Paying for climate change information

[jethro]

Hello folks,

Over in the Global Oscillations thread the topic of paying for information has arisen; in this particular instance it's about David Dilley's book but it set me wondering....

This subject has come up a few times in the past, often new information/papers are only available in abstract form, requiring subscription to the science journal in order to view the full paper, or a one off payment to view. Often this has contributed to the circular motion of some of these debates, there just isn't enough information in the abstract to debate the subject fully.

On the site it is possible to pay a subscription to get Netweather extra with all the additional information/access it gives you for weather watching. So, I was wondering, would anyone here be interested in a similar scheme? If Paul and Netweather were to subscribe to the journals, would you all be willing to pay a subscription charge to Netweather to cover the costs?

I haven't as yet run this idea by Paul, there seemed little point before gauging whether or not it would be popular or whether it was one of my dafter ideas...

Views, opinions?

[Hiya]

Universities are the place to go, you can get them free from a campus computer. Find a friendly student to get them for you.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm researching for UEA's Climatic Research Unit so have access to most of them. Universities are definitely the places to go, other research-based institutes such as the MetO's Hadley Centre may also be good.

Edit: the full IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) is freely available online to the public, contains the assessments of the IPCC and contains references to a large number of relevant papers.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Thundery wintry showers
IPCC report

[Methuselah]

Hello folks,

Over in the Global Oscillations thread the topic of paying for information has arisen; in this particular instance it's about David Dilley's book but it set me wondering....

This subject has come up a few times in the past, often new information/papers are only available in abstract form, requiring subscription to the science journal in order to view the full paper, or a one off payment to view. Often this has contributed to the circular motion of some of these debates, there just isn't enough information in the abstract to debate the subject fully.

On the site it is possible to pay a subscription to get Netweather extra with all the additional information/access it gives you for weather watching. So, I was wondering, would anyone here be interested in a similar scheme? If Paul and Netweather were to subscribe to the journals, would you all be willing to pay a subscription charge to Netweather to cover the costs?

I haven't as yet run this idea by Paul, there seemed little point before gauging whether or not it would be popular or whether it was one of my dafter ideas...

Views, opinions?

Hi Jethro. As I said on the other thread, I haven't seen this one before, so apologies for the less than prompt response!

It does seem like a very good idea, to me. Not too sure just where to start, but I'll rub both brain-cells together and see what (if any) ideas appear...

[Devonian]

I can go to the Met O. library and read journal articles. I can copy them but I have to sign a form saying there are for personal use.

If NW subscribed to a Journal I don't think they would be allowed to make articles public because it means effectively that they then become free. So, it's comes back to those of us interested having either to subscribe to a proposed private NW service, subscribe ourselves or go and read the articles in a library.

It does seem unfair that some of us can read articles and others not. But, since it costs a lot to produce and publish articles, they can't be free.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Devonian

[Iceberg]

Personally I think this information should be free, climate change is too important for peoples lives and the associated economic consequences of either tackling it or not tackling it.

The funding for most of the science is via some form of tax payer subsidy, since tax payers pay for most of the university funding still, although I agree not all of it with top up fees.

[Devonian]

Personally I think this information should be free, climate change is too important for peoples lives and the associated economic consequences of either tackling it or not tackling it.

The funding for most of the science is via some form of tax payer subsidy, since tax payers pay for most of the university funding still, although I agree not all of it with top up fees.

Reasonable.

Ok, I'll rephrase my last line 'But, since it costs a lot to produce and publish articles, they can't be free, unless someone, or thing, pays for them to be free.'.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Not sure if thats true Iceberg.

Many scientific journals will (I would guess) be funded by private funding and advertising.

Documents related to public companies such as the METO, of course will (at least in part) by paid for by the tax payer.

But lets not forget, these journals and documents aren't intended for Joe Public.

[Thundery wintry showers]

There is always a balance to be struck with regards copyrights. If you provide too much for free, people will be less inclined to buy stuff, resulting in loss of sales. If you don't provide enough for free then the products get limited exposure, people feel they get less per what they buy, and this results in loss of sales.

My view is that in most cases copyright is applied too stringently, i.e. most copyright holders would benefit from offering more for free than they do.

I'm not sure on whether climate change articles should be made freely available or not, but I note that Dr Hayley Fowler (at Newcastle University) makes her papers freely available on her website for non-commercial use, so there must be some support for the idea. The papers on Central England Temperature are also freely available on the Met Office website. I don't think offering climate change papers for free would reduce the incentive for individuals to subscribe to journals, but it may well reduce the incentive for universities to subscribe which in turn could erode revenues.

Something does indeed need to be done about biased reporting in order to fit certain agendas.

[Gray-Wolf]

As Roo pointed out in the other place if you show an interest in someones work then many's the time they'll give you the info. When I've approached folk not only have I come away with the info but I've also had the persons 'updates' on their work to boot!!!

I do agree that the papers should be free for folk to read (and not just for the chosen few). We can/will/are able to be 'up to speed' on small areas of interest in climate change and I've also found that, in some areas ,the more 'extra sets of eyes' that are monitoring the changes the better (and not just the use of your PC to run models).

[Roo]

As Roo pointed out in the other place if you show an interest in someones work then many's the time they'll give you the info. When I've approached folk not only have I come away with the info but I've also had the persons 'updates' on their work to boot!!!

Sorry, just found this!

The whole 'who pays for papers' thing is tricky.

I work for a society that produces a 5* rated, peer reviewed, humanities journal. The majority of what we publish comes with no funding. We have a policy to publish the best research, regardless of whether it comes with money attached, and this is as it should be. However, this costs and, to be able to do it, we need to charge people access to the journal. We'd love to give it away, but we just can't or we wouldn't be able to produce it in the first place. We also have to cover for the fact that a big proportion of our subcribers will share their papers, thus losing us revenue that way.

We are, however, freely available in around 150 libraries in the UK, not all of which are academic, and it is possible to get hold of the articles we publish via a number of online sources. In addition, as I have said numerous times, if one emails the relevant author, most will be happy to email you a PDF of their full article or a summary of their results.

In the case of science journals, these often do come with better funding options, but again have problems of covering their reproduction and editing costs and so need to charge. Again, however, most are freely available if you are prepared to make the effort. All university libraries will have some form of access for Joe Public, with most offering free access at library terminals to scientific journals via online systems such as Jstor and Athens.

To me, it would be impossible for NW to subscribe as, for something like Climate Change, I suspect that to keep abreast of developments you would be looking at subscribing to 40+ journals. Clearly we could never afford that.

However, that doesn't mean that we have to rely on hearsay and second hand material. A lot of information is available online and precis and abstracts are usually available from the authors' websites. In addition, we can ask the authors for summaries/copies of their work. Most will oblige and will be flattered to receive the interest. Would be worth a try?

Edited July 24, 2009 by Roo

[Solar Cycles]

Personally I think this information should be free, climate change is too important for peoples lives and the associated economic consequences of either tackling it or not tackling it.

The funding for most of the science is via some form of tax payer subsidy, since tax payers pay for most of the university funding still, although I agree not all of it with top up fees.

My sentiments exactly, Iceberg!

[jethro]

I get the impression that folk aren't keen on this idea then.

I take on board the thought that there are many journals, but would it be impossible to narrow the choice down to the top 2 or 3?

If more folk come out in favour of this idea then I'll open a poll to see which journals would be preferred.