Re: POLITICS Journal Advertising/Integrity of Science

[Guest guest]

>Clearly there are minimal expenses with running a journal,

>like paying people to do the behind-the-scenes adminstrative work,

>but I can't see that this would be so expensive as to warrant the oft-

>cited compromises implicated by pharmaceutical funding.

In a way it doesn't matter what their *expenses* are, their

goal is to turn a profit. Or are some of the journals not-for-profit?

One of my favorite magazines got cancelled because it wasn't

turning a big enough profit for the parent company.

There are some folks that are trying to get more web-based publishing,

with all the articles free for anyone who wants to read them (those

journals are EXPENSIVE, even if the writers are unpaid).

-- Heidi

>

[Guest guest]

And people expect objective reporting in the medical journals even though

most of their advertising comes from the companies that make drugs reported

on.

Methinks I smell a snake.

Judith Alta Kidder

Southwest Michigan

jaltak@...

-----Original Message-----

From: Anton [mailto:michaelantonparker@...]

That's funny! It never even occurred to me that scientific journals

would be used to make a buck! I guess I don't have much insider

experience with them, and certainly not in the med/bio fields!

Thanks for pointing this out!

But of course that's a disgusting way to earn money, and I was

speculating about an ideal for scientific journals, so that's

definitely beyond the pale in my ideal scenario. I think that any

worthwhile discourse is either a labor of love or an obligation for

those who generate content, whether the content generation is done

for love or money. If we had more writers/publications, each only

dealing with the topics they really care about on a non-profit basis,

instead of people who get paid to be " writers " and wind up polluting

the world with anti-knowledge too often, then there would be a

dramatic improvement in the quality and accessibility of information

for everyone. When ordinary people from around world and various

walks of life share information with varying degrees of effort and

sophistication on internet forums like this or no-budget print

publications, you get a much richer knowledge base than a tiny

segment of the population trying to create a facade of expertise and

authority in order to make a living. Information in all its

possible forms should be a natural by-product of ordinary living.

Now I'm pulling my thoughts together more clearly on the science

case: People shouldn't make money off information unless they

actually create the content themselves. The journal publishing

houses don't create content; they only exploit it.

Probably a million holes in these sweeping prescriptions... Maybe

there are problems with the generalizations, but I think the specific

case of scientific journals is a solid argument...

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>If we had more writers/publications, each only

>dealing with the topics they really care about on a non-profit basis,

>instead of people who get paid to be " writers " and wind up polluting

>the world with anti-knowledge too often, then there would be a

>dramatic improvement in the quality and accessibility of information

>for everyone.

Yes, but in a profit-based social system, such an arrangement couldn't

persist. The for-profit journals would have more money for advertising and

brand-building. At the very least, for-profit journals would spring up.

>People shouldn't make money off information unless they

>actually create the content themselves. The journal publishing

>houses don't create content; they only exploit it.

Does that mean you think a magazine shouldn't make money off the articles

it publishes, only the authors should? I'm all for giving authors more of

a piece of the pie and for not ripping them off on new forms of

distribution and whatnot, but I'm not sure how workable your idea (if I'm

understanding it correctly) would be.

If, OTOH, you're complaining about the way public funds are used to support

research which is then put into the commercial domain and rendered partly

or largely unavailable to the non-rich public, then yes, I agree

completely, it's an outrage, and some people have actually begun to try to

establish some public-domain journals to compete with that system.

-

[Guest guest]

>When ordinary people from around world and various

>walks of life share information with varying degrees of effort and

>sophistication on internet forums like this or no-budget print

>publications, you get a much richer knowledge base than a tiny

>segment of the population trying to create a facade of expertise and

>authority in order to make a living.

Actually that's been scientifically proven (and in a publication ???? :-)

Someone analyzed the results of some kind of online football

pool or prediction forum, and that forum was correct more than

any of the experts. Ditto for other forums ... they said if the group

has well-informed participants, the consensus they come to is

generally the most correct.

I think part of the issue with journals is *prestige* -- if I bring

my doc an article from JAMA he believes it. An email he would

not. So it is in JAMAs best interest, in general, to maintain their

prestige (ditto for newspapers). However, that doesn't stop

either one from occasionally being swayed by political, corporate,

or monetary pressure. People are really good at NOT acting

in their own best interest or the best interest of their

employers! It's the old " quick buck vs. long term gain " trap

that humans commonly get caught in.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> Yes, but in a profit-based social system, such an arrangement

couldn't

> persist. The for-profit journals would have more money for

advertising and

> brand-building. At the very least, for-profit journals would

spring up.

@@@@@@@@@@

I think prestige (brand-building) comes from just having big names in

a field publish their work or serve as editors, which doesn't require

money or advertising, just a choice among a certain academic

community to put their name behind a certain forum. It occurred to

me that in non-med fields where pharmaceutical advertising wouldn't

be relevant, most advertising is minimal and for new books or other

journals. I just picked up a random copy of a reputable Linguistics

journal off my bookshelf and there were about 4 ads in the back for

books and that's it.

@@@@@@@@@@ :

> >People shouldn't make money off information unless they

> >actually create the content themselves. The journal publishing

> >houses don't create content; they only exploit it.

>

> Does that mean you think a magazine shouldn't make money off the

articles

> it publishes, only the authors should? I'm all for giving authors

more of

> a piece of the pie and for not ripping them off on new forms of

> distribution and whatnot, but I'm not sure how workable your idea

(if I'm

> understanding it correctly) would be.

@@@@@@@@@

More or less, yeah; of course it makes sense to pay an editor's

salary if it's a profitable magazine, but they shouldn't make more

than the content-generators. And some " publisher " executive type

shouldn't be making any more than the average clerk to do their low-

content job.

@@@@@@@@@@

> If, OTOH, you're complaining about the way public funds are used to

support

> research which is then put into the commercial domain and rendered

partly

> or largely unavailable to the non-rich public, then yes, I agree

> completely, it's an outrage, and some people have actually begun to

try to

> establish some public-domain journals to compete with that system.

@@@@@@@@@@@

Wow, that's a serious point. I didn't really even notice that angle,

but that is an outrage indeed. But of course, (sounding a bit like

Heidi's defense of government public works) it's amazing how much

research is available to the public just from websearches.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>I think prestige (brand-building) comes from just having big names in

>a field publish their work or serve as editors,

That's part of it, but when there's lots of money involved, prestige also

comes from publicity, major speaking engagements and all kinds of other things.

>It occurred to

>me that in non-med fields where pharmaceutical advertising wouldn't

>be relevant, most advertising is minimal and for new books or other

>journals

Certainly -- where there's no money to be had, money can't very well cause

much corruption.

But look at it this way: ENORMOUS quantities of money are at stake in

medical fields; therefore, it's inevitable that some of that money will be

brought to bear on medical journalism in an attempt to buttress profits.

>But of course, (sounding a bit like

>Heidi's defense of government public works) it's amazing how much

>research is available to the public just from websearches.

You can find a fair amount of research on the web and in university

libraries (to the diminishing extent they're open to the public) but look

at the contrast between PubMed, which makes some but not all abstracts

available to the public for free, and Medline, which costs a fortune but

carries the complete text of lots of articles. Since abstracts and the

conclusions therein are often contradicted by the data in the studies,

sometimes even by some of the text in the articles, PubMed is rather

unreliable.

-

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

> You can find a fair amount of research on the web and in university

> libraries (to the diminishing extent they're open to the public)

but look

> at the contrast between PubMed, which makes some but not all

abstracts

> available to the public for free, and Medline, which costs a

fortune but

> carries the complete text of lots of articles. Since abstracts and

the

> conclusions therein are often contradicted by the data in the

studies,

> sometimes even by some of the text in the articles, PubMed is

rather

> unreliable.

> -

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Yeah, that's right; there's are tons of articles I'd love to read

instead of just an abstract, but I'm not in a position to pay the

fees and don't really have a personal *need* in terms of my health.

But for information that could be relevant to a person's health

protocol, it's really infuriating that it would beyond the financial

reach of the average person. What is their option: pay the huge fees

*just in case* the article is relevant to their life or pay the huge

fees of a doctor who probably hasn't done their homework either? In

fact, it figures into the economic nonsequiturs of the health care

system, since a lot of health care can be taken on by intelligent

individuals who can study the extant literature and come to their own

conclusions (optimally in a public forum like this).

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

Anton wrote:

> Yeah, that's right; there's are tons of articles I'd love to read

> instead of just an abstract, but I'm not in a position to pay the

> fees and don't really have a personal *need* in terms of my health.

> But for information that could be relevant to a person's health

> protocol, it's really infuriating that it would beyond the financial

> reach of the average person.

It's not. Anyone can go to a university library to read them.

[Guest guest]

Anton wrote:

> Actually it is true that laziness is my main obstacle, but

> I don't know if everyone's lucky like me with access to a well-

> stocked university library and living in a region of the country with

> a concentration of academic culture. What about someone in the

> middle of, say, Oklahoma whose closest uni is several hours away and

> doesn't even stock many journals anyway, and doesn't offer ILL to the

> public? Maybe public library ILL is the answer? But it's kind of

> crazy if anything's free through that channel but it can't just be

> offered in an infinitely more convenient and efficient electronic

> form.

It's a form of market segregation. If they just put the journals on line

for free or at a low price, nobody would pay the premium for the print

versions. Because you have to jump through the hoops to get access to

them for free, many busy and well-to-do professionals are willing to pay

the premium for the convenience of having their own copies. It's the

same basic principle as rebates. They're counting on wealthier people

not bothering to send in the coupons, thus allowing them to charge

higher prices to those who can afford it.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/8/04 2:54:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

michaelantonparker@... writes:

> Yeah, that's right; there's are tons of articles I'd love to read

> instead of just an abstract, but I'm not in a position to pay the

> fees and don't really have a personal *need* in terms of my health.

> But for information that could be relevant to a person's health

> protocol, it's really infuriating that it would beyond the financial

> reach of the average person.

I don't see how it is. Anyone can just go to a University library and look

at whatever they want for free. I've never heard of a University library that

wasn't open to the public, and I don't see how that would be workable, since

they'd have to have some sort of scanning device just to let you in the

building were it true.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I've seen university libraries that restricted access -- it seems to me that

UWash does, at least for certain collections.

And you make a great assumption if you think that " everyone " has ready

access to a university library. Quite a few folks out there, the rural

dwellers and the transportation- and child care-challenged, find it a big

hurdle to physically get their bodies to anything fancier than a county

branch library to do research. Maybe inter-library loan could work, if you

already know what you want to find...

But, IMHO, if tax dollars paid for the research, it ought to be " out there "

online and free to all comers. These folks

http://www.publiclibraryofscience.com/ are the first best step I've seen in

making that ideal a reality.

<http://www.publiclibraryofscience.com/>

ChrisMasterjohn@... writes:

Anyone can just go to a University library and look at whatever they want

for free. I've never heard of a University library that wasn't open to the

public, and I don't see how that would be workable, since they'd have to

have some sort of scanning device just to let you in the building were it

true.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> I don't see how it is. Anyone can just go to a University library and look

at whatever they want for free. I've never heard of a University library that

wasn't open to the public, and I don't see how that would be workable, since

they'd have to have some sort of scanning device just to let you in the

building were it true. <<

Chris.... reality check. How close do you think the nearest university is to me?

Not everyone is at all close to a university library.

Also, I have attended two universities, Northwestern and UC Berkeley. We had to

show our student IDs to get into the library at Northwestern, or to view or take

out or copy any materials. Students at other colleges could GET access, but they

had to arrange it in advance and get a temporary ID card. And you had to have

staff bring you what you wanted to look at, it wasn't like a public lending

library where the books were just on the shelves.

I believe Berkeley was much easier in access, but I don't remember - I used the

library much less at Cal than I did at Northwestern.

Christie

[Guest guest]

-

>Anyone can go to a university library to read them.

Yes, you keep saying this (as though that would be enough anyway) but it's

increasingly untrue.

-

[Guest guest]

Knowledge is power. (Don't know who said it first "

And as people become increasingly aware of how they have been lied to about

what to eat and what worthless and dangerous drugs they " must " take they

will, one day, take matters into their own hands.

And I feel that day will not be long in coming.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...]

-

>Anyone can go to a university library to read them.

Yes, you keep saying this (as though that would be enough anyway) but it's

increasingly untrue.

-

[Guest guest]

>but I'm not in a position to pay the

>fees and don't really have a personal *need* in terms of my health.

>But for information that could be relevant to a person's health

>protocol, it's really infuriating that it would beyond the financial

>reach of the average person. What is their option: pay the huge fees

>*just in case* the article is relevant to their life or pay the huge

>fees of a doctor who probably hasn't done their homework either?

But in a libertarian society, isn't that the point? You pay for the

stuff you care about? Like private hunting parks?

BTW NASA research was ALL available without fees, at least

until recently, at gov't expense. The current view is " user fees "

for more and more government services, which I take it is

consistent with the Libertarian point of view, at least as

espoused by *some* people here (I can't keep track of who

believes what).

There are groups now that are encouraging researchers to

post their stuff FREE and it seems some researchers are ...

like posting some music free to get exposure. But at least one

of the Democratic candidates posed the ideal of having ALL

governement funded research posted free for anyone who

wanted it. Personally I like the idea of the " public " and think

research that is funded by me should be accessible by me.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

> -

>> Anyone can go to a university library to read them.

>

> Yes, you keep saying this (as though that would be enough anyway)

How is it not enough? Do you want a tax-funded researchmobile to drive

around and hand out free medical journals to anyone who wants them?

> but it's increasingly untrue.

Let's play a game, then. You give me a list of three cities in the US

with populations greater than 250,000, and I'll find a place in or near

each of them where you can read medical journals for free or for a

reasonable price.

By the way, apparently many hospital libraries are also open to the

public.

[Guest guest]

CF Beaver wrote:

> I've seen university libraries that restricted access -- it seems to

> me that UWash does, at least for certain collections.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I was able to walk right into

their medical library and access both their print copies and their

electronic archives.

> And you make a great assumption if you think that " everyone " has ready

> access to a university library. Quite a few folks out there, the

> rural dwellers and the transportation- and child care-challenged,

> find it a big hurdle to physically get their bodies to anything

> fancier than a county branch library to do research.

There are always trade-offs to be made in life. If you live in a rural

area, you have to give up convenient access to all kinds of things. If

you have children, you have to give up some of your free time. You make

choices, and you live by them.

> Maybe

> inter-library loan could work, if you already know what you want to

> find...

Maybe. There are a number of on-line archives that allow you to search

for them.

> But, IMHO, if tax dollars paid for the research, it ought to be " out

> there " online and free to all comers.

Well, you know my solution to that problem. Or maybe you don't, if

you're new here. Everyone else does, though. The idea of tax-funded

research being sold for profit does seem odd, though. Is there anybody

here who actually knows, other than through hearsay and speculation, how

medical journals work?

Berg

[Guest guest]

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

>> but I'm not in a position to pay the

>> fees and don't really have a personal *need* in terms of my health.

>> But for information that could be relevant to a person's health

>> protocol, it's really infuriating that it would beyond the financial

>> reach of the average person. What is their option: pay the huge fees

>> *just in case* the article is relevant to their life or pay the huge

>> fees of a doctor who probably hasn't done their homework either?

>

> But in a libertarian society, isn't that the point? You pay for the

> stuff you care about? Like private hunting parks?

Absolutely. Of course, you have the money for it, because you're not

getting eaten alive by the taxman to pay for all the things you don't

use (or which, like the ones in Russia, use *you*).

> BTW NASA research was ALL available without fees, at least

> until recently, at gov't expense. The current view is " user fees "

> for more and more government services, which I take it is

> consistent with the Libertarian point of view, at least as

> espoused by *some* people here (I can't keep track of who

> believes what).

The problem with government " user fees " is that they're often used not

to replace tax revenue, but to supplement it. If the user fees are

replacing some or all of the tax revenue, then that's great, but if

they're still taking the same amount in taxes and then charging us extra

to support their inefficient management, then that's just a rip-off.

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

> >> I don't see how it is. Anyone can just go to a University

library and look

> at whatever they want for free. I've never heard of a University

library that

> wasn't open to the public, and I don't see how that would be

workable, since

> they'd have to have some sort of scanning device just to let you in

the

> building were it true. <<

>

> Chris.... reality check. How close do you think the nearest

university is to me? Not everyone is at all close to a university

library.

> I believe Berkeley was much easier in access, but I don't remember -

I used the library much less at Cal than I did at Northwestern.

>

> Christie

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Ha, funny coincidence, I was just about to reply to and say

that my old uni (Northwestern) had a very strict entrance policy with

IDs... But I can think of plenty of other examples reported to me by

friends... (Sad thing is that last time I was in the Chicago area I

wanted to stop in real quick and visit a librarian friend but I had

to scratch the idea because I didn't have time to deal with the

hassle of getting in... And I had had a work-study job there too...

hehehe, kind of crazy...)

In my earlier email I mentioned public library ILL but I've never

dealt with this first-hand, so I don't really know if they will get

any kind of journal for you or how broad that service is... (You

should see the bizarre stuff I force my uni ILL to get for me...

hehehe, they never ask why I request all these articles about eating

insects when I'm in the comp sci dept... hehehe unis are the best...)

, that's a lucid point about market segregation. Of course,

it shouldn't be that way, but as points out commercial

exploitation will emerge anywhere it gets a chance, maybe like

bacteria that will grow anywhere they can find a little bit of

something to feed on... Or like water seeking its own level in the

presence of the government's many LEAKS...

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/8/04 11:07:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,

fletcher@... writes:

> I've seen university libraries that restricted access -- it seems to me

> that

> UWash does, at least for certain collections.

They restricted access within the library? I don't see how that's possible.

Did they have special rooms for the journal where they had guards asking for

ID?

At UMass, you can't take journals *out* unless you're a grad student. But

anyone can look at them in house, and if they need to take them home, they can

make copies. I've gone to numerous libraries including ones in other states

and never have come across a library that had any mechanism for even checking

who came in and out of the doors.

> And you make a great assumption if you think that " everyone " has ready

> access to a university library. Quite a few folks out there, the rural

> dwellers and the transportation- and child care-challenged, find it a big

> hurdle to physically get their bodies to anything fancier than a county

> branch library to do research. Maybe inter-library loan could work, if you

> already know what you want to find...

I'm not sure how many people in such a situation are actually interested in

tracking down journal articles, but anyone with a car has access to a

college/university library.

> But, IMHO, if tax dollars paid for the research, it ought to be " out there "

> online and free to all comers.

That's only logical if tax dollars paid for the publication. Since a

publication shouldn't discriminate between the funders of the research it

publishes,

that's somewhat unreasonable.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/8/04 11:11:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> Chris.... reality check. How close do you think the nearest university is

> to me?

I have no idea. There are probably about 10 college libraries within an hour

from me (even a community college would carry the popular medical journals).

But that isn't the point. If you really are interested in doing research,

you can simply save all the abstracts you find from pubmed, and once every three

months take a 3 hour trip to get all the full-texts you want. Is that

*easy*? No. But it shouldn't be *too* easy, or no one would pay for the

publications.

There may be *some* university libraries with restricted access, but since

I've never seen one, I doubt it's very common, in terms of a percentage.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>Ha, funny coincidence, I was just about to reply to and say

that my old uni (Northwestern) had a very strict entrance policy with

IDs... <<

LOL, yes, it is a coincidence! Of course, maybe NU is limiting entrance due to

the fact that the library is sinking into the lakefill. <G>

Or have they fixed that in the 20 years since I was there?

Christie

[Guest guest]

I don't think anything's been fixed, and as far as I recall those

mumblings and rumours were intact! About the coolest looking

building I've ever seen though...

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

> >>Ha, funny coincidence, I was just about to reply to and say

> that my old uni (Northwestern) had a very strict entrance policy

with

> IDs... <<

>

> LOL, yes, it is a coincidence! Of course, maybe NU is limiting

entrance due to the fact that the library is sinking into the

lakefill. <G>

>

> Or have they fixed that in the 20 years since I was there?

>

> Christie

[Guest guest]

>> About the coolest looking

building I've ever seen though... <<

I think that's why I could never get into using the library at UC Berkeley.

After the library at Northwestern, it just seemed so dark and old and

inefficient. I confess this California girl ran screaming into the night at most

things at NU, most especially the WINTERS, but I do have fond memories of the

library!

Christie

[Guest guest]

The Journal itself need not be put out for free.

That does not mean that the studies should not be free. The Feds could set

up a searchable web site for the express purpose of posting studies in their

entirety, along with the abstracts and summaries, that have been paid for by

tax dollars.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

[snip]

> But, IMHO, if tax dollars paid for the research, it ought to be " out

there "

> online and free to all comers.

That's only logical if tax dollars paid for the publication. Since a

publication shouldn't discriminate between the funders of the research it

publishes,

that's somewhat unreasonable.

Chris