Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust From: Massimo Grassi <massimo.grassi@xxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 06:59:12 +0200--0000000000000f710205fc695e05 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Matt (et al.), Just to carry on your discussion about authors and reviewers not being paid and journals making profit out of them. Peer Community Inn is an organization providing peer review to preprints: https://peercommunityin.org In practice, a self organized journal without any scientific publisher behind. It is, IMO, a very important initiative: The attempt to bypass scientific publishers altogether. It is very clear to many that publishers make an incredible profit out of the work of editors, reviewers and authors. And often we pay the prestige of the publication. For example, why an open access fully digital publication can cost 800 British pounds in I-Perception and 8490 British pounds in Nature Human Behavior? Note that both publishers give you exactly the same product. We pay for the brand. Note also that Sage too is making a profit when they ask you 800 pounds for I-perception. We should be careful when we spend our public money for a publication. All the best, m On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 06:11, Matt Flax <flatmax@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > This is great Jonathan, > > I'll contact you off list to talk a little more on biorxiv and psyarxiv. > > Just the other day I was approached to review an article - but as you > all know there is no payment for reviewing articles. It is hard for > someone outside of a very large organisation to find the time to review > others articles. This harks back to the discussion around how ripe the > publication system is for disruption. The basic argument goes something > like : The journals are paid to publish and host researcher's articles, > but the journals don't pay reviewers and others involved in the process. > There is nothing propping up the mechanism of publishing at the bottom > end, so the machine will eventually grind to a halt and the top will fall= . > > There are also other common arguments around the right of free access to > research publications for people outside of academic institutions and > large companies. > > In this day and age of online social networks, it really isn't that > difficult to gather a publication's weight directly from citation > frequency and other metrics - no matter where the article is published. > Similarly the comments and opinions of readers can be integrated and > associated with publications on the same site on the internet - without > the need to lengthy antiquated review processes. In my opinion the whole > publication system should be reenvisioned and modernised. > > Aaron Swartz should not have been reprocessed by the fabric of the > west's systems without instigating change. > > Matt > > > On 23/5/23 22:54, Jonathan Z Simon wrote: > > Matt, > > > > In this context I would avoid the term =E2=80=9Cpublishing=E2=80=9D, si= nce that has > > such a different meaning for so many people, but I personally do take > > advantage of posting preprints on a public server (like arXiv) almost > > every chance I get. > > > > Preprints (preprint =3D a fully written paper that is not (yet) > > published) have been useful for many decades, originally in physics, > > as a way of getting one's research results out in a timely manner. > > Other key benefits are that it establishes primacy of the research > > findings, that it is citable in other researchers' papers, and that it > > can be promoted by social media such as this listserve (more below on > > this). But the biggest benefit is typically getting the paper out into > > the world for others to learn from, without having to wait based on > > the whims of publishers and individual reviewers. If most of your > > published papers get accepted eventually, and the most important > > findings don=E2=80=99t get cut in the review process, then preprints ar= e > > something you should definitely consider. Reviewers often make > > published papers better, but maybe not so much better that it=E2=80=99s= worth > > waiting many months for others to see your results. > > > > arXiv is the oldest website for posting preprints, and if its Audio > > and Speech section is active, that might be a good place to post your > > preprints. But there may be other options for you. As an auditory > > neuroscientist I typically use bioRxiv (e.g., "Changes in Cortical > > Directional Connectivity during Difficult Listening in Younger and > > Older Adults=E2=80=9D > > <https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.19.541500>), but I > > also use PsyArXiv if the topic is more perceptual than neural (e.g., > > =E2=80=9CAttention Mobilization as a Modulator of Listening Effort: Evi= dence > > from Pupillometry=E2=80=9D <https://psyarxiv.com/u5xw2>). [See what I m= ean > > about promoting your research on social media?] > > > > I=E2=80=99m sure others have opinions too. > > > > Jonathan > > > > > >> On May 22, 2023, at 6:45 PM, Matt Flax <flatmax@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Is anyone publishing on arXiv at the moment ? It seems that to > >> publish there they rely on a web of trust. > >> > >> There is an Audio and Speech section of arXiv which would suit our > >> community. > >> > >> thanks > >> > >> Matt > > > > -- > > Jonathan Z. Simon (he/him) > > University of Maryland > > Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering / Dept. of Biology > > / Institute for Systems Research > > 8223 Paint Branch Dr. > > College Park, MD 20742 USA > > Office: 1-301-405-3645, Lab: 1-301-405-9604, Fax: 1-301-314-9281 > > http://www.isr.umd.edu/Labs/CSSL/simonlab/ > > > > > --0000000000000f710205fc695e05 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"auto">Dear Matt (et al.),</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div= dir=3D"auto">Just to carry on your discussion about authors and reviewers = not being paid and journals making profit out of them.</div><div dir=3D"aut= o"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Peer Community Inn is an organization provid= ing peer review to preprints:</div><div dir=3D"auto"><div><a href=3D"https:= //peercommunityin.org">https://peercommunityin.org</a></div><br></div><div = dir=3D"auto">In practice, a self organized journal without any scientific p= ublisher behind.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">It is, = IMO, a very important initiative: The attempt to bypass scientific publishe= rs altogether.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">It is ver= y clear to many that publishers make an incredible profit out of the work o= f editors, reviewers and authors. And often we pay the prestige of the publ= ication. For=C2=A0example, why an open access fully digital publication can= cost 800 British pounds in I-Perception and 8490 British pounds in Nature = Human Behavior? Note that both publishers give you exactly the same product= . We pay for the brand. Note also that Sage too is making a profit when the= y ask you 800 pounds for I-perception.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><di= v dir=3D"auto">We should be careful when we spend our public money for a pu= blication.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">All=C2=A0the = best,</div><div dir=3D"auto">m</div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><di= v dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 06:11, Matt Flax = <<a href=3D"mailto:flatmax@xxxxxxxx">flatmax@xxxxxxxx</a>> wrot= e:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0= .8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-= left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">This is great Jonathan,<br> <br> I'll contact you off list to talk a little more on biorxiv and psyarxiv= .<br> <br> Just the other day I was approached to review an article - but as you <br> all know there is no payment for reviewing articles. It is hard for <br> someone outside of a very large organisation to find the time to review <br= > others articles. This harks back to the discussion around how ripe the <br> publication system is for disruption. The basic argument goes something <br= > like : The journals are paid to publish and host researcher's articles,= <br> but the journals don't pay reviewers and others involved in the process= . <br> There is nothing propping up the mechanism of publishing at the bottom <br> end, so the machine will eventually grind to a halt and the top will fall.<= br> <br> There are also other common arguments around the right of free access to <b= r> research publications for people outside of academic institutions and <br> large companies.<br> <br> In this day and age of online social networks, it really isn't that <br= > difficult to gather a publication's weight directly from citation <br> frequency and other metrics - no matter where the article is published. <br= > Similarly the comments and opinions of readers can be integrated and <br> associated with publications on the same site on the internet - without <br= > the need to lengthy antiquated review processes. In my opinion the whole <b= r> publication system should be reenvisioned and modernised.<br> <br> Aaron Swartz should not have been reprocessed by the fabric of the <br> west's systems without instigating change.<br> <br> Matt<br> <br> <br> On 23/5/23 22:54, Jonathan Z Simon wrote:<br> > Matt,<br> ><br> > In this context I would avoid the term =E2=80=9Cpublishing=E2=80=9D, s= ince that has <br> > such a different meaning for so many people, but I personally do take = <br> > advantage of posting preprints on a public server (like arXiv) almost = <br> > every chance I get.<br> ><br> > Preprints (preprint =3D a fully written paper that is not (yet) <br> > published) have been useful for many decades, originally in physics, <= br> > as a way of getting one's research results out in a timely manner.= <br> > Other key benefits are that it establishes primacy of the research <br= > > findings, that it is citable in other researchers' papers, and tha= t it <br> > can be promoted by social media such as this listserve (more below on = <br> > this). But the biggest benefit is typically getting the paper out into= <br> > the world for others to learn from, without having to wait based on <b= r> > the whims of publishers and individual reviewers. If most of your <br> > published papers get accepted eventually, and the most important <br> > findings don=E2=80=99t get cut in the review process, then preprints a= re <br> > something you should definitely consider. Reviewers often make <br> > published papers better, but maybe not so much better that it=E2=80=99= s worth <br> > waiting many months for others to see your results.<br> ><br> > arXiv is the oldest website for posting preprints, and if its Audio <b= r> > and Speech section is active, that might be a good place to post your = <br> > preprints. But there may be other options for you. As an auditory <br> > neuroscientist I typically use bioRxiv (e.g., "Changes in Cortica= l <br> > Directional Connectivity during Difficult Listening in Younger and <br= > > Older Adults=E2=80=9D <br> > <<a href=3D"https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.19.5415= 00" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10= .1101/2023.05.19.541500</a>>), but I <br> > also use PsyArXiv if the topic is more perceptual than neural (e.g., <= br> > =E2=80=9CAttention Mobilization as a Modulator of Listening Effort: Ev= idence <br> > from Pupillometry=E2=80=9D <<a href=3D"https://psyarxiv.com/u5xw2" = rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://psyarxiv.com/u5xw2</a>>). [= See what I mean <br> > about promoting your research on social media?]<br> ><br> > I=E2=80=99m sure others have opinions too.<br> ><br> > Jonathan<br> ><br> ><br> >> On May 22, 2023, at 6:45 PM, Matt Flax <<a href=3D"mailto:flatm= ax@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank">flatmax@xxxxxxxx</a>> wrote:<br> >><br> >> Is anyone publishing on arXiv at the moment ? It seems that to <br= > >> publish there they rely on a web of trust.<br> >><br> >> There is an Audio and Speech section of arXiv which would suit our= <br> >> community.<br> >><br> >> thanks<br> >><br> >> Matt<br> ><br> > --<br> > Jonathan Z. Simon (he/him)<br> > University of Maryland<br> > Dept. of Electrical & Computer=C2=A0Engineering / Dept. of Biology= <br> > /=C2=A0Institute for Systems Research<br> > 8223 Paint Branch Dr.<br> > College Park, MD 20742 USA<br> > Office: 1-301-405-3645, Lab: 1-301-405-9604, Fax: 1-301-314-9281<br> > <a href=3D"http://www.isr.umd.edu/Labs/CSSL/simonlab/" rel=3D"noreferr= er" target=3D"_blank">http://www.isr.umd.edu/Labs/CSSL/simonlab/</a><br> ><br> ><br> </blockquote></div></div> --0000000000000f710205fc695e05--