both do our best to take care of the short term needs of our communities but at the same time empowers us to make hard decisions with our communities that serves a wide range of long term needs.

The primary long term need I'm talking about, one that embraces all of society, nationally and internationally, is a fairer and more open scholarly communications ecosystem. Our vendors are just that -- our vendors. They aren't our friends, they aren't our colleagues, they aren't our patrons, serving them isn't our mission. We aren't on the same side. Some vendors share many of the same values that we do, some not so much. They provide us with products and services, we pay their bills. And that's OK. A fair profit is OK too, for the commercial publishers. Not making mistakes in our dealings with them is important. Helping them build better products and services is fine too. Solid, respectful and productive professional relationships are vital. Even a certain amount of friendliness and collegiality.

As for "political," in my books every decision in this context is political. Deciding against activism is just as political as deciding for it.

Which brings us to Aaron Swartz.

By this point in time, pretty well anyone reading this probably knows the story. A couple of years ago, Swartz improperly downloaded a very large chunk of the JSTOR database from the MIT network, violating the JSTOR terms of service. While JSTOR declined to pursue the matter once he returned the files, MIT and the US Attorney's office continued to pursue charges, with the trial upcoming. Had he been found guilty, he would have faced very serious jail time. On January 11, 2013 he committed suicide. It's obviously difficult to know how much his legal problems were a factor, but it seems that they did to some extent.

Swartz worked tirelessly during his short life to promote innovation, openness and access to all sorts of information. What he did in this particular case was clearly an act of guerrilla open access.

Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world’s entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You’ll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.

There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. Everything up until now will have been lost.

That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to children in the Global South? It’s outrageous and unacceptable.

“I agree,” many say, “but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it’s perfectly legal — there’s nothing we can do to stop them.” But there is something we can, something that’s already being done: we can fight back.

Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.

Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by the publishers and sharing them with your friends.

But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It’s called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn’t immoral — it’s a moral imperative. Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.

Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who can make copies.

There is no justice in following unjust laws. It’s time to come into the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture.

We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access.

With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we’ll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?

Aaron Swartz
July 2008, Eremo, Italy

While personally I'm pretty solidly with Peter Suber on this issue and not a big fan guerilla OA, Swartz's ultimate goal is something I completely agree with. That goal was to make scholarly research available to everyone.

But why is it important? Why am I writing this post?

Because at the end of the day, love him or hate him, agree or disagree with his methods, what Aaron Swartz did was a political act. Aaron Swartz's was on the side of the angels.

And we -- academic libraries and librarians -- should be too. Our political acts will be different, they may be more measured, more balanced, more gradual, more nuanced, more collaborative, more respectful of the law, but political they will be. And focused on the same objective.

Speaking of objectives, what should we all do next? Libraries and librarians should continue our open access activism, pressuring publishers and governments towards business models and policies that promote openness. Taking advantage of the #pdftribute moment, we should support our faculty and researchers in choosing open options for disseminating their research. Jonathan Eisen's has some great suggestions in Ten simple ways to share PDFs of your papers #PDFtribute and 10 things you can do to REALLY support #OpenAccess #PDFTribute.

What side of history do we want to be on?

8 responses so far

A year in Open Access advocacy: 2012

While it has not generally been my practice to do year end review posts, artificially trying to tie the various and disparate strands of my blogging habits together into some sort of coherent story, I think for this year it's worth doing. And that's because my blogging year did seem to have a coherent theme -- advocating for a fairer and more just scholarly publishing ecosystem.

In particular I spent an awful lot of time advocating for Open Access in one way, shape or form. Not that I haven't always done so, but with all the various events happening in the academic and library worlds this year, it seemed to be a fairly consistent thread. Of course, not all the advocacy was directly for OA, some was for general reform of the scholarly communications system as a whole, redressing the imbalance between the power of publishers and libraries. Sometimes it was advocating for general fairness in the way the online world is regulated and governed.

At the end of the day -- hindsight tells me that my mission for 2012 was to talk about changing the world.

Let's see how that played out, month by month, post by post.























One of the big stories of the year was certainly the proposed Research Works Act legislation in the US, a story which took on a huge life of it's own, morphing and expanding into the related Elsevier boycott story. When I started collecting posts for those I really did not know what I was getting myself into as the searching and updating really took up the lion's share of my blogging time in the early part of the year. Believe it or not, I have probably more than 100 posts up to June 2012 or so waiting to be added. And still related to that is the whole Open Access petition campaign which I also participated in and blogged about later on in the year.

During the summer, the PeerJ announcement was something I blogged about. And the big story from the last half of the year was the SUNY Potsdam cancelling of their ACS subscriptions because they were too expensive. That  issue consumed the library blogosphere for quite a while in the fall and if the blogging traffic seems to have decreased I still don't think we've heard the last of the crisis in journal subscription costs, especially as it relates to the ACS. And who knows, maybe more publishers will be drawn into that.

And as the year ends, I'm drawn back into my futurological speculations, thinking about how science publishing should evolve and related to that, still thinking and still writing about how libraries could evolve. But that's for January, I hope.

One response so far

Building a new scholarly communications ecosystem from first principles

Like the old saying goes, information wants to be free. In particular, the consumers of information would prefer for the most part not to have to directly pay for the information they are consuming. The information itself, if I may anthropomorphize for a moment, also wants to circulate as freely as possible, to be as consumed as widely as possible, to be as highly regarded as possible. That way it gets to be the information that "wins" the best-used-most-used information sweepstakes.

This seems to me to be a first principle for scholarly communications. Both the users of the information and the information itself strongly prefer that there be no toll access barrier between them.

On the other hand, the old saying also tells us that information wants to be expensive. In particular, good information is non-trivial to create so its creators would prefer to be fairly compensated for their effort. Information is also expensive because there are genuine overheads involved in endorsing, validating and disseminating the information.

And this should also be a first principle for scholarly communications. There needs to be a way to properly fund the dissemination of information.

In the traditional scholarly communications ecosystem, the true creators of the information -- the scholars -- aren't directly compensated. Broadly speaking, their salaries are paid by the funders of their research, not the consumers or disseminators of their research outputs. Also, the relative prestige that accrues to them isn't funded directly by anyone really, but is a result of the value that the consumers place on their information relative to other information. As such, it seems to me that how the scholars pay their bills and earn prestige doesn't need to be directly connected to the rest of the ecosystem and as such isn't a first principle.

And speaking of traditional, there's another sticky bit. What about intermediaries like publishers and libraries? It seems both of these would prefer that information be expensive, to preserve their symbiotic roles in the ecosystem. Charging for publishing scholarship as well as validation and the conferring of prestige on the the part of publishers. And on the part of libraries by redirecting funder monies towards those publishers for their services.

Is there a first principle for publishers and libraries? It seems to me that they can certainly play an important role in the facilitation and implementation of the other first principles but that perhaps the intermediary role isn't itself a first principle.

At this point we are left with very few first principles. We're left with the requirement for no toll access barriers to information. And with the burden to create a funding model that does not impose those toll access barriers.

Now comes the hard part. For which my wisdom alone is not sufficient.

Have at it everyone!


I present a few readings below that will perhaps offer some guidance to us all. As always, I welcome suggestions for more.

(And thanks to Constance Wiebrands for getting me thinking about first principles. And there's more to come.

Some of my own recent thoughts are Whither Science Publishing and An Open Access thought experiment. I include them here rather than above because I didn't want to get too explicit in the text.

And for Ontario readers, this post forms the basis for the OA breakout session I'll be doing next week at Scholars Portal Day.)

(Terms I didn't use in this post: book, journal, article, peer review, impact factor, metrics, editor, subscription, open access, author pays, big data, the name of any publisher or discipline.)

One response so far

« Newer posts Older posts »