Update: NSCSS Annual Meeting in San Antonio

For those attending the NSCSS Annual Meeting in San Antonio:

I just wanted to communicate one last time before meeting in San Antonio to let you know details airport shuttle/taxi and parking (for those of you bringing/renting cars).

For those who are flying in, the hotel has informed me that taking a taxi (Yellow Cab) from the airport to the Menger is cheaper than taking an airport shuttle because you can share the cost with another rider, if you are not traveling alone. If you have 4, you can ride for the price of 1. Yellow Cab phone # is: (210) 222-2222. If you are traveling alone, then the cost of taking a random airport shuttle or taxi are approximately the same (expect $20 to $22 one way).

For those who are driving in and/or renting a car, here’s info about parking: Valet parking at the Menger is $25 per day, with “In & Out” privileges. As an alternative, you can park at Central Parking at the Rivercenter Mall (< ½ block away from the Menger and very easy to find). At the Rivercenter Mall (Central Parking) you will find covered overnight parking for $18, and also uncovered parking across the street from 4am-4am for $10.00, but there are no “In & Out privileges” at the Rivercenter Mall. In other words, once you park, your car remains there or you loose your spot and have to pay to get back in. Also, please bring some local/regional (your region) artifact or trinket (or something interesting off your shelves collecting dust) for the silent auction. I will be arriving at the Menger on Wednesday. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you and see you later this week! Kari Sever, CPSSc Soil Scientist Horizon Business Enterprises, LLC

Technorati Tag: annual meeting

Peter Suber's Comments on Opposition to FRPAA

As posted yesterday, The Soil Science Society of America opposes FRPAA through its participation in the DC Principles Coalition. NSCSS supports FRPAA. NSCSS is an affiliate of SSSA, an organization which includes most NSCSS members.

Peter Suber, Open Access News, comments on the DC Principles Coalition news release, well worth the read.

Comments. There's nothing new here and I've answered the major arguments many times before.

1. The long tradition of methodical scientific inquiry and information sharing through publication in scholarly journals has helped advance medicine to where it is today. Yes, publishers have helped. But what aspect of traditional journals has helped? I'd suggest that providing access to knowledge has helped much more than limiting access to paying customers.
2. We as independent publishers must determine when it is appropriate to make content freely available. This is key: scientists who did the research should have no say, and taxpayers who paid for the research should have no say. Access should be controlled by a group that didn't conduct the research, didn't write it up, and didn't pay for it.
3. The Coalition also reaffirmed its ongoing practice of making millions of scientific journal articles available free of charge. True and welcome. The DC Principles publishers all accept some form of delayed OA. Some DC Principles publishers even use the same embargo period allowed by FRPAA, the legislation they oppose. For them, it's not the access policy that bothers them but the group deciding the access policy.
4. The Coalition expressed concern that a mandatory timetable for free access to all federally funded research could harm journals. Yes, it could. But whenever publishers air this fear they don't point out that the best evidence to date is in physics, which has the highest level and longest history of OA archiving. In physics, high-volume OA archiving has not harmed journals; it has even led physics publishers to launch their own mirrors of arXiv. Nor do they point out the publisher-commissioned study finding that high journal prices were a much more significant cause of cancellations than OA archiving.
5. After articulating the assumption that OA archiving will harm journals, the publishers give reasons to fear it, but not reasons to think it's true.
6. In enumerating its grounds for fear, the publishers bring in two additional unspoken assumptions: that FRPAA will force TA journals to convert to OA, and that all OA journals charge author-side fees. FRPAA is about green OA, not gold. It regulates grantees, not publishers. If it undermines subscriptions and pressures TA journals to convert to gold, then it free up the money now paid in subscriptions to pay for the OA alternative. And of course, only a minority of OA journals charge author-side fees. See my Twelve reminders about FRPAA for more reminders of what the bill really says.
7. By establishing government repositories for federally funded research, taxpayers would be paying for systems that duplicate the online archives already maintained by independent publishers. Some publishers are providing OA to some content when it's sufficiently old. But this is a far cry from providing OA to virtually all federally-funded research within six months of publication. If publishers are saying that over time their voluntary efforts will approach what FRPAA would mandate, then they have to give up their claim that this will harm journals. They can't have it both ways.
8. We believe that a free society allows for the co-existence of many publishing models. We agree on what a free society allows. But that's moot here, since FRPAA doesn't prohibit any publishing models. The publishers' real quarrel is not with a feared ban on some publishing model but with a thoughtful decision to prefer one access policy to another. We'd all do well to keep the debate focused on the question whether interests of science and taxpayers would both be better served by OA to publicly-funded research.

Technorati Tag SSSA FRPAA open access

Soil Science Society of America opposes FRPAA

According to this News Release:

Nonprofit Publishers Oppose Government Mandates for Scientific Publishing

Washington, DC (February 20, 2007) A coalition of 75 nonprofit publishers opposes any legislation that would abruptly end a publishing system that has nurtured independent scientific inquiry for generations. One such measure, the Federal Research Public Access Act, introduced in the 109^th Congress, would have required all federally funded research to be deposited in an accessible database within six months of acceptance in a scientific journal. Some open access advocates are pressing for the introduction of a similar measure in the 110^th Congress.

Among the signatories (in opposition to FRPAA), our own Soil Science Society of America.

NSCSS endorsed the FRPAA last month. I am not surprised that SSSA signed, but I doubt they can feel as threatened by this legislation as the news release makes them out to be. FRPAA does not "abruptly end a publishing system". Many journals, including SSSA, already release articles after an 18 month embargo. FRPAA simply mandates a 6 month embargo. It's a significant but not an institution shattering change. FRPAA does not affect the copyright-transfer-to-publishers-in-lieu-of-money arrangement nor does it affect the subscription-fee-based-access structure.

The argument for OA is straightforward. When research is paid for by tax dollars, the taxpayer should have access. Greater public access increases the impact of the research. The cost of peer review and publishing is a minor percentage of research funding - changing to OA will not drive down the effectiveness of research funding. But FRPAA is only a move toward OA, sufficient to gain some of the benefits, but it intentionally does not "abruptly end" our existing system of publishing. That is what is being proposed in Australia and the European Union. Not here.

The argument against OA is weak. On the one hand it denies any benefits to OA. It claims that poorly funded research cannot get published, when in practice a sliding fee scale is used and it is a fact that important works will always be published. Still, the argument that societies, like SSSA, that have come to depend on journal income will be damaged: this hits home. One senses that the full gains embodied in OA will come only at a very real financial price to our scientific societies. NSCSS is not unconcerned about this. Most members of NSCSS are also members of SSSA, and look to it for strength and leadership in the profession. That capacity for strength is sustained to some degree by the income from its journals.

One could also make the argument that SSSA's financial dependence on publishing research has unbalanced its potential for leadership, and disconnected it from other forces, natural and economic, that drive the advance of science.

Technorati Tag SSSA FRPAA open access

New Soil Science Job Opportunities forum listings

The NSCSS Forum now has a place to post and discuss consulting soil scientist openings. This complements the well established (and more formal) NSCSS Job Listings web page.



Photo: Soil drilling
Originally uploaded to Flickr by rose770

Technorati Tags: soil scientist jobs

Job Opportunity: Soil Scientist with Land Management Group, Wilmington, NC

Land Management Group, Inc. Wilmington, NC is currently seeking a licensed soil scientist or an environmental professional that is capable of being licensed. Experience in environmental consulting, soil mapping for land use decisions, hydrologic computer modeling, and technical writing is desired. Employee would be based in the Southeastern United States. Please visit Land Management Group's employment opportunities page and send resume and work experience to jwilliams@lmgroup.net.

Technorati Tags: soil scientist jobs