Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

“No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 05 Sep 2018, 17:41:05

Plant, according to Berger's book Almost Human that I discussed above, he was turned down multiple times with multiple revised drafts from Science when he submitted his initial descriptive Homo naledi paper.

Note that his reputation was already established and he had a publishing history with Science which had published a paper on his earlier discovery Australopithecus sediba in 2010, two years after the discovery. The litany of excuses continued without end, and the same paper ended up in the online journal eLife in 2015, after Berger realized Science resented his methods. (He didn't actually say that in the book, you had to read between the lines.)

Understand this: Berger is currently - and publicly via live webcasts - excavating a third species, not yet classifed as either Homo or Australopithecus, and some people are offended by this, and by the online chatter and that the amount of talent he attracts from multiple disciplines is incredible. He has also secured funding for both his sediba and naledi digs from (gasp of horror) the PBS program NOVA and the National Geographic Channel. He would be a social outcast, shunned by all, were it not for his successes.

Aside from the common and comparatively recent neanderthal sites in Europe, Berger has discovered 75+% of all the fossil hominid skeletons known to Paleo-Anthropology. Everybody else since the 19th century has discovered partial sleletons - sometimes a handful of bone fragments, the best of which were the adult female called "Lucy" and the male juvenile called "Lucy's Child". Then there are the "hobbits", Homo denisova, known only by a partial bone fragment (containing frozen DNA) from the Denisova cave in Siberia.

Berger by contrast discovered 6+ more or less complete sediba skeletons of various ages, and so far 23+ individuals in the naledi burial chambers, where a third chamber has been identified that is not yet excavated. He has also though extensive work with Geologists, developed methods to identify fossil sites via aerial surveys, everything from camera drones to satellites.

Berger broadcasts everything, makes all his data available in raw form, and even sells and lends replicas of the fossils themselves for study, to anybody.

Science magazine was offended, it would seem.
Image
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 05 Sep 2018, 19:01:51

KaiserJeep wrote:Plant, according to Berger's book Almost Human that I discussed above, he was turned down multiple times with multiple revised drafts from Science when he submitted his initial descriptive Homo naledi paper.


The review process is far from perfect. There are numerous examples of unfair reviewers and biased editors who rejected exemplary science papers and Dr. Berger's case seems to fall into this category.

But a good scientist does't let bad reviews or ignorant reviewers stop him, and Dr. Berger has succeeded into getting his material published anyway. Good for him.

KaiserJeep wrote:Berger... has also secured funding for both his sediba and naledi digs from (gasp of horror) the PBS program NOVA and the National Geographic Channel. He would be a social outcast, shunned by all, were it not for his successes.


Not really. Most scientists have to hustle quite a bit to get research funding these days, but sometimes you get lucky. I've had money from National Geographic---its not uncommon for Geoscientists doing interesting stuff. If there was an application process I would accept a research grant from the devil himself. Once I even got a giant slug of research funding for Alaskan projects from ---of all places---- Obama's Economic Stimulus package back in the day. We already had some federal research funding, and Obama basically said here's an even bigger aliquot of money--- Go out and spend it however you like. We didn't even have to apply for the extra money---it just rained down from the skies on us under the pretense of an economic stimulus. It was a very pleasant way to get through the recession.

By the way....I saw the NOVA special on Berger's excavations. He is really a remarkable scientist.

Cheers!

PS: I'm really enjoying your recent posts. They are filled with information and interesting ideas. I hope you had a great summer in Nantucket or wherever.
Last edited by Plantagenet on Wed 05 Sep 2018, 19:05:05, edited 1 time in total.
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 05 Sep 2018, 19:03:56

Thats a good thing because most geoscientists---- and indeed most scientists of all kinds--- work on mundane and often dull projects that would never be considered for publication in the top tier journals anyway. 


That could be one of the most ignorant statements you have made yet. As I have pointed out according to citation indices attributed to JCR (Journal Citation Reports) Science and Nature do not rank highly for many scientific fields. Nobody is interested in publishing in-depth science articles in a journal that will not get read by their peers.

Not really. If a Geoscientist of any particular flavor makes a truly important new discovery, they are better served to get it published in a top tier journal like SCIENCE or NATURE or NATURE GEOSCIENCE


Horseshit….they are best served by publishing it where their peers read research and according to JCR that is neither Science nor Nature. As I pointed out the latest issue of Nature Geoscience is filled with papers that are completely unrelated to earth geology or geophysics. Only an idiot would publish a paper there that he wanted read critically.

And the prestige of these top tier journals isn't just based on reputation---quantitative studies comparing different journals show that SCIENCE and NATURE have the highest numerical score in terms of Journal Impact Factor. That means that hard data shows that papers in these top journals get read by more people and are cited by more people when they write their own scientific papers


That is complete and utter BS. As I pointed out JCR (Scimagojr) which ranks all of the scientific journals does not show either Science or Nature as ranking in the top 100 for any of the topics: Geology, Geophysics, Economic Geology, Organic Chemistry, Stratigraphy. That means not only are their few papers published on those topics in those journals but the ones that are are not cited. JCR is a source where scientists go when deciding on where to publish their papers. Why would they choose a journal that doesn't rank in the top 100 in their topic and where the editor and associate editors are not experienced in that field?

AND that means the papers good enough to get into SCIENCE and NATURE tend to be highly influential within the sciences and tend to be much more important then papers published in the second tier journals.


Good God. This statement just proves to me you are not the scientist you claim to be. What a completely stupid claim. Please point us to the most influential paper in Stratigraphy, Tectonics, Organic Geochemistry, Sedimentology, Crystallography, Mineralogy etc. I guaranty you none were published in either Science or Nature. You claim to be a geophysicist, what ground-breaking, earth-shattering article has been published in Nature or Science that has anything to do with solid earth geophysics, signal processing or seismic stratigraphy?

Occasionally important papers paper do come out in the second tier journals, but usually they publish papers that weren't good enough to even be considered for publication in a top tier journal like SCIENCE or NATURE or NATURE GEOSCIENCE ---- its the job of the second tier journals to publish the routine specialty papers that don't make big breakthroughs for the few people interested in those topics. 


OH for Christ sake. Nature and Science are not considered top tier in a lot of the fields that scientists publish in. How about Analytic Chemistry, Anthropology, Archeology, Hematology, Neurology, Toxicology and a host of other sciences? JCR shows that in those fields Nature and Science do not rank in the top 100 journals, hard to be top tier when you aren’t even in the top 100. Nature and Science are glossy, popular magazines, they are neither considered to be “top tier” nor “highly influential” by many scientists as they do not deal in the details that many other journals address.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 05 Sep 2018, 19:15:10

Nature Geoscience... Only an idiot would publish a paper there


Right-O.

Have a nice day! And thanks for all the laughs!

I've been laughing out loud (LOL) for five minutes now over that last howler.

Cheers!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 05 Sep 2018, 21:06:31

Plant, the only thing I can say is that peer reviews and publishing practices which were developed for hardcopy journals and the isolated pools of knowledge in formal academia, are certainly not optimal if they cannot use the power of the internet. Instant access to the best minds, and perhaps more importantly, near instant referals to other minds (as in: I know a guy who could answer that question for us....) is what the internet is all about. If Science and Nature can't adapt their process to real time, they will almost certainly - and justifiably- slip in relative stature as the pinnacles of good Science.

The problem being, most scientists like Berger can adapt. The journal editors, whose primary value add is in selecting appropriate reviewers, cannot.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 05 Sep 2018, 21:59:00

KaiserJeep wrote:Plant, the only thing I can say is that peer reviews and publishing practices which were developed for hardcopy journals and the isolated pools of knowledge in formal academia, are certainly not optimal if they cannot use the power of the internet. Instant access to the best minds, and perhaps more importantly, near instant referals to other minds (as in: I know a guy who could answer that question for us....) is what the internet is all about. If Science and Nature can't adapt their process to real time, they will almost certainly - and justifiably- slip in relative stature as the pinnacles of good Science.

The problem being, most scientists like Berger can adapt. The journal editors, whose primary value add is in selecting appropriate reviewers, cannot.


????

Actually, IMHO scientific journals like Science and Nature have adapted well to the internet.

The submissions process and the review process are now internet based speeding things up immensely. The editor does all communications by email, and reviewers access the submitted scientific papers on line, and the entire review process is done on-line.

After the paper is successfully published, the paper and the figures and the tables in the scientific papers are all available on line. Links to data sets associated with the papers are also available on line. In some cases the references are also hyperlinked, so you can quickly see the original papers in the reference list for a new scientific paper.

And Nature has added a whole set of "specialist journals" including Nature Geoscience, Nature Neuroscience, Nature Biotechnology, Nature Methods, the Nature Clinical Practice series of journals, Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, Nature Chemistry, and the Nature Reviews series of journals.

Nature has also started a podcast with interviews with its authors, editors, and reviewers.

Nature now also allows authors to host their own papers and data on their own websites, rather then requiring a copyright of everything published in nature. This would allow authors like Berger to have extensive personal websites, blogs, video blogs, or anything else to accompany a paper published in nature, if they are able to get it published.

AND if a paper is not good enough to get into SCIENCE or NATURE, then they are free to publish it in the Mud Loggers Monthly or any other second tier journal they choose, or they can publish now in open source internet journals (they exist already) or they can just put it up on their own website .

When it comes to scientific publishing, this is the best of all possible worlds!

Cheers!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 05 Sep 2018, 23:25:41

Have a nice day! And thanks for all the laughs!

I've been laughing out loud (LOL) for five minutes now over that last howler.


Yeah always good to quote things out of context. Shows a particular brand of ignorance. :roll:

this is what was said bozo. Although I guess we all have to make concessions for your reading comprehension problem you continually demonstrate

Horseshit….they are best served by publishing it where their peers read research and according to JCR that is neither Science nor Nature. As I pointed out the latest issue of Nature Geoscience is filled with papers that are completely unrelated to earth geology or geophysics. Only an idiot would publish a paper there that he wanted read critically.


Point being that if you are writing on a geoscience subject you want your paper read and critically reviewed by the maximum number of people writing in your area of research. That isn't going happen at either Science or Nature, the statistics support that as does the fact that very few articles on the subject of the earth geological sciences are published there.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 06 Sep 2018, 00:31:54

....the latest issue of Nature Geoscience is filled with papers that are completely unrelated to earth geology or geophysics....


Once again i have to laugh. You are such a dope.
How could you possibly say such stupid things? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) :roll: :) :-D :lol: :lol: :lol:

Thank god you're not the editor. You clearly don't even know what geoscience is. The Sept 2018 issue of Nature Geoscience actually is filled with Geoscience papers about interesting aspects of geology and geophysics. Lets check it out together, shall we? Go to the link below to the the Sept. 2018 issue contents.

www.nature.com/ngeo/volumes/11/issues/9

For instance, there lead article is a volcanology discussion paper about bubbles in magma. Hey, stupid one ---(you don't mind if I call you stupid one, do you? Its similar to the name-calling you engage in)---- don't you know that volcanology is a part of geology and geophysics?

The first "News and Views" article is about the relationship between plants and geomorphology. Again, more geology and geoscience Do you get it yet, stupid one?

The second "News and Views" article is about earthquakes. I hate to break it to you, but thats geophysics, oh stupid one.

A third "News and Views" article is about an ice age in the Oligocene. Thats earth history (i.e. geology) Oh stupid one.

The Review Article is about sea level change during the last interglacial. Again, thats earth history and geology, oh stupid one.

The next one is about Martian mineralogy and geology. Yes, Mars isn't the earth but I hate to break it to you, but thats still a geology paper, oh stupid one.

The next article is about atmospheric aerosols and plant productivity. Thats a synthesis article with some atmospheric science, some geophysics, and some biology about surface processes on the earth. Earth surface processes are part of geocience, oh stupid one.

The next one is soil carbon changes due to Mayan agriculture. More surface processes, and more geoscience, oh stupid one.

The next one is Holocene atmospheric circulation and the effect on CO2. Thats geoscience, oh stupid one.

The next one is oceanography and climate change. Still geoscience.

The next one is Archean isotopic history. Geochemistry and earth history, i.e. Geoscience, oh stupid one.

The next one is geochemistry of 3.2 billion year old rocks. Geochemistry is Geoscience, oh stupid one.

The next is geomorphology, i.e. more Geoscience oh stupid one.

The next one is volcanology and thats more Geoscience oh stupid one.

The next is geochemistry and the end Permain extinction, i.e. more Geoscience oh stupid one.

The next is subduction in Oman. Clearly geoscience, oh stupid one.

The next is earthquakes....that geophysics and clearly geoscience oh stupid one.

--------------------------

So...there are 16 articles and scientific papers in the Sept. 2018 issue of NATURE GEOSCIENCES.

15 of them are clearly geology and/or geophysics papers about various terrestrial process and/or earth history oh stupid one.

Just one of them is about Martian geology and mineralogy , but geology and mineralogy on Mars is still geology and mineralogy oh stupid one.

Dig it!!! THAT MEANS EVERY ARTICLE IN THE LATEST NATURE GEOSCIENCES IS ACTUALLY ABOUT THE GEOSCIENCES!!! IMAGINE THAT!!!!

So, once again you got things totally and completely wrong. Your claim that there are no geology or geophysics papers in the current issue of Nature Geosciences is comically wrong, idiotically wrong and just plain wrong wrong.

Get it now?

CHEERS!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Thu 06 Sep 2018, 12:19:05

ROFLMAO :lol:
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Thu 06 Sep 2018, 12:25:04

vox_mundi wrote:Radical Open-Access Plan Could Spell End to Journal Subscriptions

Image

Research funders from France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and eight other European nations have unveiled a radical open-access initiative that could change the face of science publishing in two years — and which has instantly provoked protest from publishers.
... “Paywalls are not only hindering the scientific enterprise itself but also they are an obstacle [to] the uptake of research results by the wider public”

The 11 agencies, who together spend €7.6 billion (US$8.8 billion) in research grants annually, say they will mandate that, from 2020, the scientists they fund must make resulting papers free to read immediately on publication. The papers would have a liberal publishing licence that would allow anyone else to download, translate or otherwise reuse the work. “No science should be locked behind paywalls!” says a preamble document that accompanies the pledge, called Plan S, released on 4 September.

Image

As written, Plan S would bar researchers from publishing in 85% of journals, including influential titles such as Nature and Science. According to a December 2017 analysis, only around 15% of journals publish work immediately as open access (see 'Publishing models') — financed by charging per-article fees to authors or their funders, negotiating general open-publishing contracts with funders, or  through other means. More than one-third of journals still publish papers behind a paywall, and typically permit online release of free-to-read versions only after a delay of at least six months — in compliance with the policies of influential funders such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Image

Under the initiative, funding agencies including UK Research and Innovation, Science Foundation Ireland and the Research Council of Norway will require grant holders to publish only in journals that offer immediate open access, and under a licence that enables anyone to freely reuse and distribute the material.

The European Commission and coalition of national research funders in Austria, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK will implement the new policy from 1 January 2020.

Image


YEA!!!!

I have purchased papers so I could (illegally) share them. It's good to know I, and I imagine many others, can stop breaking the law to advance science.

In the old days, everyone just went to the University library, that paid for subscriptions and indexes for the topics, before there was an internet. Now they have been expecting everyone to pay.

It was just wrong.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby Cog » Thu 06 Sep 2018, 12:38:19

Free stuff for all. Right Cid?
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 06 Sep 2018, 12:38:54

Cid_Yama wrote:
I have purchased papers so I could (illegally) share them.


Sharing copies of scientific papers is very common at Universities all around the world and it always has been.

Faculty have to provide copies of papers to their students in classes which cover ongoing current research and faculty have to provide copies of papers to the students they are advising or collaborating with on active research projects.

Today people at Universities share PDFs of the papers----in the past people shared photocopies of the reprints. Some things never change.

In any case, a professor sharing pdfs with a class or with students isn't illegal at all. Its considered to be "fair use."

Also, NATURE and SCIENCE both allow the authors of scientific papers to "host" them on their own websites and allow them to be downloaded for free. Next time you are tempted to pay the journal for a scientific paper try going to the websites of the authors. Chances are you'll find the paper for free, along with other papers that scientist has recently published.

Cheers!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 06 Sep 2018, 14:27:41

IN response to the long tirade by Plantagnet

Point to the September issue that includes some geoscience papers and I point to the June issue that includes very little geoscience and mostly atmospheric science. It isn't a journal focussed on the Geosciences unless all of the papers are on that topic

But you once again ignore the fact that the SJR ratings at Scimagojr I pointed to when looking at all the geoscience topics available: Geology, Geophysics, Economic Geology, Organic Chemistry, Stratigraphy, do not rank either Science or Nature or their sub-journals in the top 100. What that means is 1. the journal does not have a high proportion of articles published on those subjects and 2. the articles that are published are not very often cited. This information is readily available, not sure how you can even think to claim Science and Nature are top-tier for the Geosciences when they rank so low.

If we look at the September issue you rant about:

In the articles section only 4 out of 12 have anything whatsoever to do with earth-based geosciences. One is a paper on tectonophysics, one is a paper trying to relate extinction events to igneous release, one is a paper on volcanic gas chemistry and one is a paper on earthquakes related to subducted slabs. The topics are all over the place. As I said anybody interested in publishing a paper on a specific topic such as plate tectonics would not publish here…1 out of 12 papers on the subject?, better to publish somewhere where your peers are actively publishing and you get a chance at critical review. The other papers that appear in the article section include:

Enhanced global primary production by biogenic aerosol via diffuse radiation fertilization
A long-term decrease in the persistence of soil carbon caused by ancient Maya land use
Holocene dynamics of the Southern Hemisphere westerly winds and possible links to CO2 outgassing
Transient temperature asymmetry between hemispheres in the Palaeogene Atlantic Ocean
Microbial life and biogeochemical cycling on land 3,220 million years ago
Self-organization of a biogeomorphic landscape controlled by plant life-history traits

none of which have a main focus on geoscience research...rather atmospheric science and biology

Lets look at the August issue:

The news and views has three articles, none have anything to do with the geosciences:

Countdown to 1.5 °C warming
New light on black carbon
Intercepted by lichens

In the Articles section only 3/12 articles have some focus on research in the earth geosciences.

A couple of examples of papers with research topics not focussed on the geosciences:

Structural decline in China’s CO2 emissions through transitions in industry and energy systems
Highland cropland expansion and forest loss in Southeast Asia in the twenty-first century
Significant contribution of non-vascular vegetation to global rainfall interception
Carbon budgets for 1.5 and 2 °C targets lowered by natural wetland and permafrost feedbacks
Current level and rate of warming determine emissions budgets under ambitious mitigation

In the July issue

In the news and views there are 5 articles, only one has anything to do with earth-based geosciences

In the Review Articles there are only 2 papers published and either are focussed on research in earth-based geosciences

Drivers and mechanisms of ocean deoxygenation
Palaeoclimate constraints on the impact of 2 °C anthropogenic warming and beyond

In the Articles section 6/12 articles are remotely connected to geoscience topics but all from completely disparate areas of research (one on igneous petrology, two on modern earthquakes and two that are related to plate tectonics)

The other 6 are unrelated with examples

Reduced air–sea CO2 exchange in the Atlantic Ocean due to biological surfactants
A global analysis of terrestrial plant litter dynamics in non-perennial waterways
Revision of global carbon fluxes based on a reassessment of oceanic and riverine carbon transport
Atmospheric mountain wave generation on Venus and its influence on the solid planet’s rotation rate

The bottom line here is that a journal that includes only a few geoscience articles mixed in with other areas of research is not considered to be "top-tier" for geoscience publication. If you actually think that it is still possible then you really are an idiot.

Further, as pointed out a number of times, the SJR rating indicates this is the last place you would publish if you wanted your paper to be critically read by your peers. Both journals rank very low for all of the geological sciences. As an example, as I pointed out above the September issue of Nature Geoscience has one article that might be related to Tectonophysics. If I was submitting a paper somewhere on that subject why would I choose a journal that has few articles in my field, has a low citation index and a Senior editor with no background in the subject when I could easily submit it to Tectonophysics a journal that is dedicated to that subject, regularly has 20 or more papers on that topic, has been around for 50 years, ranks highly in the SJR ratings, has an editor that publishes on the topic and is published by Elsevier? The answer is I wouldn't and neither would any of my former colleagues as noted by the paucity of articles on the subject matter in either journal regardless of all the groundbreaking work that has been going on in that topic since the seventies.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 06 Sep 2018, 15:11:39

IN response to ... Plantagenet

...Point to the September issue that includes ... geoscience papers and I point to the June issue


You claimed the latest issue of Nature Geoscience didn't contain any geoscience papers.

The latest issue isn't the June issue---its September. Look at a calendar. This is September 2018.

The September issue of Nature Geosciences clearly contains multiple geoscience papers.

You made a ridiculous claim and you've been proven wrong.

I suggest this would be a good time for you to admit you were wrong. Its not a big deal that you made a boo boo....everybody makes mistakes. Even you. Maybe especially you. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :-D :) :P :roll:

Cheers!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 06 Sep 2018, 18:01:09

You claimed the latest issue of Nature Geoscience didn't contain any geoscience papers.


no I did not. What I did was list all the papers from June that had nothing to do with the Geosciences. Are you going to argue that all of the papers in the September issue are Geoscience focussed? If so then you don't know what you are talking about and if not then my argument holds, it is not a journal focused solely on the geosciences and hence not the first choice for someone who wants to publish and be read and critiqued by his peers. Once again SJR ratings which you seem to want to ignore as they disagree with your opinions.

The September issue of Nature Geosciences clearly contains multiple geoscience papers.


But as pointed out in the articles section only 4 out of 12 papers are focussed on geoscience research, the rest are atmospheric sciences and biology (as I already pointed out)

You made a ridiculous claim and you've been proven wrong.


Please show us the quote where I say " the September issue of Nature Geoscience contains no Geoscience papers". I didn't say that or anything close to it.
What I have done is point out that this journal does not focus itself solely on geoscience focussed research. Hence it would not be considered by anyone as the best place to publish. There are far better journals where work would be read by peers and critiqued appropriately.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 06 Sep 2018, 18:24:41

....the latest issue of Nature Geoscience is filled with papers that are completely unrelated to earth geology or geophysics....


Obviously you did claim the latest issue of Nature Geoscience is filled with papers that are unrelated to earth geology or geophysics.

And the the latest issue is the September 2018 issue---not the June issue.

Do you not know how the calendar works? Did you forget what you said when you posted? Or are you consciously lying about things again?

And, since the Sept 2018 issue of Nature Geoscience is filled with papers about geoscience, why not admit you were wrong when you made the ridiculous claim that the latest issue of Nature Geoscience doesn't contain geoscience papers?

Cheers!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 06 Sep 2018, 22:10:56

Obviously you did claim the latest issue of Nature Geoscience is filled with papers that are unrelated to earth geology or geophysics.


whichever issue is the latest my claim is correct. As I pointed out in the September issue Articles 4 of 12 total have the geosciences as research focus, the others do not. To my mind when the majority of papers are unrelated then, as I have said several times, this is not a journal that specialist geoscientists would seek out and once again, that is supported by the SJR statistics, something you want to continually ignore. I did not claim "the latest issue of Nature Geoscience is filled with papers unrealted to earth geology and geophysics"....please show us that quote. I did point out that there were more unrelated papers than related papers which is a fact anyone can gather from looking at the various papers.

And the the latest issue is the September 2018 issue---not the June issue.


I access the journal through the University library, the latest issue I had access to was June. But it doesn't matter. As I pointed out July, August, September all had a lot of papers that were not focussed on geoscience research. It is that simple, this is not a journal of choice for geoscientists. If you think it is then it is certain you aren't one.

And, since the Sept 2018 issue of Nature Geoscience is filled with papers about geoscience, why not admit you were wrong when you made the ridiculous claim that the latest issue of Nature Geoscience doesn't contain geoscience papers?


where did I say that? You've claimed this twice without a quote even though I've suggested you provide one. As usual your reading literacy is subpar, not sure how you even made it through university let alone published a paper. IN fact I never said "the latest issue of Nature Geoscience doesn't contain geoscience papers". Once again what I posted was a list of the non-geoscience papers from the June issue and that is it. IN a later post I also posted the statistics on geoscience papers and the propensity for papers on atmospheric sciences and biology in July, August and yes, September.

If you want to claim someone said something you should provide a quote, otherwise give it a rest. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 07 Sep 2018, 13:00:55

....whichever issue is the latest ....


I'm going to give you a little hint, to help you figure this out.

Do you know what month it is right now? :lol: :lol: :lol:

And here's a second hint, in case the first clue doesn't clear this up for you.

The current month (and the latest issue of Nature Geoscience) is definitely not June as you've been falsely claiming.

Cheers!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 07 Sep 2018, 13:20:47

And here's a second hint, in case the first clue doesn't clear this up for you.

The current month (and the latest issue of Nature Geoscience) is definitely not June as you've been falsely claiming.


Are you that illiterate? I asked you to post a quote from me that has any relevance to your claim and you have refused to do so while still claiming I made a statement I did not.
Here is what I said precisely:

Lets look at an example from the June issue of Nature Geoscience


does that say June is the latest issue? Does it say the current month is June? Does it say anything about the other issues? I used June as an example simply because that is the last issue I had looked at.

does it actually matter? As I said several times above the June, July, August and yes September issues of Nature Geoscience have more research focussed on areas other than earth geosciences than they do which focus on that subject. So what exactly is your point?

And now that you've diverted attention from your overall claim that somehow Science and Nature are the two top-tier journals for geosciences maybe you can go back and explain why SJR (scientific journals rankings) doesn't place either journal in the top 100 rank for any earth geoscience topic including the general topics of geology and geophysics? :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: “No Science Should Be Locked Behind Paywalls!”

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 07 Sep 2018, 15:15:32

OK, OK. We get it, the two of you disagree on the journals of geoscience.

None of which can compare to the erudite writing in IEEE Transactions on Computers, anyways.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. We all have our favorite distractions while sitting the throne, anyways. :mrgreen:

Image
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 77 guests