I can get an inter-library load at my uni as well, BUT I am not living in the UK (I visit the uni every three months) and they can't post the interlibrary loans abroad! Meaning that if I need a paper I will have to ask someone to send me a PDF! :$

======= Date Modified 14 Oct 2010 17:16:12 =======

This is ridiculous. It seems you never used interlibrary loans or if you don't want to state your real reason don't post a comment. If your friend can send a PDF, BL can send as well. Whenever I asked interlibrary loans BL always sent a PDF, even the very dated articles.

Of course I have used interlibrary loans.
Maybe you haven't read what I have written!
I said that my uni can't post to me the papers I need so I have to ask online friends to give me the papers!
I don't have any reason to post anything but the truth here!
I don't know how you have managed to get BL to send you PDFs but I can't! I can't even have access to BL, as I don't have a permanent address in UK and I can't have anything with my address translated into english, as there is a bureaucratic issue that cen't be overcome!

I personally always try to publish open access, because I believe knowledge should be shared. In my field of research, laboratory animal science, it is regarded highly unethical not to share all your data, since it will lead to the unnecessary use of more animals because experiments have to be repeated. Open access enables me to present all data etc to everyone interested, thus avoiding this ethical problem. Furthermore, I do not mind sharing, as we can all benefit and other people might find new knowledge in my results.

Your assumption is therefore completely incorrect!

Ah, the old good gateway theory.

That was not in my mind when I wrote the earlier post. I did not assume that plagiarisation or falsification of data are more severe types of behaviour than copyright infringement. My hypothesis was that they are at the same level and was thinking of changing behaviour from one category to another horizontally.



Well, I am aware of the fact that a lot of researchers use widely small and open access journals but the other side of the story is, however, that often people are advised and encouraged (by their tutors, supervisors, professors etc.) to publish in reputable, popular, paid journals. It might be so that this happens more often in countries -- U.S.? -- where the competition in academic settings is more fierce than in UK or Europe..

There is a comparable situation in the world of ICT. Linux, Scribus, OpenOffice.org, JabRef, LyX, Zotero, Mendeley (these are examples of software which I use in my studies) and thousands of other operating systems and software can be used freely but usually people select Windows, MS Office, EndNote etc. And sometimes pirated and cracked version of these. Why?

Why is not the free alternative considered to be the best (even it was)?

I was making big assumptions but in my opinion they are as right or wrong assumptions than yours. You were referring to your
own experiences and people who you know. I was making a justifiable argument that publishing academic material is a big business
and people tend to publish in and read paid and popular journals more than open access journals.

The quality of open access journals do not increase if people do not use them..



Vigilantism is surely a quick way to advance one's interests but it has had often unwanted effects.

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

Bah stupid word limit


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 will allow people to reach the people they need to, and do the things they need to with ease.
So on the Journal front, you might get people submitting to Journal A because it has the established readership numbers that open source Journal B doesn't have. But then if that readership isn't right, the standards are too low etc then there may well be a swap. It's not just an automatic preference for one over the other based on type.

And I think you can see that in the preferences I and others were mentioning. We go for what's suitable, not what's paid. Sometimes what is suitable is paid, and sometimes there'll be people who don't put the thought in and go for a bigger name regardless. But it's not a given that that's how things are. Nor is it a given that that is how things will stay. Every publication leads to a change, or flux, in the various weightings given to journals by individuals. If that makes any sense. I may have tied myself up in knots! :)