Fair enough but it did sound that way. And I still think you'd find it hard to convince people that it's simply a horizontal or categorical change from copyright infringement to falsification etc. An assumption I know ;) but going by the differences in penalty it's, I think, a reasonable case to make.

Though I suppose the point is moot if we consider Walimski (2010) :D



We'll agree to disagree ;) I only brought in my personal experiences, as have a couple of others in the thread, because they directly refuted your generalisation about the preference. I'm not making the assumption that everyone ignores the type of journal, but my knowledge of my own behaviour, preferences, and that of others I know, does directly contradict your premise of the gap between paid and open source.  It doesn't mean there isn't a gap but just that a blanket assumption really isn't going to hold.

As you're discussing and exploring the area I'd take onboard the lack of preference demonstrated by myself and others for paid over open as an indicator that the difference in popularity is to do with something more complex. I think it's reasonable justification, at least as much as yours. Not simply because everyone has a right to an opinion on the matter but because your premise appears, at least to me, to be based on the fact that the apparently more popular journals are paid, and open sources are less popular. That strikes me as a simple correlation that may not have any meaningful basis. It's certainly an interesting area to look into though :)



I quite like this comparison. And in a way it's what I've been clumsily driving at. Like you say the bigger programs, the more popular ones, aren't always the better ones, yet they remain largely popular. And that on the surface would seem to indicate that people go for the bigger programs on that. Use linked to size or brand rather than effectiveness or suitability.

But actually it's likely that the popularity of those programs means they have become the more suitable programs to use and base work upon if it is to be delivered to a wider audience. If you write a document with word you know full well you will be able to send that to most people and they'll be able to read it. Send someone LyX input (awesome though it is!) and you're likely going to end up with them asking for it in a different format. It's a compatibility's issue with programming that limits the audience, or market, that then determines what is maintained and used. The programs aren't used because everyone thinks they're the best to use, or because they want to tap into the reputation that comes with popularity, but because they're the ones that

I'd definately mention them if you're going to expand on it the how's and why's of it all. It's relevant and positive.

I'd just be prepared for a potential curveball when it comes to student satisfaction through the NSS. I spoke to a HoD who thinks it's a daft measure. They tried giving more chances for real constructive feedback long before major exams and hand in dates and they still scored low on the feedback and satisfaction. Hardly anyone ever turned up to use the feedback sessions that were provided but plenty marked them down for not doing enough.

======= Date Modified 14 Oct 2010 15:12:04 =======
Double post

Eskobastion,

What you seem to be describing is the gateway theory of criminal behaviour. Usually applied to drug use. And usually pretty easily refuted. If it's difficult to find a link between smaller illegal behaviour and larger when addictive substances are involved then it's probably going to be impossible here. No matter how much I want to read a paper I very rarely experience a rush doing so!

You'd be better off looking at things like white collar crime and work place fraud, and the links to opportunity etc. Already heavily researched but much more productive. The basic general findings are that many people will steal from a place of work if given the chance and a certain confluence of events. They don't start small and get bigger but instead are just opportunistic. So you don't have to worry about us moving on from illicit paper use, to whole journals, raiding the British Library and then hold all the first editions to ransom if we don't get the crown jewels and a helicopter.

Incidentally Sneaks is on the money. In certain area's of social science what you've just done, if you were to use any of it in any formal way, would constitute research. Observer participation most probably. There's a whole slew of ethical and legal issues that normally come with that, and the getting permission to actually go ahead and do it.

(For any silent observers in the forum, I do not consent! )

You're making an awfully big assumption there. I know people, myself included, who would avoid publishing in a large popular journal, paid or otherwise, (such as Nature), in favour of a journal we feel best fits the work we've done. One with the correct audience, a journal we feel might have higher submission standards (though not kudos) that other options.

Also, I and many others couldn't care less about the impact factor. There's no point twisting your research out of shape so it fits the profile of a higher impact journal if that journal lacks the relevance and target audience you're aiming for. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't have a problem with using an open access journal, so long as the standards of review and submission are adequate.

Like I said, you're making a huge, unsubstantiated assumption there. That we're all somehow hypocrites. I wouldn't kick start your research with it
;-)



Better that than sit and do nothing. Laws aren't automatically just and fair because they are law.

I wouldn't say it was a veiled attack 4Matt :-) I don't think first past the post is a fair system, or the best possible system. That doesn't mean that by default I think the others are perfect or suitable. I just think it's worth making a concerted effect to move towards some effective electoral reform, and a system that doesn't cause so much 'waste'.

I don't think the Lib dems should get an equal say as the system stands.  I just didn't expect them to roll over for the Tories with such reckless abandon. I would have expected them to use the leverage that their position gives them to effect some change considering the stark differences between the two parties, even it was only putting on the brakes here and there so they could actually represent the people who voted them into their seats in the first place. Or at the very least standing up for what they supposedly believe in and withdrawing from the coalition.

It's the weetabix that makes the cover I think :D

Mine would be a blank computer document, with a cursor at the top left of the screen, waiting to write. It'd be called 'Bleeding Red Ink'.

Sneaks, a little off topic (and several days behind), do you know if the Fuseli painting is considered a representation of sleep paralysis or not? I've heard it described as the daemon on the chest, or the hag on the back etc before.

Can't say I agree with your, ahem, oversimplified version
;-)

I was excited mainly because the Lib Dems seemed to be gaining some momentum, and, though I hate to admit it now, the thought of a coalition (between no one in particular) was a pleasant one. I'd hoped it would lead to a balanced government where no one class or social strata would end up with an un-due burden. A coalition where both sides would mediate the other and stop extremism and wandering too far left or right in the short term whilst the economy recovered. Naively.

With a coalition I was also hoping it would lead to some real electoral reform. The winning candidate for my borough had a margin of less than 700 votes. And their win in effect disenfranchised over 60% of the local voters. I'm not expecting a perfect system where every single vote has an impact, just one where there's less waste.

Now though I see nothing of the sort. From my point of view I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that there's a Tory government making cuts relatively unchecked by the lib dems (who as potential power brokers you'd have expected a little more back bone from) or the fact the lib dems are likely to be absorbed and forgotten by the time the next election rolls round. I don't find the idea of a two party system very appealing.

I was almost excited before the last election :(

I can't believe how daft the Lib Dems have been. How did they not see this coming? The coalition does very little good for them and a lot of harm. They get tagged with the backlash from the cuts, they have to swallow Tory policy and haven't got a great deal out of it. Some limited electoral reform and more time on TV? Unless something happens swiftly, and someone with some real savvy steps in, they'll be left for dead in the next election. They should have just said, 'Yeah, you've got the most seats so we'll let you form a government. We may even support your emergency budget for a few concession, but after that you're on your own (A phrase the Tories seem fine with!)'.

I'm hoping they rebel over the HE issues at the very least. Lib Dems support is built on the idea of more access to education, not less.

======= Date Modified 13 Oct 2010 16:33:57 =======

Fair enough  ;-) I would still make a distinction between the two though. As it stands the distribution of a copy does not deprive the publishers of property, it causes no actual physical loss even if we extend that to mean their current bank balance. The only thing they lose in any sense is a potential individual sale. And they don't lose that whilst another person benefits from a sale when a copy is simply passed on.

They should frankly look to why they're losing individual sales. Access to journals on a Uni wide scale, through general subscriptions, is fine but at the individual level the cost quickly becomes prohibitive. As researchers we're both the content providers and the content users and the publishers' current business model only satisfies one end of that equation, and not very well. There's no point producing papers via a journal if access to that journal is limited. And there's little point paying high prices for individual papers (check the science direct costs for one) when you get very little for it. I refuse to spend that much money on a paper that I cannot keep. I'd would rather go without but that's more harmful to the authors than it ever would be to the publishers.

They need to rethink their business model if the current sharing bothers them. Which, I imagine, it doesn't.

Edit: walminski sharp legal mind has pretty much rendered all that moot! :D

Being pedantic...we're not actually talking about stealing here. No theft takes place. The publishers are not being deprived of property.

(up)

Further to that allowing researchers relatively unfettered access to journals is a good thing. It benefits the journals/publishers because it means they become widely read, they get cited and their reputation has a chance to increase. Which in all likelihood outweighs any benefits/profit they get from charging individuals $40 to $50 a pop for time limited access to a journal.

Have you tried hunting down your supervisor (literally if need be!). Dropping in, phone calls etc. I rang my supervisor yesterday and it's kick started things again. Would your second supervisor be any good in the interim, either for help or for finding your main supervisor?

Have an apt comic!
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1039



On the networking front I had a bit of a belated brain wave. There are lots of societies and research networks that can be joined. I'd been holding off on joining them until I'd finished the phd but with the delay I thought I'd get on it. Useful for networking and they look nice on the CV. So yesterday I expressed an interest in two invitation only based networks and associations and now I've been invited! :D Two organisations full of people either in the same area as me, people who I've cited and hero worshipped for years or people who are in areas that I'd like to expand to. I'll be getting newsletters, updates etc on related workshops and conferences as well so I'll be able to network more effectively!

There's another paid membership one linked to a couple of journals, so I'm just waiting for my years membership to kick in. And then that'll have the same benefits as the others AND I'll get access to some more journals. So all in all, feeling pretty good about that.

Hmmm, what else. Oh! Mendeley! Awesome free program for organising files and papers, but it also has an online research profile component, and online research groups for sharing information and papers. So that could be useful as well.


On the realigning tables and what not front I'd recommend using LyX, least for you final thesis. It's a bit awkward to use at first but it allows you to simply set the layout and format for the entire document and you can just get with writing. Saves fiddling with the fonts and margins for every chapter and section. It even fills the table of contents, list of figures, tables etc in for you! At the risk of sounding like a salesperson for them since I've started using it the actual construction of the thesis as a whole has been a breeze.



It's a good idea. I did that originally until I thought I had a more definite date. But...I might have something a little better to add now :D The call yesterday must have jogged things along. Since then I've had a potential external examiner approached by my supervisor, they've accepted in principle and I've been told I should hand in my intention to submit! 8-) What a difference a day makes. Now when I apply I can say in my covering letter that I have handed in my notice to submit and an extern

======= Date Modified 13 Oct 2010 14:32:01 =======

My guess is because research and academia in general is about the freedom of ideas and information. And that without people like us reading papers from their journals, citing them, building on them and submitting our own the journals would cease to have any impact, or...make money at all! :p

I spoke to my supervisor today.

All is not well in peljam's phd world :( I asked about what sort of time frame I should put down on job applications and there was an issue. I didn't say anything as I'm hoping it will resolve itself fairly soon but...We have vastly different estimates on when I'll be submitting. Admittedly theirs was a very conservative one that they said might very well become sooner, but the gap was still shocking.

My estimate? Sometime this month
Supes'? December

Currently I'm taking solace in the fact that I'm pretty sure they've not read a great deal of my latest chapters. So their admission that it could well be sooner is one that could be very true. I think it may be November now as maybe I have a little more work than I realised (can't think where though) and a little less than they think.

Still....:(