MESSAGE
| DATE | 2016-12-05 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [Learn] information access, copyright wars and DRM
|
From learn-bounces-at-nylxs.com Mon Dec 5 20:28:34 2016
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: archive-at-mrbrklyn.com
Delivered-To: archive-at-mrbrklyn.com
Received: from www.mrbrklyn.com (www.mrbrklyn.com [96.57.23.82])
by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E047161315;
Mon, 5 Dec 2016 20:28:34 -0500 (EST)
X-Original-To: learn-at-nylxs.com
Delivered-To: learn-at-nylxs.com
Received: from [10.0.0.62] (flatbush.mrbrklyn.com [10.0.0.62])
by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01EBC160E77;
Mon, 5 Dec 2016 20:28:13 -0500 (EST)
To: Hangout , learn-at-nylxs.com
From: Ruben Safir
Message-ID: <53616e17-7991-e8a3-985f-3bbebc35f55d-at-mrbrklyn.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 20:28:13 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [Learn] information access, copyright wars and DRM
X-BeenThere: learn-at-nylxs.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Errors-To: learn-bounces-at-nylxs.com
Sender: "Learn"
http://www.ascb.org/2016/11/07/on-publishing-and-the-sneetches-a-wake-up-ca=
ll-november-december-2016-newsletter/
This repeats what we said 20 years ago, but here it is
On Publishing and the Sneetches: A Wake-up Call?*
By Peter Walter and Dyche Mullins | November 7, 2016
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on Linked=
InPin on PinterestEmail this to someone
*This column reflects the opinions of the authors about commercial academic=
publishing.
Peter Walter
Peter Walter =
Dyche Mullins
Dyche Mullins =
Two institutions=E2=80=94learned societies and scientific journals=E2=80=94=
midwifed a scientific revolution in the 17th century that still dominates o=
ur professional lives today. Learned societies like the ASCB remain relevan=
t because they provide forums for sharing results, discussing the practice =
of science, and projecting our voices to the public and the policymakers. S=
cientific journals still disseminate our work, but in the Internet-connecte=
d world of the 21st century this is no longer their critical function. Jour=
nals remain relevant today almost entirely because they provide a playing f=
ield for scientific and professional competition: To claim credit for a dis=
covery, we publish it in a peer-reviewed journal; to get a job in academia =
or money to run a lab, we present piles of these published papers to univer=
sities and funding agencies. Publishing is so embedded in the practice of s=
cience that whoever controls the journals controls access to the entire pro=
fession. It is, therefore, worth examining to whom we have entrusted the ke=
ys to the kingdom of science.
A New Relationship between Scholars and Publishers
Non Solus (Latin for =E2=80=9Cnot alone=E2=80=9D) reads the banner of a woo=
dprint adopted as a logo in 1620 by the House of Elsevier, a family of Dutc=
h booksellers. The print shows a sturdy elm tree that supports a growing vi=
ne, which wraps around the trunk and entangles the branches (Figure 1). The=
vine bears fruit, which a solemn scholar harvests with ease. In 1880 an un=
related publishing company adopted the Elsevier name and its logo, which ac=
cording to its website: =E2=80=9C=E2=80=A6represents, in classical symbolis=
m, the symbiotic relationship between publisher and scholar. The addition o=
f the Non Solus inscription reinforces the message that publishers, like th=
e elm tree, are needed to provide sturdy support for scholars, just as sure=
ly as scholars, the vine, are needed to produce fruit. Publishers and schol=
ars cannot do it alone=E2=80=A6.=E2=80=9D1
Today, this 400-year-old logo no longer reflects reality. As scholars, we n=
ow could take over the means of fruit production=E2=80=94in fact, we alread=
y do most of it. Like our intellectual ancestors hundreds of years ago, we=
still conceive and execute the research, and we write our papers. But now =
with the advent of electronic word and image processing, we also create our=
own graphics, proofread our own text, and in some cases typeset it. More s=
ignificantly, the Internet enables us to easily (and instantly) disseminate=
our work around the world. Publishers still help provide a measure of qual=
ity control by orchestrating the peer review process, but here again it is =
scholars who do the actual work of reviewing papers. It is thus surprising =
that despite the diminished (and arguably dispensable) role of the publishi=
ng industry, our community remains slavishly committed to century-old tradi=
tions that, we will argue, are illogical and in many cases exploitative and=
harmful to our community.
Of course Elsevier is only one example of several large for-profit publishe=
rs of scholarly journals. Members of the for-profit publishing industry sub=
scribe to an ingenious business plan. In an insightful satirical essay, Sco=
tt Aaronson describes a fictitious computer game company built on principle=
s similar to those of the for-profit publishing industry, exploiting its pa=
trons to contribute their products and labor for free.2 In Aaronson=E2=80=
=99s imaginary scenario, game developers donate their games to the company =
because they need its =E2=80=9Cseal of approval=E2=80=9D for their games to=
be recognized. Experts test and debug the games for free when told that it=
=E2=80=99s their =E2=80=9Cprofessional duty=E2=80=9D to do so. So for only =
trivial investment in the products, the company can charge customers high r=
ates for the games it now owns. Aaronson concludes: =E2=80=9COn reflection,=
perhaps no game developer would be gullible enough to fall for my scheme. =
I need a community that has a higher tolerance for the ridiculous=E2=80=94a=
community that, even after my operation is unmasked, will study it and hol=
d meetings, but not =E2=80=98rush to judgment=E2=80=99 by dissociating itse=
lf from me. But who on Earth could possibly be so paralyzed by indecision, =
so averse to change, so immune to common sense?
I=E2=80=99ve got it: academics!=E2=80=9D.
Figure 1. The trademark and logo of Elsevier (AD 1620)
Figure 1. The trademark and logo of Elsevier (AD 1620)
The situation is amplified by the fact that publishers have created de fact=
o monopolies. In this industry, normal market forces that control pricing t=
hrough competition are entirely absent. Every paper we submit is a singular=
product, and every academic library has an obligation to provide access to=
it. Otherwise, we, the scholars, cannot perform our jobs properly, and it =
is the libraries=E2=80=99 role to support our scholarship. Because of this =
built-in mandate, publishers can increase prices virtually at will (at leas=
t, until library budgets are exhausted), which is strongly supported by dat=
a that show the increase in subscription cost far outpaces other market ind=
icators.3 The only control in place is depressingly reminiscent of a parasi=
te=E2=80=93host relationship: To ensure its own survival the parasite must =
not kill the host. Why having a monopoly on the product combined with a cap=
tive market for it does not violate antitrust law is unclear to us.
To further compound the issue, we blithely accept the fact that most publis=
hers demand that we sign over the copyright of our work, allowing them to c=
ontrol access to it and maximize their profits. If we were to imagine an up=
dated logo befitting the current business practices of for-profit publisher=
s, it might look something like Figure 2. The elm tree has grown, as the fo=
r-profit publishing houses now have grown into gigantic multinational congl=
omerates. The fruit of knowledge now hangs out of reach, even when we are s=
tretched on our tippy toes. For access we need to use the ladder that is ga=
ted and festooned with the banner whose motto has morphed into Non Gratis (=
=E2=80=9Cnot for free=E2=80=9D). The role of the tree changed diametrically=
, from disseminating knowledge to controlling access. And yet, we happily k=
eep nourishing the tree. Just as Scott Aaronson describes, we work for them=
for free in producing the work, reviewing it, and serving on their editori=
al boards.
=
What Publishing Really Costs Us
The magnitude of the profits of the major commercial publishers is astonish=
ing. As a whole, the industry made more than $10 billion in 2015, with pro=
fits for the largest players, such as Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis,=
and Wiley, exceeding 30%.4 Elsevier alone, a publicly held company and the=
world=E2=80=99s largest academic for-profit publisher, reports in its 2014=
annual report revenues of $3.38 billion for its science/technology/math br=
anches with an operating profit of $1.13 billion.5 This calculates to a pro=
fit margin of 33%. In other words, each time we pay an article processing c=
harge of $3,000, $1,000 goes to Elsevier and its shareholders.
Putting these numbers into perspective reveals the magnitude of the problem=
: Elsevier=E2=80=99s annual profit of $1.13 billion corresponds to ~1.3-tim=
es the entire annual budget of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), =
the major philanthropic funding agency for biomedical research in the Unite=
d States, which generously funds some 300 investigators. The CNRS, the majo=
r funding agency in France, spends =E2=82=AC30M/year on journal subscriptio=
ns (~20% of its entire annual budget allocated for consumables and small eq=
uipment).6 This money is effectively a surcharge, or tax, on scientific res=
earch imposed not by a government but by a for-profit industry. Imagine for=
a moment how much research could be carried out using these resources if t=
hey were channeled back into our academic enterprise.
Most of us pay publication charges from our grants, that is, from taxpayers=
=E2=80=99 money. And then the libraries, again funded indirectly through th=
e taxpayers, pay again for access. In open-access models of our for-profit =
publishers, things are hardly any better. Elsevier=E2=80=99s Cell Reports c=
harges $5,000 to publish an article. Thus, while foregoing the library subs=
cription income, the shareholders=E2=80=99 profits are well preserved in th=
e aggregate of their portfolio. But at least open access allows us to evalu=
ate the price tag up front. Scientists can decide on a case-by-case basis w=
hether any particular journal is worth that much money, and publishers cann=
ot lock away our papers in their archives, holding them ransom and charging=
our community for access over and over again.
Figure 2. The authors=E2=80=99 satirical view of the Elsevier logo: The tre=
e has grown (AD 2016).
Figure 2. The authors=E2=80=99 satirical view of the Elsevier logo: The tre=
e has grown (AD 2016).
In contrast to for-profit publishers, our university presses and society jo=
urnals use the more modest profits generated from their journals to leverag=
e many positive initiatives that enrich our communities, such as the presti=
gious EMBO Fellowships that would not exist without the revenue brought in =
by EMBO journals, the impactful AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellowsh=
ips built on leveraging the income generated by Science magazine, and the v=
arious activities of our Society enabled by ASCB=E2=80=99s Molecular Biolog=
y of the Cell (MBoC). These enterprises add to the larger good of our commu=
nity values, and they deserve our support and volunteered labor.
=
Why Do We Resist Change?
All of the issues mentioned above have been raised ad nauseum. They have ca=
used flurries of outrage across a range of academic communities, yet the is=
sues persist in the face of boycott attempts and editorial board resignatio=
ns (e.g., reference 7). Why do we not only tolerate an antiquated and paten=
tly exploitative publishing system, but actively support and promote it? Wh=
y is our community so resistant to see through these issues and effect mean=
ingful change? There are a number of reasons that contribute to maintain th=
e unfortunate status quo.
First and foremost, we as a community have fallen into the lazy and lamenta=
ble habit of using journal titles as yardsticks to measure our accomplishme=
nts. We pretend that this is a rational strategy by pointing to metrics lik=
e the journal impact factor, widely viewed as a false metric tailor-made to=
be gamed by high-profile journals8 that unfortunately now dictates the car=
eers of our young scientists. In reality, the importance of publishing in h=
igh-profile journals arises entirely from within the scientific community i=
tself. There is no intrinsic value to publishing our work in such journals;=
there is only the value that we, collectively, decide to place on it. As l=
ong as the =E2=80=9Cgold-stars=E2=80=9D associated with authoring papers in=
, for example, Cell and Nature, are=E2=80=94or even are just perceived to b=
e =E2=80=94significant drivers in hiring, promotion, and funding decisions,=
Elsevier, Springer, et al. will remain untouchable forces. In his wonderfu=
l children=E2=80=99s book The Sneetches, Dr. Seuss powerfully illustrates t=
he impact of stars (in this case blue) in an imaginary society. The Sneetch=
es that inhabit this society come in two castes: some have blue stars affix=
ed to their bellies and some do not. The Sneetch society is stratified by t=
his attribute:
When the Star-Belly children went out to play ball
Could a Plain Belly get in the game=E2=80=A6? Not at all
You only could play if your bellies had stars,
And the Plain Belly children had none upon thars9
As the story goes, a lot of money is made by those who offer to print stars=
onto the bellies of those lacking them, which as status symbols are just a=
s meaningless as a paper in a high=E2=80=93impact factor journal on our CVs=
as an indicator of signature contributions. What desperately needs to be d=
one is to eradicate the misleading metric of the journal impact factor, and=
this movement is well underway. Alternative, article-based (i.e., not jour=
nal-based) metrics are gaining hold and acceptance as an improvement, altho=
ugh even this is not enough.10,11 One of us (PW) serves on a grant evaluati=
on panel for the European Research Council (introduced in the President=E2=
=80=99s Column in the preceding issue of this Newsletter12). In our panel i=
t is the stated and adhered to policy that we will not consider where a pap=
er is published. Rather, in our evaluations we assess its real impact in a =
field. Change of this sort and defiance of the status quo is badly needed i=
n all committees and panels that make decisions that impact the future of o=
ur next-generation scientists, even if it entails a bit more work. Even if =
the highest-profile journals may not be the biggest money-makers for the pu=
blishers, their business practices of bundling subscriptions and creating e=
ver-expanding suites of high-profile spin-off journals rely on them as very=
profitable hooks for maintaining market share.
Second, we as a community lack the will and the courage to act together for=
change, even change that would improve our lives. We could, for example, o=
verhaul the publishing system overnight, by sending our work exclusively to=
non-profit venues that provide either immediate open access or that return=
their revenues to the scientific community. Journals like PLOS, eLife, and=
MBoC provide arguably better standards of peer-review than for-profit jour=
nals and unarguably better access=E2=80=94namely free access either immedia=
tely or soon after publication for anyone with an Internet connection. The =
only thing these journals still lack is our highest stamp of approval. And =
there=E2=80=99s the rub! As long as a significant fraction of the research =
community remains in awe of vanity for-profit journals, these journals will=
retain their hold on the keys to the kingdom. We are evolutionarily progra=
mmed to nourish and protect our young and many of us continue to publish in=
journals of questionable ethics because: =E2=80=9CI/my student/postdoc nee=
d(s) to publish in such a journal to get a promotion/job/grant.=E2=80=9D As=
a community, we remain in thrall to these magazines. We may imagine oursel=
ves to be rational, gutsy, paradigm-changing experimentalists who go where =
no one has gone before, but in reality we are a conservative community to w=
hich change does not come easily. There is hope for gradual change and enli=
ghtenment, but all of the rational and well-reasoned cries of outrage have =
not led to a revolution.
Third, the beneficiary of the current system is a multibillion-dollar indus=
try whose influence is so strong that the institutions funding our research=
are unwilling or unable to counter it decisively. The research community i=
tself may lack the courage to stop publishing in for-profit journals, but p=
ublic funding sources like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) could ma=
ke this change overnight by demanding that all publicly funded work be made=
freely available immediately or shortly after publication. So could the ot=
her major funding agencies around the world such as the HHMI, the Wellcome =
Trust, the CNRS, and the Max-Planck-Institutes. Instead of removing the ind=
ustry-imposed tax on research, however, our funding institutions reached co=
mpromises that allow for-profit publishers to retain exclusive rights to ch=
arge for access to publicly funded work for one year (e.g., see reference 1=
3). With so many accessible publishing options available is there really a =
compelling need to compromise on this issue? Akin to those politicians who =
deploy demagogic talents to convince national electorates to vote against t=
heir own interests, for-profit publishers bring enormous resources to bear =
and =E2=80=9Cconvince=E2=80=9D policy makers, funding agencies, and researc=
hers that their services are invaluable, and that their practices and profi=
t margins are fair and justified.
Fourth, the publishing landscape is complex. It is imperative for us to adh=
ere to our academic mission of making sure that scientific contributions ar=
e properly reviewed and refined so that our published work represents relia=
ble, true advances of knowledge=E2=80=94to the best of our communal ability=
to judge. For that, we have accepted a communal responsibility, reflected =
in the many altruistic ways we volunteer our time and effort. These are pow=
erful traditions that we deeply value. It is not always easy to see clearly=
when these values are being abused. Perhaps it is this that allows for-pro=
fit publishing companies to continue to flourish with a business model that=
exploits and manipulates our community values for financial gain.
Fifth, the editors that work for journals run by for-profit publishers are =
not our enemies. These editors, many of them talented scientists trained in=
our own labs, learned to recognize good science, to identify faulty logic,=
and to distinguish significant discoveries from incremental advances. We v=
alue them as colleagues and, for the most part, they do their best to handl=
e submissions fairly while upholding the prestige of their respective journ=
als. Yet, some have become corrupted by their masters and act more as power=
brokers judged by their efforts to maximize the journals=E2=80=99 impact fa=
ctors rather than their work as scientists and mentors practicing the art o=
f rational, evidence-based decision-making.
This list describes a few of the many reasons why we put up with unnecessar=
y and exploitative practices of for-profit scientific publishers. Perhaps e=
volutionary genetics provides a relevant lesson: Traits that are harmful to=
an entire population can persist for long periods of time when they provid=
e individuals in that population with a survival advantage. So, how do we c=
hange the system?
figure3
Box 1. Suggestion for a reply when asked to review for a for-profit journal=
. Note that the suggested rate for professional advice is a bargain. It wou=
ld be very hard to find a lawyer to work for this rate for a for-profit ent=
erprise.
How Can We Effect Change?
Obviously, we cannot expect publishers themselves to initiate significant c=
hange. The executives of for-profit publishing companies are obliged to max=
imize profits, which in this case means extracting publicly and philanthrop=
ically provided resources from the scientific community. They cannot sudden=
ly abandon their fiduciary responsibilities and begin plowing profits back =
into universities or the research community. The evolution from symbiont to=
parasite is complete and irreversible.
What is left is for universities, funding agencies, and (most importantly) =
the research community to wake up. As with climate change, it may require d=
rastic consequences to galvanize us into action. In the United States, stat=
e and national contributions to public universities have been declining sin=
ce the early 1990s,14 while the money that universities spend on subscripti=
ons to academic journals has risen far faster than other market indicators.=
15 Something has to give. In fact, the wake-up call for the University of C=
alifornia (UC) system came in 2003, when Elsevier, in an attempt to squeeze=
higher online subscription rates out of the UC system, cut-off all electro=
nic access to its journals. We (and our students and postdocs) literally co=
uld not read our own papers! After the threat of a large-scale boycott (whi=
ch was covered in a previous ASCB Newsletter16), Elsevier eventually struck=
an undisclosed compromise. Unfortunately, this deal produced no lasting ch=
ange and likely provided a useful template for dealing with subsequent univ=
ersity revolts. Earlier this year, for example, a threatened boycott by Dut=
ch universities of Elsevier journals was averted with Elsevier making small=
concessions that allow a fraction of papers from Dutch scholars to be publ=
ished in an open-access format.17,18
What can we as individuals do to promote change? One obvious action that wo=
uld help weaken the grip of the for-profit publishing industry on our commu=
nity would be, whenever reasonably possible, to decline to provide our free=
labor. One of us (PW) for example, with very few exceptions that can be co=
unted with the fingers on one hand, has not published in and not reviewed f=
or any Elsevier journal for the last 13 years. What is most puzzling is a l=
ack of more widespread anger in our communities regarding the degree of exp=
loitation and abuse by for-profit publishing enterprises that we not only t=
olerate, but accept and support. Rather, as Scott Aaronson points out late=
r in his article, =E2=80=9C[w]e support the enterprise by reviewing and by =
serving on editorial boards without compensation, regarding these duties as=
a moral obligation.=E2=80=9D2
Starting small with individual actions helps with another malady in our pro=
fession: the constant struggle to maintain a good life=E2=80=93work balance=
. Imagine, for example, what you could do with four hours. You could either=
review a paper and put money into the pockets of canny investors, or you c=
ould spend some quality time with your family, go for a walk, or perform so=
me unpaid community service that actually makes the world a better place. I=
f you really want to review that paper, there is another strategy that coul=
d turn the ethical dilemma into a win=E2=80=93win situation (see Box 1).
One symptom of scholars=E2=80=99 frustration with restricted access to jour=
nals is the emergence and widespread use of illegal download sites that pro=
vide free access to millions of copyrighted publications.18 Just as Napster=
and Bit Torrent servers forced a reorganization of the music industry=E2=
=80=94which by contrast to the for-profit publishing industry can legitimat=
ely claim to defend royalties paid to artists=E2=80=94sites like Sci-Hub an=
d LibGen pose a significant challenge to the status quo. The original motiv=
ation for creating Sci-Hub and other illegal download sites was to provide =
access to scientific literature for scholars in the developing world. Curre=
nt data, however, reveal that the per capita usage of these sites is compar=
able in affluent countries, indicating the magnitude of worldwide demand fo=
r access to the literature.19
The authors of this article are old enough to remember the end of the Cold =
War. One of us (PW) grew up in post-war West Berlin, embracing the anti-au=
thoritarian culture of the era; the other (DM) studied for a time at the Un=
iversity of Leningrad in the days leading up to Perestroika and the collaps=
e of Soviet communism. So, with the reader=E2=80=99s indulgence, we would l=
ike to echo the call of a past U.S. president to declaim:
COLLEAGUES, TEAR DOWN THAT TREE!
And if we scientists fail to tear it down in one blow, then let us at least=
open our eyes and continue to chop away at it. The end goal seems obvious:=
The knowledge that we produce in our publicly funded works belongs to huma=
nkind and must not be locked up behind pay-walls=E2=80=94 newly submitted p=
apers should be open-access and older ones open-archive. Our real challenge=
is to find the paths that get us there. But major change can happen, even=
if it seems impossible to imagine now. The Berlin Wall no longer stands, a=
nd we are certain that=E2=80=94if we put our hearts into it, embrace health=
y values, and eradicate bad ones=E2=80=94scientists, learned societies, and=
scientific journals can invent new, powerfully symbiotic relationships.
References
1https://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/articles/what-does-non-solus-mean-else=
viers-logo.
2Aaronson S (2007). Review of The Access Principle by John Willinsky. ACM =
SIGACT News 38, 19=E2=80=9323. For an online author=E2=80=99s copy of the a=
rticle that is not behind a paywall see: www.scottaaronson.com/writings/jou=
rnal.html.
3www.arl.org/storage/documents/monograph-serial-costs.pdf.
4Murphy K (March 12, 2016). Should all research articles be free? The New Y=
ork Times. www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/should-all-research-pa=
pers-be-free.html.
5see p. 102 in www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports 2007/Documents/2014/relx=
group_ar_2014.pdf.
6www.dgdr.cnrs.fr/dcif/chiffres-cles/comptes-2015/pdf/Rapport-CNRS-CF-2015_=
CA.pdf.
7http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/07/08/dutch-universitie=
s-boycott-elsevier.
8e.g., www.ascb.org/dora.
9Geisel T (aka Dr. Seuss) (1961). The Sneetches and Other Stories. New York=
: Random House. For an online copy of the entire prose see http://teacherwe=
b.com/VA/WarwickHS/Elliot_T/Text-The-Sneetches.pdf.
10www.ascb.org/a-new-and-stunning-metric-from-nih-reveals-the-real-nature-o=
f-scientific-impact.
11http://f1000.com/prime.
12Hyman T, Desai A, Walter P (2016). On research funding and the power of y=
outh. ASCB Newsletter 39(7), 3=E2=80=938. www.ascb.org/october-2016-newslet=
ter-on-research-funding-and-the-power-of-youth.
13https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIH_Public_Access_Policy.
14Bourne HR, Vermillion EB (2016). Follow the Money: Funding Research in a =
Large Academic Health Center. University of California Medical Humanities P=
ress.
15www.arl.org/storage/documents/monograph-serial-costs.pdf.
16www.ascb.org/files/0501profile.pdf.
17www.timeshighereducation.com/news/dutch-universities-and-elsevier-reach-d=
eal-over-open-access.
18Bohannon J (Dec. 11, 2015). In unique deal, Elsevier agrees to make some =
papers by Dutch authors free. Science. www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/12/uniq=
ue-deal-elsevier-agrees-make-some-papers-dutch-authors-free.
19Bohannon J (April 28, 2016). Who=E2=80=99s downloading pirated papers? Ev=
eryone. Science. www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-p=
apers-everyone.
Questions and comments are welcome and should be sent to president-at-ascb.org.
-- =
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com =
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
_______________________________________________
Learn mailing list
Learn-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/learn
|
|
