…and this is a 
The latest issue of Zebrafish, a specialty journal to which my university does not subscribe, is dedicated entirely to using zebrafish in education. I want it. I want the whole issue. Unfortunately, the publisher wants to charge me $29 per article to get the PDFs, which is not going to happen. Anyone out there with an institutional subscription want to help me out? If you don't feel like sending me the whole collection, I'm particularly interested in the articles by Bagatto, D'Costa, McKeown, and Schmoldt.
Now watch, my mailbox is going to be flooded, isn't it? Once upon a time, I could make these kinds of requests and get a moderate response, but nowadays…well, at least you know how badly I want these papers.
I got the papers! Thanks very much all, you can stop sending them to me now. Much appreciated, now I have to go read for a while.
Comments
Posted by: Shamelessly Atheist | June 19, 2009 9:51 AM
I just checked and we get it here. Give me an hour-and-a-half to get into work and I'll get on it.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | June 19, 2009 10:10 AM
Okay - and what are the objections to open-access publishing again?
Posted by: thegreek | June 19, 2009 10:14 AM
check your inbox.
Posted by: UMN Librarian | June 19, 2009 10:15 AM
Prof. Meyers,
I'm a librarian on the Twin Cities campus. I'm sure the librarians at Morris would be more than happy to secure a copy of this article for you through Interlibrary Loan. You can place your request online here: http://www.morris.umn.edu/library/article-request.php Most requests are filled electronically, and this way no one needs to violate the terms of their institutional licenses.
Posted by: Jennifer | June 19, 2009 10:22 AM
Interlibrary Loan that shit! Minnesota has one of the best ILL programs in the country - take advantage of it.
Posted by: thegreek | June 19, 2009 10:23 AM
in the case of #4, don't check your inbox :)
Posted by: Aa | June 19, 2009 10:29 AM
In the case of #4, I believe ILL limits you to ONE article from a particular issue of a journal each calendar year. I ran into this problem last year wanting multiple articles from a journal. Perhaps the MN system has a different licensing agreement with journals.
So probably best to keep sending them to PZ.
Posted by: David | June 19, 2009 10:30 AM
PZ, I guess you received them pdfs? I have access, so let us know
Posted by: Christine | June 19, 2009 10:36 AM
Just sent a whole batch of PDFs your way. Sorry if they're duplicates of stuff you've already received!
(Now to return to my lurking status.)
Posted by: raven | June 19, 2009 10:42 AM
Are reprint requests to authors extinct?
Almost but not quite.
Posted by: bill | June 19, 2009 10:42 AM
Absolute agreement. You don't get it. In fact, it's about 20 miles over your head.
Posted by: WTF | June 19, 2009 10:43 AM
You realize you just publicly announced your intention to steal copyrighted material, right PZ?
Posted by: Billy C | June 19, 2009 10:50 AM
Re: #7, I am a librarian in an academic library in Missouri. Our library has no such restriction, nor does any academic library that I'm aware of -- that's not to say such restrictions don't exist.
We may request a certain number of articles (I think it's 5) from a given journal in a calendar year "for free." After that, we can & will continue to request articles, but we report the requests to the Copyright Clearance Center, who charges us a per-article fee, which I understand is shared with the publisher. (Last I knew, the fee was around $11). We do not pass this fee on to our users -- not to students and especially not to faculty, but I know other libraries do.
It's not uncommon for libraries to look at the number of ILL requests for a journal when making decisions about journal subscriptions. If you start making frequent requests for articles from this journal, you might find that your library breaks down and buys a subscription.
Posted by: Catherina | June 19, 2009 11:03 AM
yeah that, BillyC - Zebrafish needs subscribers :)
Posted by: ELR | June 19, 2009 11:05 AM
@ #12 Educational use is fair use. I seriously doubt PZ has some evil profit-driven scheme for these articles.
Posted by: DaveX | June 19, 2009 11:06 AM
Rip that shit, PZ-- information needs to be free.
Posted by: JRD | June 19, 2009 11:13 AM
Right DaveX-- and since the production of information is absolutely free since journals, newspapers, etc., have no overhead costs whatsoever, it's only evil corporate greediness that bars the way to a free-information utopia. Not like the producers of valuable information might, you know, *stop producing* if they're unable to cover their costs through product sales. Greedy bastards!
Posted by: Joanne | June 19, 2009 11:16 AM
I really don't understand that pricing model - $29 for a .pdf download? Of a single article? *Books* cost that much!
Springer-Verlag asks for $32 and article.
It's *stupid* - If they asked for a nominal fee- say $0.50, I probably wouldn't bother to wait until I got to campus to download the article for free - and if there's no institutional subscription, I normally either go find a different article to cite, or use ILL - which is free. They'd end up making more money with a different pricing model, and I would be leary of publishing anything with companies that charge like that since it makes it more difficult for people to cite my own work... It's lose-lose.
Posted by: DaveX | June 19, 2009 11:19 AM
I'll bite, JRD. But what chance is there that the original researcher already had some sort of grant, etc for producing the research? Seems to me that they're in the same situation as musicians in days past-- if they want to get their research seen, they have to publish it-- so they're at the mercy of a middle-man "label" creating a parasitic financial relationship from their work... one that demonstrably creates a barrier towards a legitimate reader gaining access to the information.
I understand the necessity of peer review, but I won't join you in pretending that the same publication couldn't be disseminated more cheaply and freely online without locking out potential readers.
Posted by: frog | June 19, 2009 11:21 AM
JRD: Not like the producers of valuable information might, you know, *stop producing* if they're unable to cover their costs through product sales.
Scientists including reviewers have started to receive a cut of journal subscriptions? Sweet, I hadn't heard that.
Posted by: WTF | June 19, 2009 11:22 AM
@#15
No, educational use is not "fair use." You don't know what you are talking about. Would it be "fair use" for someone to scan a copyrighted book and send it to cheap scientists? No. Same rules apply here.
PZ can take legal channels to "borrow" the material, as the librarian up above helpfully pointed out.
@#18
It's called "the law of supply and demand" Joanne.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | June 19, 2009 11:24 AM
@ELR:
Fair use, although valid, is only a defense. It doesn't stop you getting sued.
Posted by: Chris Davis | June 19, 2009 11:26 AM
To avoid all this tedious wank next time, I think you should bite the bullet and buy an actual Zebrafish of your own.
If that's not practical, how about a Horsefly?
Posted by: DaveX | June 19, 2009 11:26 AM
BTW, I said "disseminate" in the last comment. And spelled it correctly on a Friday morning! OM, anyone?
Posted by: WTF | June 19, 2009 11:27 AM
Fair use applies to the use of a work in a derivative work, not to stealing journal articles.
Posted by: Joel | June 19, 2009 11:33 AM
Open access is certainly more convenient for the readers - but the cost is put on the authors - it can cost $800 or more to publish. There are also (not unreasonable) concerns about incentives - if the publisher makes its profits by getting a lot of money for each paper it publishes, rather than bother with getting a bunch of readers by only printing high-quality, interesting papers... well, they're motivated to publish just about anything they receive, which may hurt quality.
On the other hand, open access is a lot more convenient for me as an honours student at a university which doesn't have a bunch of the journals I'd really like, with an annoying and lame search facility.
Posted by: frog | June 19, 2009 11:35 AM
WTF: It's called "the law of supply and demand" Joanne.
Umm, no. That applies to commodities -- barely distinguishable objects being exchanged on a marginal utility basis. This is called "The Law of Government-guaranteed Monopoly". For marketing purposes, they need to create the illusion of scarcity. In the movie and music industries this is discussed openly -- that prices have to be kept up via collusion in order to protect the "imagined value". Aka, it's a marketing gimmick.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 19, 2009 11:36 AM
Posted by: WTF | June 19, 2009 11:47 AM
@27 - The law of supply and demand is a marketing gimmick? The government is in a conspiracy with obscure science journals to jack up prices? There are an overabundance of articles on using zebrafish in education? Information isn't a commodity? Movies and records don't cost millions+ to produce, market, and distribute? WTF?
@28 - Yeah, price fixing, huh. I can't wait to see the Obama administration take on the Obscure Journal Monopoly.
Difference in this situation is that Professor PZ can legally get this material (unlike, say, widgets, cigarettes, or a new Humvee) for free.
Posted by: Michael | June 19, 2009 11:49 AM
ARRRRRRRRR, pirates be talking har!
Posted by: Michael | June 19, 2009 11:52 AM
ARRRRRRRRR, pirates be talking har!
Posted by: Otto | June 19, 2009 11:53 AM
What is wrong with inter library loans? It is free and get you the most obscure stuff in the world.
Posted by: Bracken1 | June 19, 2009 11:56 AM
You have to wonder just how interested the publishers of Zebrafish are in the use of their preferred organisms in education if they make access to reprints (PDFs) so bloody expensive.
Posted by: Otto | June 19, 2009 12:00 PM
Bracken1 at 33,
Qualified persons can get the articles for free thru inter library loans. Anybody else pays.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 19, 2009 12:18 PM
I'm not actually claiming that articles are priced through collusion by OJEC, spaz. I point out that price fixing exists because you don't seem to be aware of that fact. If you were, you wouldn't knee-jerk justify prices with such inanities as "it's called the law of supply and demand, Joanne. D'uh."
If you've actually got information regarding the cost of producing journals, circulation numbers etc. that justifies thirty fucking bucks for 6-12 pages, the writing of which costs the journal nothing, feel free to share. But citing the "law of supply and demand" is just fucking stupid.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 19, 2009 12:36 PM
WTF, just publish in Acta Palaeontologica Polonica next time.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 19, 2009 12:41 PM
Why, open access journals can't exist, David. That would violate the law of supply and demand!
Posted by: DaveX | June 19, 2009 1:01 PM
Brownian-- How long will it be before profs start yakking about how online, open-access journals just aren't the same as holding a physical "artifact," à la hipster music folks suddenly realizing that 10,000 downloaded mp3s just don't LOOK as cool as a wall of LPs?
Posted by: WTF | June 19, 2009 1:30 PM
@#37
The law of supply and demand doesn't regulate stuff you give away for free. It's a shame I had to point that out to you.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 19, 2009 1:36 PM
Nor diamonds, oil, air travel, DRAM, hydrogen peroxide, lysine, etc.
It's a shame I had to point those out to you.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 19, 2009 1:51 PM
No, no, you've got it wrong: downloaded articles just aren't as 'sciencey' as the original paper versions. I mean, I carry a few around on my kindle for downtime at Starbucks, but when I really want to mellow out and think, I pull out my dad's vintage glasses and cherrywood desk and just read, man.
And I don't buy any of those bullshit popular journals with high impact factors. I mean, Nature, Science, and The Lancet are just fine for people like you who don't know any better, but those of us with more refined tastes tend to look for something a little less sell-out and mainstream.
Posted by: william e emba | June 19, 2009 2:13 PM
The publisher of Zebrafish makes back issues available online for free. I'd say they're being entirely reasonable.
Posted by: ELR | June 19, 2009 2:30 PM
OK fine "fair use" is not the correct term. Still for educational purposes, it's acceptable to give someone copies of journal articles, even if their institution doesn't subscribe. I've actually been surprised at the allowances my own journal publishing agreement gave for educational use.
Posted by: WTF | June 19, 2009 2:40 PM
@43
No, it's not. It says clearly in the terms of use that it cannot be reproduced without express permission from the publisher.
Posted by: DaveX | June 19, 2009 3:01 PM
Oh yeah, Brownian? Well I saw Zebrafish way back when they were still opening for Journal of Russian Phytopathological Society-- and I've got the t-shirt to prove it! LOL
Posted by: ELR | June 19, 2009 4:11 PM
@44 Yeah if you consider asking for a few articles from one issue "systematic" redistribution. I have doubts that most people would. I guess you do. Hope you're not the judge on PZ's coming criminal trial for copyright infringement. I think you're much more invested in this technical point than I.
Posted by: WTF | June 19, 2009 4:23 PM
@46
Yes, I probably do, since I actually produce information that people pay to purchase, and know first hand how wanton copyright infringement and illegal duplication devalues my work and the work of everyone else in the creative/information production class.
I think it's a piss-poor example for a college professor to set, especially when he could easily have requested the materials through the proper channels.
Posted by: Heather | June 19, 2009 5:34 PM
There was a recent discussion of this very issue over on FriendFeed:
http://friendfeed.com/the-life-scientists/5c8b12c6/opinions-on-redistributing-papers-to-friends
How very timely... but a decidedly different atmosphere!
Posted by: Heather | June 19, 2009 5:49 PM
There was a recent discussion of this very issue over on FriendFeed:
http://friendfeed.com/the-life-scientists/5c8b12c6/opinions-on-redistributing-papers-to-friends
How very timely... but a decidedly different atmosphere!
Posted by: WTF | June 20, 2009 12:15 AM
@40
Oh, a laundry list! You must have just read Walt Whitman in your high school "college track" English class.
How precious!
Posted by: Simon Powers | June 20, 2009 5:15 AM
Can't believe PZ (a) assumed he wouldn't have to pay the going rate, just because he didn't feel like it, (b) assumed copyright rules didn't apply to him, just because he doesn't think they should, and (c) couldn't be bothered to ask his own college librarian to help him out. What a pathetic example. Glad to see I'm not the only one to feel that way - well said, WTF.
Posted by: windy | June 20, 2009 5:37 AM
Did you read #26? The author usually has to pay to publish in open access journals, but publishing in Zebrafish is free. Mystery solved!
And I'm not sure that the publisher of Zebrafish is the kind we should necessarily be dissing in this day and age... (at least they're not 'SPEW')
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 20, 2009 9:55 AM
windy, I don't know about that. Bill Hooker and others have looked into how many open access journal demands a fee for publishing, and have found that a majority of them don't. Of course, the numbers don't take publishing frequency into consideration (it might be that the majority of published open access articles are paid for through an author fee). Still, so far, it's the only numbers we have to work with, and they indicate that arguments against open access based on author fees might not be valid.