Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Education Science

Nearly All Particle Physics Research To Be Open Access 27

ananyo writes with great news for particle physicists and those interested in the field everywhere: "The entire field of particle physics is set to switch to open-access publishing, a milestone in the push to make research results freely available to readers. Particle physics is already a paragon of openness, with most papers posted on the preprint server arXiv. But peer-reviewed versions are still published in subscription journals, and publishers and research consortia at facilities such as the Large Hadron Collider have previously had to strike piecemeal deals to free up a few hundred articles. After six years of negotiation, the Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics is now close to ensuring that nearly all particle-physics articles — about 7,000 publications last year — are made immediately free on journal websites. Upfront payments from libraries will fund the access and the contracts will be renegotiated in 2016. The idea of all this maneuvering is to minimize the hassle for the scientists themselves and ensure that every paper is open access. The alternative is the 'author pays' model, where the researchers pay to publish. But that would require all authors to comply — a difficult rule to enforce. The new deal, however, also preserves publishers' profits — for now."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nearly All Particle Physics Research To Be Open Access

Comments Filter:
  • by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2012 @02:13PM (#41452765) Homepage Journal

    ... it strikes me as unnecessarily playing ball with the journal publishers. I'd rather see OA simply enforced by the funding agencies. In my field, bioinformatics, the bulk of the funding in the US and UK comes from four sources: NIH (US government), MRC (UK government), HHMI (US private foundation), and Wellcome Trust (UK private foundation). All of them have open access policies for publications prepared with their money, and they don't much care how you do it: you can post the article in a public repository regardless of how it was published, publish in an OA journal--for which the funding agency will generally pay the publication fee--or publish in a traditional journal and make sure the publisher makes a copy freely available. You can bet the publishers grumble about that last one, but they've mostly gone along with the requirement, because the alternative is saying "we won't publish papers describing research funded by ___," and if they did that they'd cease to exist.

    • by ananyo ( 2519492 )

      It's true that all the organizations you anme have OA mandates BUT, crucially, none mandate that you make the research publicly accessible from the minute the paper is published. I believe the NIH policy is actually 12 MONTHS after publication - that is of limited use to scientists. []
      So these agencies are actually pandering to publishers even more (in some respects) than this consortium is - libraries will continue to have to buy subscriptions so that their scientists can access th

      • I don't actually have a big problem with the waiting period, although I prefer the 6-month policy of the other agencies to the 12-month policy of NIH. It's not true that year-old publications are "hardly of use to scientists"; e.g., looking at the reference list on a paper I submitted just last month, I find that out of 38 papers referred to, only 6 were published in 2011 or 2012, and half of those were published in OA journals. YMMV, of course, but I don't consider this an undue burden. I admit that I m

  • by reve_etrange ( 2377702 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2012 @02:54PM (#41453537)

    Open access journals like BioMed Central, PLoS, Oxford's OA journals, etc. all prove a OA business model can be successful (and profitable) if structured well.

    Also by charging authors ~$1k per publication. But keep in mind that subscription fee journals typically charge hundreds of dollars for color and extra pages (e.g. most IEEE Transactions journals charges $300 per page over 8).

  • But are they going to allow patents on certain subatomic particle arrangements? It worked for DNA. Good luck with that, lol. Sue the core of the sun!! SUE THE SUN, DAMN IT!
  • Why can't teachers for each subject get together every year andcoordinate the subject in textbooks?

    Textbooks should be freely available to all (digitally) with NO copyright so that ALL can learn. It is insane to copyright facts, and their presentation when it is being used to educate the general populace. The *basis* of civilization is founded the core principle of sharing. Sharing goods, sharing knowledge, etc.

  • Joke is on them. It's all strings poeple... STRINGS!!!
  • by metrometro ( 1092237 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2012 @05:57PM (#41456471)

    If only these guys had designed the World Wide Web!

  • Welcome to 1999. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2012 @10:57PM (#41459515) Homepage

    As a physicist, my reaction to this article is ... huh?

    Among physicists, putting all your papers on has been standard since about 1999. I basically *never* need to go anywhere but arxiv for anything published in this century. The only exception I can think of is papers published in Nature, which always seem to be paywalled and not available on arxiv. I assume Nature is very stone-age and forces authors not to post on arxiv. But anyway, Nature isn't really a big venue for physics publications. I teach at a community college, so I have no access to subscription-based journals. Whenever a paper is paywalled, I need to drive to the nearest 4-year university and photocopy it. This basically only happens when I'm looking up golden oldies from decades ago.

    What would be news would be if other fields besides math and physics started to do this.

    • by ananyo ( 2519492 )

      You are incorrect about Nature policy on Arxiv: []
      "Contributions being prepared for or submitted to a Nature journal can be posted on recognized preprint servers (such as ArXiv or Nature Precedings), and on collaborative websites such as wikis or the author's blog"

      The problem with ArXIv is that papers have yet to be formally peer-reviewed. It's certainly true that physicists post there and you can find (nearly) all papers there in some form - but many

      • The problem with ArXIv is that papers have yet to be formally peer-reviewed. It's certainly true that physicists post there and you can find (nearly) all papers there in some form - but many papers posted there don't make it past peer review.

        Why is that a "problem with arxiv?"

        So that's why this is important.

        I don't see the link between the first quote and the second quote.

        • by ananyo ( 2519492 )

          This allows free access to peer reviewed literature for free. ArXiv does not.
          Not sure I can be clearer than that...

I am more bored than you could ever possibly be. Go back to work.