Subject: Re: exploitation of "Auditory List" as a free "Article Request" list From: Steve Beet <steve.beet@xxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 17:51:32 +0100 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>Hi Lance, I'm sorry I obviously hit a nerve with you. That was not my intention. In fact, the statements you objected to were not even meant to be the main thrust of my post. I can argue with you about them if you want, but this really isn't the place for it - we're getting further and further off-topic. And just to put the record straight, yes I am a member of the IEEE, as are hundreds of thousands of other engineers around the world. Unfortunately my relationship with the IEEE consists almost entirely of me giving them membership fees and paying for subscriptions to their publications. If you want to accuse me of doing a PR job to help them fill their coffers with your hard-earned grant money, I wish you would check your facts first. Incidentally, I won't hold your "att.net" email address against you if you don't hold the IEEE or any of my other professional memberships against me! ;-) Steve Beet On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:07:39 -0700 Iftikhar Nizami <nizamii2@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > With regard to the very recent comments by Steve Beet - > > 1) "Legitimate" fees to the journals? First of all, the journals get all of > their material at the expense of the taxpayers and/or the authors. Secondly, the > fees demanded by journals for viewing and/or download of online papers - and for > institutional print subscriptions, for that matter - have become so outrageous > that an entire movement for fee-free publication has taken hold (see recent news > articles in Science or in Nature). The publication houses - or their clients > such as IEEE, for example - are in no danger of going bankrupt anytime soon. > > 2) "Days" is indeed far too long to wait for a relevant paper when a deadline is > looming and some significant point has to be supported. Not everyone has the > luxury of time. > > 3) I note that Steve Beet has an IEEE.org email address, which suggests a > connection to that organization, which has its own line of journals. - Lance > Nizami PhD, Palo Alto, California > > > > ________________________________ > From: Steve Beet <steve.beet@xxxxxxxx> > To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx > Sent: Mon, August 6, 2012 7:23:12 AM > Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] exploitation of "Auditory List" as a free "Article > Request" list > > I don't think this needs to be explicitly set down in the rules of the list. > However, I do suspect that this, and most similar lists, take it as read that > members will use a little common sense in deciding when it is appropriate to > make a request to the whole list. This applies to all postings, not just > requests for reprints. > > I too would encourage people to ask for hard-to-find and seminal papers in this > way. In fact I would go further and encourage anyone who comes across such > papers to make them available to the whole list (copyright permitting) once > they've been found. > > However, recently (on this list) the requests for papers HAVE been getting a > little out of hand, and I've had the distinct impression that some of the > requests have been made out of simple laziness, and/or unwillingness to pay > legitimate fees to the journals who rely on such payments to keep their services > going. > > I don't think "days" is too long to wait for a paper which probably took many > months to be written and published in the first place! > > Steve Beet > > > > On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 05:49:11 -0700 > Marcelo Caetano <gaiolouvo-auditory@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Dear Bruno and list, > > my point exactly. I don't agree that article requests on the list can be > >characterized as abuse. I actually think that it's rather arbitrary to do so > >given that, currently, there are no guidelines on http://www.auditory.org/ (or > >anywhere else that I'm aware of). Consequently, the way the members use the list > >currently dictates how the list is used. Maybe we should all discuss and agree > >on guidelines for all the members to follow rather than give our personal > >opinions? > > > > In time, writing the authors to request PDFs might work, but it can take days. > >Sometimes the authors have academic webpages where you can find (and download) a > >copy of their publications. > > > > Marcelo > > > > > > >________________________________ > > > De: Bruno L. Giordano <brungio@xxxxxxxx> > > >Para: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx > > >Enviadas: Segunda-feira, 6 de Agosto de 2012 15:02 > > >Assunto: Re: [AUDITORY] exploitation of "Auditory List" as a free "Article > >Request" list > > > > > >Hello, > > > > > >independently of how we feel about intellectual property issues, Brian's > > >message is a useful (and constructive) reminder that this system should > > >not be abused. > > > > > >Best, > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > >On 06/08/2012 12:38 PM, Marcelo Caetano wrote: > > >> Dear Brian and members of the list, > > >> I disagree with Brian's characterization of article requests as "rather > > >> excessive use of this list for obtaining articles". Personally, I have a > > >> hunch that the frequent article requests might better reflect flaws in > > >> the library system (amongs others) rather than plain laziness. > > >> Unfortunately, I don't have data to confirm this impression (does > > >> anyone?). However, we usually see immediate responses to article > > >> requests made on the list, in opposition to the alternatives Brian > > >> points out. Ultimately, I feel that this discussion is very in line > > >> with ongoing debates on issues about intellectual and property rights, > > >> and I think we all could very much benefit from actively engaging in it. > > >> Marcelo Caetano > > >> > > >> *De:* Brian FG Katz <brian.katz@xxxxxxxx> > > >> *Para:* AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx > > >> *Enviadas:* Segunda-feira, 6 de Agosto de 2012 11:57 > > >> *Assunto:* [AUDITORY] exploitation of "Auditory List" as a free > > >> "Article Request" list > > >> > > >> Dear list members, > > >> > > >> I would like to bring to people's attention the rather excessive use > > >> of this > > >> list for obtaining articles. While I understand that some articles > > >> may be > > >> hard to find, being old, or in obscure journals, the constant flow of > > >> requests for articles that are clearly available, albeit for a fee, is > > >> something of an abuse of the list and also the library system. > > >> > > >> Student especially should profit from the systems in place at their > > >> respective institutions, and if need be actually go to a library. Many > > >> libraries also offer article retrieval services, which should be > *fully* > > >> exploited before make a global request to the open community. > > >> > > >> Students are also encouraged to contact the authors directly to obtain > > >> difficult articles, as a means of expressing interest, and possibly > > >> opening > > >> a dialog. > > >> > > >> Only as a last resort should the list be used as a resource for > "freely" > > >> obtaining your bibliographic references. > > >> > > >> Cordially, > > >> > > >> -Brian FG Katz > > >> -- > > >> Brian FG Katz, Ph.D > > >> Audio & Acoustique > > >> LIMSI-CNRS > > >> BP 133 > > >> F91403 Orsay > > >> France > > >> tel. (+33) 01 69 85 81 55 > > >> fax. (+33) 01.69.85.80.88 > > >> e-mail Brian.Katz@xxxxxxxx <mailto:Brian.Katz@xxxxxxxx> > > >> <mailto:Brian.Katz@xxxxxxxx <mailto:Brian.Katz@xxxxxxxx>> > > >> web_theme: http://www.limsi.fr/Scientifique/aa/thmsonesp/ > > >> web_group: http://www.limsi.fr/Scientifique/aa/ > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >