back to article Uncivil engineering: US society skewers self-published science

If you thought civil engineers were one of society's more conformist cohorts, think again: according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, they're rampant copyright pirates. Their crime is to publish full versions of their own research papers online, once those papers have been published by the ASCE's journals, and they' …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Sanctimonious Prick
    Alert

    Err...

    What crime are they committing? I lost it after the 2nd paragraph.

    1. frank ly

      Re: Err...

      Apparently, if you have a paper published in an ASCE journal, nobody else is allowed to publish it anywhere, not even you. Maybe they should have read the details of the conditions before they submitted it for publication? (The meaning of the word 'submit' might be relevant here.)

      Edit: I just noticed that I have to press a button labelled 'Submit'. I give up.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ASCE's journals

    have just signed their own death warrant.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: ASCE's journals

      "have just signed their own death warrant."

      It's not that simple. Presumably the Society's publications are the peer review system for the civil engineering community in the US. In which case they kinda have to exist. No peer review means the published papers are of dubious value. Bad papers means that the quality of civil engineering itself declines and then you'll start having a spate of new bridges and skyscrapers collapsing. Really not good.

      If the civil engineers stop publishing in the Society's journals then how is alternative and credible peer review going to be arranged and acknowledged?

      So if the Society has to exist the question of how it is funded arises. One way to fund it is through sales of its journals, which are maximised through copyright control and enforcement.

      1. DavCrav

        Re: ASCE's journals

        "It's not that simple. Presumably the Society's publications are the peer review system for the civil engineering community in the US. In which case they kinda have to exist."

        Presumably not, they are just one set of journals. In which case they kinda don't have to exist.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: ASCE's journals

          More significantly, their impact factor is certainly going to go down after this since they'll get fewer citations if people have difficulty reading their published papers, so fewer people will want to publish with them...

        2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: ASCE's journals

          Presumably not, they are just one set of journals. In which case they kinda don't have to exist.

          An oversimplification. Even among peer-reviewed, indexed journals, different journals carry different amounts of weight with The Powers That Be - notably with Promotion & Tenure committees at the department, college, and university levels. And those weights vary among those committees and across institutions. Some departments have short-lists of journals that count for P&T; other journals, regardless of whether they're peer-reviewed or how they're treated in the field, simply don't matter. (At least this is the case for departments in several disciplines, and in the US. I don't know about CE specifically and institutions in other countries have different practices.)

          So there's often a significant incentive to publish in a journal that has terms the author(s) considers undesirable, such as retaining copyright and future publication rights.

          And given the latency of academic publication, authors often feel they have to pick the journal most likely to publish their paper (among those journals that will count for their P&T, of course), because by the time they get a rejection and move on to a less-desirable journal they'll have lost considerable time off their tenure clock.

      2. Tom 13

        Re: ASCE's journals

        I'm familiar with those arguments. Being a bit of an experimentalist myself, I have a fundamental problem with them:

        They've never been tested.

        I think, maybe it is time to test them, excluding the copyright bits.

      3. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: ASCE's journals

        Funny, ARXIV hasn't destroyed the discipline of Physics yet...

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    No-one expects...

    ...the civil engineering.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Perfectly Legitimate

    Most journals (including ASCE) require copyright to be assigned to the journal before publication (with an exception for 'personal-ish use' such as handing copies out at conferences)

    Therefore ASCE do own the copyright and "Their crime" is exactly that.

    1. DavCrav

      Re: Perfectly Legitimate

      Legitimate but stupid. The editors, referees and authors work for free so the journal can make money. Piss people off, you die.

  5. Dafyd Colquhoun

    Most publishers will not let you put up the finished edited & typeset version of a paper, but will let you host the 'author accepted version'. If the publisher won't let you self-host the author accepted version then publish elsewhere. I have quite a few IEEE papers done this way, and one benefit of the IEEE is that a very close facsimile of publishing style is available for LaTeX, and so my self published version looks very much like the final thing.

    The real crime here is people not reading & respecting the copyright agreement that they've signed.

    1. NumptyScrub

      Personally I would assert that the real crime here is that copyright, which is legislation meant to protect the creator (author) of a work is instead being used to punish the creator (author) of a work.

      According to wikifiddlers in the US a transfer of copyright(s) "must be memorialized in a writing signed by the transferor", which would suggest that any form of electronic submission would not be sufficient to claim a transfer of rights, even if it specifically stated that it would on the submission form; such clauses would be unenforceable unless accompanied by a signed written transfer of rights. It also states "Non-exclusive grants (often called non-exclusive licenses) need not be in writing under U.S. law. They can be oral or even implied by the behavior of the parties." which would definitely cover electronic submissions, but would not allow the Journal to pursue the actual author of the work for copyright infringement, as the author still has copyright(s) over the work in question.

      At least that's the way I am interpreting it. YMMV of course.

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        in the US a transfer of copyright(s) "must be memorialized in a writing signed by the transferor", which would suggest that any form of electronic submission would not be sufficient to claim a transfer of rights

        IANAL, but electronic forms of signature have been legal in the US for a long time, and they needn't take special form (such as "digital signatures" in the cryptographic sense). I suspect the courts would not have a problem with electronic submission serving as "a writing" or a legal signature.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: The real crime here

      Maybe. The Journal almost certainly required the authors to sign over the copyright. It may be that they have violated the copyright after signing it over. But given the breadth of the take down notices that were issued there certainly appears to be a great deal of overreach. Which leaves open the question of whether it is ALL overreach.

  6. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
    Boffin

    Copyright transfer forms come in different forms

    When you publish with any scientific publisher you almost always have to sign a copyright transfer agreement. Many publishers simply use this as a means to clear themselves of copyright infringement charges, because you have to declare that the material is your own, and you have the right to sign over the copyright to them. Any extraneous material must be covered with a separate permission from the holders (which is never a problem, because the holders are only too happy that their material is being used, and that therefore they are cited).

    Some publishers also want exclusive rights to publication, although all I know allow you to use your own work freely in non-commercial publications like e.g. a PhD thesis. Springer in its Lecture Notes in Computer Science requests you not to put your material on-line until one year after publication. It is not a prohibition, but since they ask nicely I tend to comply. IEEE allows you to post your material provided you show a clear copyright statement and state that the material is only provided for quick dissemination of scientific results for research and educational purposes, but not for any commercial use. This is entirely reasonable.

    What the ASCE is doing seems a bit harsh, but the authors must read what they are signing. A colleague of mine crosses out any condition he does not like, initials the changes, signs the forms, and sends it in. He has never been challenged on these changes. I suggest all authors in ASCE publications follow that example.

    Alternatively, you can publish in open access journals (or use the open access scheme of some journals with hybrid publishing format). Somewhat more expensive, but compared to the cost of doing the research itself it is nothing. You then simply link to the version on the journal's website and everybody can access it.

  7. hplasm
    Paris Hilton

    What happens-

    if you publish in the 'open' sites first, then with the ASCE?

    1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge

      Re: What happens-

      ArXiv is an example. Some journals do not allow you to publish with them if it has been released previously (even some bone-headed reviewers have difficulty with it), but many just see it as an "author accepted" form that is OK.

  8. Ed 13

    Legitimate but flawed

    It's an example of the controlled distribution world meeting the internet.

    The ACSE make their money from having people subscribe to their journal. A researcher submits their manuscript, without having to pay a fee, and then the society have it peer reviewed, typeset and published (all of which cost them money). It's a valid model and has worked ok for some time, but has a few flaws.

    One issue is that if your paper isn't in the journals area of interest it'll be rejected. This means that areas of research go in and out of fashion, so if you're doing good quality science outside those areas, then you can't get your paper published.

    Another is that if your paper is a negative result, it'll be rejected. This means that other people are doomed then to keep repeating that bit of research, which is a waste of effort, as they don't know that someone else has looked in to the same idea.

    A better model seem to be the Open Access one, such as PLOS ONE, where you pay to submit papers, and then the access to them is free. The fee isn't vast, and is generally factored in to the grant money that you get to do the research. The funding body in turn saves the money from not having to subscribe to yet another journal.

    1. DavCrav

      Re: Legitimate but flawed

      "The ACSE make their money from having people subscribe to their journal. A researcher submits their manuscript, without having to pay a fee, and then the society have it peer reviewed, typeset and published (all of which cost them money). It's a valid model and has worked ok for some time, but has a few flaws."

      Not really. Typesetting is very cheap nowadays, particularly if journals use something like LaTeX (which engineering doesn't, but could). Peer review is free, as is the journal's content: I'm surprised you are talking about the authors not having to pay as if it's a surprise, but in standard publishing authors get *paid* to give publishers stuff. Publishing electronically is basically free, although printing copies of journals to go and sit in library shelves and gather dust isn't free.

      So in conclusion, the content is free, the editorial work is free, the peer review is free, the typesetting is cheap (or free with LaTeX) and the publishing is almost free. The journals' cost to members is actually quite cheap for academic journals, at around $150/year, but that is online only, for all journals they want $13,359 from an member. From an institution, the bundle is the same but prices are now much higher for single journals, up to around $800/year, again online only.

      What have they actually done for this money?

      "A better model seem to be the Open Access one, such as PLOS ONE, where you pay to submit papers, and then the access to them is free. The fee isn't vast, and is generally factored in to the grant money that you get to do the research. The funding body in turn saves the money from not having to subscribe to yet another journal."

      It's actually only a sensible model if you think that all research is done by big, grant-holding institutions in rich countries. Buying journal space is actually a worse model because it means the rich can purchase legitimacy, something that wasn't possible under the old system, which was essentially theft but at least meritocratic (mostly).

      1. Ed 13

        Re: Legitimate but flawed

        "Typesetting is very cheap nowadays"

        Cheap != Free.

        "..in standard publishing authors get *paid* to give publishers stuff.."

        This is supply and demand in action. In science there are many more papers being submitted than being published. However there's only one Ian McEwan to write his books that the publishers know will allow them to ship a lot of copies.

        1. DavCrav

          Re: Legitimate but flawed

          "Cheap != Free"

          I know about being quoted out of context, but it's nice of you to chop off the next part of the sentence: "or free with LaTeX".

      2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Legitimate but flawed

        the editorial work is free

        Like hell it is. Peer review is not usually compensated, but that's not editing - it's a part of acquisitions and development editing, but it's a very small part. In fact, it generally increases the work load for the actual editorial staff, since they have to distribute articles to reviewers and then chase the reviewers down for responses.

        My wife edited an academic journal for seven years (and took it from a non-indexed, barely-reviewed, photocopied society quarterly to a professional, indexed, fully-reviewed, typeset and perfect-bound international journal produced by a research university press). I have a number of other friends and colleagues who edit academic journals. It involves a great deal of work, even for online-only journals.

      3. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Legitimate but flawed

        [Open Access is] actually only a sensible model if you think that all research is done by big, grant-holding institutions in rich countries. Buying journal space is actually a worse model because it means the rich can purchase legitimacy, something that wasn't possible under the old system, which was essentially theft but at least meritocratic (mostly).

        This, on the other hand, I mostly agree with. Another problem with OA is that in some cases the journal is one of the primary perquisites for membership in an academic organization. The CCCC, for example, has for a number of years debated making its journals open-access, but that reduces the value of membership in the organization, and membership fees are what primarily pay for the production of the journals in the first place, as well as other CCCC endeavors.

        Academic publishing has many problems (it's widely seen as being "in a crisis", but since this crisis has lasted decades it's not clear just how critical it might be). There won't be any simple solution to all of them.

  9. leaway2

    "All your basis are belong to us"

  10. roger stillick
    WTF?

    End of the Scientific Method ??

    Ed13 mentions negative results not getting published or bad science...

    Yet publishing infers peer review blesses the science as good...

    And the published sites are paysites w/ only the synopsis available publicly...

    Making the synopsis gosphel truth per the peer review (the publisher)...

    Reality= there are over 400 paysite scientific journals w/ fees of USD 325 per year...

    Q= who has USD 130,000 per year just to stay current in the sciences ??

    IMHO= many say if having to choose between a lab n a good library, the library wins...Yet IF the library is only a collection of synopsis no actual research can be done without paying per article...

    As a Buddhist Techno Historian, this is an untenable situation (no actual research work can be done, as all synopsis are not the actual work) no scientific method possible...

    My work involves the serendipity of dissimilar sciences over time making patterns that turn out to be what actually happened (a historian)...RS.

  11. Glen Turner 666

    Copyright-hungry journals

    These copyright-hungry journals are slowly harming themselves. My institution weights down copyright-hungry journals, simply because it prevents the institution (and the nation) re-using the very materials it paid to develop. Rather than have my first-class paper be weighted as if printed in a second-tier journal, I simply choose a top-tier journal without hungry copyright conditions.

    Bit of a surprise to see a society publishing a copyright-hungry journal. You've really got to consider if that advances the society's goals.

  12. Dafyd Colquhoun

    Editing is not free

    Part of the 'value' that journals provide is taking perfectly reasonable English sentences and mangling them into American 'English'. It isn't enough that 's' becomes 'z' at the end of many words. Oh noes, there is a LOT of effort required to change the comma after 'however' into a semi colon and to make double quotes into single quotes. This all takes effort and must be recovered by extorting libraries.

    Societies like IEEE and ASCE at lease use their publishing revenue to sponsor conferences and are generally 'non profit'. The likes of Elsevier are there to make dividends for their shareholders. That's why I am prepared to write papers, review papers and be an editor for IEEE journals at no charge, but I WILL not submit papers or review for the 'for profit'.

    The open access journals are not exactly free for the author to submit too either (since someone has to pay and it isn't the reader), and the review times can be LONG. The IEEE has a goal of it being no more than 13 weeks from submission to first decision, and in my experience it can be as short as 8 weeks.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Editing is not free

      > Part of the 'value' that journals provide is taking perfectly reasonable English sentences and mangling them into American 'English'.

      It's fucking annoying, isn't it? What in God's cunting name do they do that for???

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like