Björn Brembs

Data broker RELX is represented on Twitter by their Chief Communications Officer Paul Abrahams. Due to RELX subsidiary Elsevier being one of the largest publishers of academic journals, Dr. Abrahams frequently engages with academics on the social media platform.

Should you trust Elsevier?

More and more experts are calling for the broken and destructive academic journal system to be replaced with modern solutions. This post summarizes why and how this task can now be accomplished. It was first published in German on the blog of journalist Jan-Martin Wiarda.

 Front cover of

the now-vanished

 Australasian Journal of Bone &amp; Joint Medicine

. Source: Scan from the-scientist.com website

The trinity of failures

According to a recent study, employee surveillance is rampant in today’s corporate work environment. This study documents how, often under the pretense of cybersecurity or risk analysis (sort of like academic publishers, actually), companies analyze the behavioral data they collect from their employees to help them make “evidence-led”, i.e., algorithmic employment decisions.

Algorithmic employment decisions in academia?

There are regular discussions among academics as to who should be the prime mover in infrastructure reform. Some point to the publishers to finally change their business model. Others claim that researchers need to vote with their feet and change how they publish. Again others find that libraries should just stop subscribing to journals and use the saved money for a modern publishing system.

Who’s responsible for the lack of action?

Since cOAlition S is asking for recommendations from the community for the implementation of their Plan S, I have also chipped in. In their feedback form, they ask two questions, to which I have answered with the replies below.

Providing recommendations for Plan S implementation

It’s now been 24 years since Stevan Harnad sparked the open access movement by suggesting in his “subversive proposal” in 1994 that scholars ought to just publish their scholarly articles on the internet:  Since then, we have been waiting on the behavior of scholars to change, such that all our works indeed become accessible.

After 24 years, when will academic culture finally shift?

In his fantastic Peters Memorial Lecture on occasion of receiving CNI‘s Paul Evan Peters award, Herbert Van de Sompel of Los Alamos National Laboratory described my calls to drop subscriptions as “radical” and “extremist” (starting at about minute 58):    Regardless of what Herbert called my views, this is a must-see presentation in which Herbert essentially presents the technology and standards behind the functionalities I have been asking for

Why academic journals need to go

These days, many academic publishers can be considered mere Pinos: ‘Publishers in name only’. Instead of making scholarly work, commonly paid for by the public, public, as the moniker ‘publisher’ would imply, in about 80% of the cases, they put them behind a paywall.

The scholarly commons: from profiteering to servicing

Academic publishers in general and Elsevier in particular have a reputation for their ruthless profiteering, using professional negotiators pitting hapless librarians against their own faculty during journal subscription negotiations.

Why can Elsevier keep insulting scholars without consequences?

Few insect behaviors are more iconic than the proverbial moths circling the lamps at night. Artist: Dave McKean  These observations are prime examples of the supposedly stereotypic insect responses to external stimuli. In contrast, in our new paper that just appeared today, we describe experiments suggesting that insects appear to make a value-based decision before approaching the light.

Why did the moth fly into the flame?

Why our Open Data project worked, (and how Decorum can allay our fears of Open Data).  I am honored to Guest Post on Björn’s blog and excited about  the interest in our work from Björn’s response to Dorothy Bishop’s first post. As corresponding author on our paper, I will provide more context to our successful Open Data experience with Björn’s and Casey’s labs.

Guest post: Why our Open Data project worked

With the start of the new year 2017, about 60 universities and other research institutions in Germany are set to lose subscription access to one of the main STEM publishers, Elsevier. The reason being negotiations of the DEAL consortium (600 institutions in total) with the publisher.

So your institute went cold turkey on publisher X. What now?

A recurrent topic among faculty and librarians interested in infrastructure reform is the question of whose turn it is to make the next move. Researchers rightfully argue that they cannot submit their work exclusively to modern, open access journals because that would risk their and their employees’ jobs. Librarians, equally correctly, argue that they would cancel subscriptions if faculty wouldn’t complain about ensuing access issues.

Practical roads to infrastructure reform

Around 2005, German politicians decided on a plan to circumvent a newly created amendment to the German constitution that prevents federal funds from supporting state-owned institutions such as universities.

Data show “excellence initiative” was a massive failure – help stop it

Three years ago, representatives of libraries, publishers and scholars all agreed that academic publishers don’t really add any value to scholarly articles. Last week, I interpreted Sci-Hub potentially being a consequence of scholars having become tired after 20 years of trying to wrestle their literature from the publishers’ stranglehold by small baby-steps and through negotiations and campaigning alone.

Academic publishers: stop access negotiations

tl;dr:
 
 Data from thousands of non-retracted articles indicate that experiments published in higher-ranking journals are less reliable than those reported in ‘lesser’ journals.

Vox health reporter Julia Belluz has recently covered the reliability of peer-review.

Even without retractions, ‘top’ journals publish the least reliable science

Last week, Elizabeth Pennisi asked me to comment on the recent paper from Schreiweis

 et al.

entitled “Humanized FoxP2 accelerates learning by enhancing transitions from declarative to procedural performance”. Since I don’t know how much, if anything, of my answers to her questions will end up in her article, I thought I might expand my answer into a post about this very interesting work.

Humanized FoxP2 and the timing of habits

The data clearly show that publications in

 Cell

,

 Nature

or

 Science

(

 CNS

for short), on average, cannot be distinguished from other publications, be it by methodology, reproducibility or other measures of quality. Even their citation advantage, while statistically significant, is so small that it is practically negligible.

No need to only send your best work to Science Magazine

By now, everybody reading this obscure blog knows about the so-called sting operation by John Bohannon in

 Science Magazine

last week. As virtually everybody has pointed out, the outcome of this stunt is entirely meaningless.

How embarrassing was the ‘journal sting’ for Science Magazine?

During my flyfishing vacation last year, pretty much nothing was happening on this blog. Now that I’ve migrated the blog to WordPress, I can actually schedule posts to appear when in fact I’m not even at the computer. I’m using this functionality to re-blog a few posts from the archives during the month of august while I’m away.

Unquestioning dogma: the gatekeepers of science

Flashback: The brain creates something out of nothing

Scientists as social parasites?

During my flyfishing vacation last year, pretty much nothing was happening on this blog. Now that I’ve migrated the blog to WordPress, I can actually schedule posts to appear when in fact I’m not even at the computer. I’m using this functionality to re-blog a few posts from the archives during the month of august while I’m away. This post is from April 19, 2011:

Flashback: Creationists, this is the evidence you have to beat!

As part of my scheduled re-posts during the summer break, I’ll also post some of the science videos from the archives. I originally posted these two on February 24, 2013:

The first one is a TED talk by Michael Dickinson on how flies fly: and the second one is on recording from fly visual neurons during flight and non-flight.

SummerScienceVideo: fruit fly research

Flashback: ‘stimulus-response’ concept based on artifacts?

This post was originally published on the London School of Economics “Impact of Social Sciences” blog, on July 30, 2013:

In various fields of scholarship, scholars accrue reputation via the proxy of the containers they publish their articles in. In most if not all fields, scholarly journals are ranked in a hierarchy of prestige.

Solutions to the looming crisis in science

During my flyfishing vacation last year, pretty much nothing was happening on this blog. Now that I’ve migrated the blog to WordPress, I can actually schedule posts to appear when in fact I’m not even at the computer. I want to use this functionality to re-blog a few posts from the archives during the month of august while I’m away. This is the first post in this series, just to see if it works and what needs to be tweaked.

Flashback: The neurobiology of self-learning

This morning I was reminded of the age of some of the technology we’re using. Hyperlinks were developed at Stanford University and first demonstrated by their inventor Douglas Engelbart (using the first mouse) in 1968:  On Tuesday, Douglas Engelbart died, even before the scholarly literature was able to fully implement the technology he invented, 45 years and counting.

The dysfunctionality of the scholarly literature: hyperlinks

It might just save your life (via Upturned Microscope):    BTW, even if your life is not at stake, someone else’s may be. So you should publish your results if you are sure something definitely will not work, for instance in F1000 Research, where you can publish negative results for free until August 31, 2013. Your colleagues will be grateful.

One more reason to publish negative results

I have now posted the job ads for the PostDoc position in our lab at

 Nature

,

 Science

, SfN and FENS.

PostDoc opportunity in our lab now advertized

Trial and error is a successful problem-solving strategy not only in humans but throughout evolution. How do nervous systems generate novel, creative trials and how are errors incorporated into already existing experiences in order to improve future trials?

Come and do research with us!

This is our first poster at this year’s SfN meeting in San Diego. It’s about decision-making in fruit flies. We find a probabilistic form of decision-making that suggests that without understanding the mechanisms behind this fundamental uncertainty, we will never fully understand decision-making. Clicking on the image will let you download the PDF Version of the poster.

Do flies in groups make individual choices?

Notwithstanding the barrage of criticisms and warnings from every corner of the scholarly community, various initiatives, mainly in the Netherlands, Finland, Germany, France and the UK, continue their efforts for a smooth transition from subscriptions to open access without any further disruptions.

Why open access Big Deals are worse than subscriptions

Scholarly journals, on the face of it, emerged in the 17

 th

century as a medium to facilitate communication of scientific discoveries among interested scholars. In the 21

 st

century, it’s not all that different: researchers form communities around topics in which they share a common interest: Journal of Neuroscience, Pediatrics and Neonatology, Journal of Economics or the British Educational Research Journal.

Academic publishers and competition

This anecdote made my day today. On a

 Drosophila

researcher mailinglist, someone asked if anybody on the list had access to the Landes Bioscience journal ‘Fly‘. I replied by wondering that if #icanhazpdf on Twitter didn’t work, the days of ‘Fly’ are probably counted, with nobody subscribing.

#icanhazpdf more public than a publication?

While our own manuscript on journal rank is almost through the peer-review process, this morning I received several messages announcing the DORA (

 San Francisco declaration on research Assessment

), which I signed immediately.

Official call for an end to journal rank

Tomorrow we travel to the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience and our diligent scientists have already printed their posters! Ottavia Palazzo will present her work on genome editing the

 FoxP

locus of

 Drosophila

with anatomical and behavioral characterizations of the various transgenic lines she has created.

With CRISPRed FoxP and habit formation to #SfN19

The recent publication of the “Ten Principles of Plan S” has sparked numerous discussions among which one of several recurring themes was academic freedom. The cause for these discussions is the insistence of the funders supporting Plan S that their grant recipients only publish in certain venues under certain liberal licensing schemes.

Does academic freedom entail exemption from spending rules?

Over the last ten years, scientific funding agencies across the globe have implemented policies which force their grant recipients to behave in a compliant way. For instance, the NIH OA policy mandates that research articles describing research they funded must be available via PubMedCentral within 12 months of publication. Other funders and also some institutions have implemented various policies with similar mandates.

Maybe try another kind of mandate?

Arguably, there is little that could be more decisive for the career of a scientist than publishing a paper in one of the most high-profile journals such as

 Nature

or

 Science

. After all, in this competitive and highly specialized days, where a scientist is published all too often is more important than what they have published.

How Nature Magazine consistently prefers anecdote over data

The recent call for a GlamMag boycott by Nobel laureate Randy Shekman made a lot of headlines, but will likely have no effect whatsoever. For one, the call for boycott isn’t even close in scale to “the cost of knowledge” boycott against Elsevier and even that drew less than 15,000 measly signatures, a drop in the bucket with 970,000 board members, reviewers and authors working for Elsevier largely for free.

In support of subscripton cancellations

In the last “Science Weekly” podcast from the Guardian, the topic was retractions.  At about 20:29 into the episode, Hannah Devlin asked, whether the reason ‘top’ journals retract more articles may be because of increased scrutiny there. The underlying assumption is very reasonable, as many more eyes see each paper in such journals and the motivation to shoot down such high-profile papers might also be higher.

Are more retractions due to more scrutiny?

Currently, our libraries are paying about US$5000 per peer-reviewed subscription article. What is more difficult to find out is where all that money goes. Which steps are required to make an accepted manuscript public?

What goes into making a scientific manuscript public?

This is the story behind our work on the function of the FoxP gene in the fruit fly

 Drosophila

(more background info). As so many good things, it started with beer. Troy Zars and I were having a beer on one of the ICN evenings, I think it was in Vancouver in 2007. I had recently learned about the conserved role of FoxP2 in songbirds, out of one of the labs in Berlin, where I was based at the time.

Why use fruit flies to study a gene involved in language?

Academic publishers have been parasitizing the public purse for long enough now. Steffen Böhm, director of the Essex Sustainability Institute, said it best: In his article, he mentions the successful SciELO project in South America. In a lot of ways, SciELO (scielo.org) is quite close to what I have been arguing for: SciELO means “Scientific Electronic

 Library

Online” and is supported by the Brazilian and Chilean government.

Cut out the parasitic middle men!

This year’s Winter Conference on Animal Learning and Behavior (WCALB) will be on one of my oldest and most central research projects, the commonalities and differences between operant and classical conditioning.

Almost 80 years on, progress on operant and classical conditioning

In which potatoes in France are like high-ranking journals in science

This is the tweetlog covering July 3-5: Interesting! We find something similar in flies: Live fast, die young: Long-lived mice are less active https://feedly.com/k/16RDz21 It smells fishy: Copper prevents fish from avoiding danger https://feedly.com/k/12gw14F @

 biocs

@

 google

Yes!

Tweetlog: neuroscience and #openaccess

After almost 25 years since Stevan Harnad’s “subversive proposal“, now, finally, scholars and the public have a range of avenues at their disposal to access nearly every scholarly article. Public access, while not the default, has finally arrived. Granted, while all of the current options are considered legal for the

 reader

, not all

 providers

of scholarly literature conform to every law in every country.

With the access issue temporarily solved, what now?

Amazing bead chain experiment

Random Science Video: The value of fly research

There are those who demand journal peer-review be paid extra on top of academic salaries. Let’s have a look at the financials of that proposal. The article linked above confirms common rates of academic consulting fees, i.e., anything between US$100 per hour for graduate students and US$350 per hour for faculty. Taking a conservative US$200 as an easy, lower-bound estimate for, say, a post-doc hour seems to cover most cases.

How about paying extra for peer-review?

No matter how well-intended (and we all know to which place the road leads that is paved with good intentions!), transformative agreements (such as DEAL in Germany) are generally the wrong tool at the wrong time for making publicly funded science accessible to the public.

No Evilsevier DEAL!

The DFG is a very progressive and modern funding agency. More than two years ago, the main German science funding agency signed the “Declaration on Research Assessment” DORA.

German funder DFG: Why the sudden inconsistency?

tl;dr:


 Evidence suggests that the prestige signal in our current journals is noisy, expensive and flags unreliable science. There is a lack of evidence that the supposed filter function of prestigious journals is not just a biased random selection of already self-selected input material.

Replacing the prestige signal

Last week’s podium on the commodification of open science entitled “If you are not paying for the product, you are the product?” was surprisingly unanimous on the need to radically modernize academic publishing and abolish the current publishing system relying mainly on corporate publishers with monopoly status.

Academic publishing – market or collectivization?

There have been repeated online discussions about my suggestion to libraries that now would be an excellent time to start cancelling subscriptions. Prime counter-argument is that librarians risked their jobs or at least face faculty backlash if they did that. Personally, I have witnessed many such cancellations and there has never been a riot or even a librarian reprimanded, let alone fired.

How to convince faculty to support subscription cancellations

Stevan Harnad’s “Subversive Proposal” came of age last year. I’m now teaching students younger than Stevan’s proposal, and yet, very little has actually changed in these 21 years.

Sci-Hub as necessary, effective civil disobedience

Over the last decade or two, there have been multiple accounts of how publishers have negotiated the impact factors of their journals with the “Institute for Scientific Information” (ISI), both before it was bought by Thomson Reuters and after. This is commonly done by negotiating the articles in the denominator.

Just how widespread are impact factor negotiations?

tl;dr:
 
 It is a waste to spend more than the equivalent of US$100 in tax funds on a scholarly article.

Collectively, the world’s public purse currently spends the equivalent of US$~10b every year on scholarly journal publishing. Dividing that by the roughly two million articles published annually, you arrive at an average cost per scholarly journal article of about US$5,000.

How much should a scholarly article cost the taxpayer?

Posting my reply to a review of our most recent grant proposal has sparked an online discussion both on Twitter and on Drugmonkey’s blog. The main direction the discussion took was what level of expertise to expect from the reviewers deciding over your grant proposal. This, of course, is highly dependent on the procedure by which the funding agency chooses the reviewers.

How to write your grant proposal?

Update, Dec. 4, 2015: With the online discussion moving towards grantsmanship and the decision of what level of expertise to expect from a reviewer, I have written down some thoughts on this angle of the discussion.

With more and more evaluations, assessments and quality control, the peer-review burden has skyrocketed in recent years.

Why cutting down on peer-review will improve it

This is a post written jointly by Nelson Lau from Brandeis and me, Björn Brembs. In contrast to Nelson’s guest post, which focused on the open data aspect of our collaboration, this one describes the science behind our paper and a second one by Nelson, which just appeared in PLoS Genetics.

Laboratories around the world are generating a tsunami of deep-sequencing data from nearly every organism, past and present.

Data Diving for Genomics Treasure

When I finished my PhD 15 years ago, the neurosciences defined the main function of brains in terms of processing input to compute output: “brain function is ultimately best understood in terms of input/output transformations and how they are produced” wrote Mike Mauk in 2000 (DOI: 10.1038/76606). Since then, a lot of things have been discovered that make this stimulus-response concept untenable and potentially based largely on laboratory

Watching a paradigm shift in neuroscience

This is a post loosely based on an article appearing today in the German newspaper “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” by Axel Brennicke and me. The raw data for our analysis is available. Please do let us know if you find a mistake.


 UPDATE


 , 09/01/2015: A commenter made me aware of data rows in the raw data we had overlooked before.

Booming university administrations

I really loathe reviewing for GlamMagz for two main reasons. For one, it’s hard to remain neutral: publication of a paper in my field in such a journal is beneficial both for the field and for the young people who are authors on this paper. Second, the demands of some of my colleagues so often make my blood boil. At that point I’m very happy these reviews are anonymous and I really don’t want to know the names of these colleagues.

Why this GlamMag will likely not ask for my review again

See this post with the associated press releases on brembs.net.

The

 F

orkhead B

 ox

P2 (FOXP2) gene is well-known for its involvement in language disorders. We have discovered that a relative of this gene in fruit flies,

 dFoxP

, is necessary for a type of learning called operant self-learning, which resembles some aspects of language learning.

The Drosophila FoxP gene is necessary for operant self-learning

UPDATE
 
 , 10-02-2015: After a hint from a user on Twitter, I now know that it is possible to open a PDF document in several windows, one for text, one for legends and one for figures. Figures and legends occupy one virtual desktop and the text another. In this way, I can actually review on-screen, but it is one heck of a work-around and by no means convenient.

I cannot take it any more.

Publishers, stop torturing your reviewers!

Today, our most recent paper got published, before traditional peer-review, at

 F1000 Research

. The research is about how nominally identical fly stocks can behave completely differently even if tested by the same person in the same lab in the same test.

The way academic publishing should be

There is an interesting study out in the journal PNAS: “Evaluating big deal journal bundles“. The study details the disparity in negotiation skills between different US institutions when haggling with publishers about subscription pricing.

Your university is definitely paying too much for journals

Yesterday,

 Science Magazine

published a news story (not a peer-reviewed paper) by Gonzo-Scientist John Bohannon on a sting operation in which a journalist submitted a bogus manuscript to 304 open access journals (observe that no toll access control group was used).

 Science Magazine

reports that 157 journals accepted and 98 rejected the manuscript.

Science Magazine rejects data, publishes anecdote

I just got the nicest decline to review ever: That’s how you retire from science: you get to work like normal people. Awesome!

Retiring from science?

The cost of knowledge – in 2003?

Since the birth of our daughter, we spend our summers in Sweden, just like I used to, when I was little. This not only allows her to get more practice in Swedish then she gets talking with just me or her grandmother, but we also get to really recharge our batteries in the fabulous wilderness up there.

How to recharge in Sweden

Flashback: Noise in the brain?

As part of my scheduled re-posts during the summer break, I’ll also post some of the science videos from the archives. I originally posted this one on Agust 31, 2011:

SummerScienceVideo: science is real

This is a slightly edited (amended, essentially) version of

my article published today at The Conversation. In cases where a problem within a community is detected and collective action is required to address the problem. one needs to strike a fine line or any efforts to convince the community that action is required will fail.

The Conversation: The looming crisis in science

Following the example of Glyn Moody, I thought I’d start a log on the tweets I send around. One never knows what’ll happen to Twitter and besides, this provides a neat place to store and find everything. So here are the tweets for July first and second: Where are we, what still needs to be done?

Trying a new feature: Tweetlog

You may have seen a neutered version of this post over at the LSE blog. This post below, however, puts the tiger in the tank, as it was enhanced by CatGPT:  Maybe scholarly societies have taken “the instruction“follow the money!” a tad too literally?

Scholarly societies: like a cat chasing the laser dot

Yesterday, cOAlition S published their updated principles and implementation guidelines for #PlanS, together with the rationale behind the update. This constitutes a very much welcome effort, as evidence of the increasing awareness among funders as to their potential leverage in infrastructure modernization, at a time when institutions have apparently abandoned their faculty completely.

Improved Plan S principles raise hope of more effective policies soon

Due to ongoing discussions on various (social) media, this is a mash-up of several previous posts on the strategy of ‘flipping’ our current &gt;30k subscription journals to an author-financed open access corporate business model. I consider this article processing charge (APC)-based version of ‘gold’ OA a looming threat that may deteriorate the situation even beyond the abysmal state scholarly publishing is already in right now.

How gold open access may make things worse

Public institutions the world over are required to spend their funds responsibly. Commonly, this is done by requiring them to host bids for purchases or services above a certain threshold. If you work at a public institution and have wondered, e.g., why you are only allowed to buy a computer from your computing facility which only sells one particular brand, then the answer likely is that this brand won the bidding contest.

Should public institutions not be choosing the lowest responsible bidder?

Earning credibility in post-factual science?

For our course this year I was planning a standard neurogenetic experiment. I hadn’t ever done this experiment in a course, yet, just two weeks ago I tried it once myself, with an N=1. The students would get two groups of

 Drosophila

fruit fly larvae, rovers and sitters (they wouldn’t know which was which). About ten larvae from each group would be placed on one of two yeast patches on an agar plate.

If only all science were this reproducible

The recently discussed scenario of universal gold open access brought about by simply switching the subscriptions funds at libraries to have the libraries pay for author processing charges instead, seemed like a ghoulish nightmare. One of the few scenarios worse than the desolate state we call the

 status quo

today.

Whither now, Open Access?

On May 23, the Council of the EU adopted a set of conclusions on scholarly publishing that, if followed through, would spell the end for academic publishers and scholarly journals as we know them. On the same day, the adoption was followed by a joint statement of support by the largest and most influential research organizations in Europe.

The beginning of the end for academic publishers?

For ages I have been planning to collect some of the main aspects I would like to see improved in an upgrade to the disaster we so euphemistically call an academic publishing system. In this post I’ll try to briefly sketch some of the main issues, from several different perspectives.

 As a reader:

I’d like to get a newspaper each morning that tells me about the latest developments, both in terms of general science news (aka.

What should a modern scientific infrastructure look like?

The debate over how publishers use the large “non-publication costs” (Fig. 1) that they incur and academic libraries, mainly, are funding has been going on for some time now. Above and beyond the cost items we discuss in our paper on publication costs, it has been established that investments in surveillance technology are also part of the publisher spending academic libraries are financing.

Prioritizing academic publishers

Barely a fortnight has passed since

 Science Magazine

published the outcomes of a hoax perpetrated by one of their reporters, John Bohannon. Not surprisingly, the news article was widely criticized, not the least on this obscure blog. The content was simple enough: Bohannon picked a swath of largely fake journals, submitted fake manuscripts and boasted that more than 60% of his submissions were accepted.

Not to be outdone, Nature Magazine rejects data, publishes opinion

It is one of these rare events when I can post a video of one of my own talks. This one was in Berlin earlier this year, organized by The Lost Lectures in a very unusual venue, the Stattbad Wedding:    I’m planning to work more closely together with our computing center here to be able to record at least the lectures I give in English here at the university. So maybe there will be some more videos here, soon.

Video: Free will as an evolved brain function

Flashback: What can the spine teach us about learning?

Flashback: The neurobiology of operant conditioning

In our new lab here in Regensburg, we are currently re-establishing the method of confocal microscopy. To start with, we used the fly lines which show a defect in the temporal structure of their spontaneous behavior (a project of one of our graduate students). this fly line uses two transgenic constructs (c105 and c232) to drive expression in specified neurons in the fly brain, i.e., the merged expression patterns of c105 and c232.

A wonderful example of Open Science

To my knowledge, no neuroscientist hypothesizes that there is magic in our heads. However, it appears this is a hypothesis that flies by the editors at the New York Times.

Free will:  it’s not what you think it is

Our lab is looking for a PhD student interested in the molecular mechanisms of operant self-learning, a form of motor learning.

Looking for a PhD student

There have been many discussions about the march for science, pro and con. Some of them have made me doubt the utility of the march, some have made me fear unintended consequences, again others seemed tangential and petty. In these past months, I have struggled to articulate my own reasons why I feel the urge to march for science. Today, I start to see two main reasons to march for science.

Why I march

“an academic career, in which a person is forced to produce scientific writings in great amounts, creates a danger of intellectual superficiality”

Albert Einstein Isaacson W (2008) Einstein (His Life and Universe) (Simon and Schuster, New York), 1st Ed, p 79

On the productivity of scientists

This is an easy calculation: for each subscription article, we pay on average US$5000. A publicly accessible article in one of SciELO’s 900 journals costs only US$90 on average. Subtracting about 35% in publisher profits, the remaining difference between legacy and SciELO costs amount to US$3160 per article.

Are we paying US$3000 per article just for paywalls?

Over the last few months, there has been a lot of talk about so-called “predatory publishers”, i.e., those corporations which publish journals, some or all of  which purport to peer-review submitted articles, but publish articles for a fee without actual peer-review. The origin of the discussion can be traced to a list of such publishers hosted by librarian Jeffrey Beall.

Predatory Priorities

This year marks the 12th anniversary of the publication of this legendary letter to the editor in the Journal of systems and Software:  Nothing really has changed in a dozen years, it seems

12 year anniversary of angry letter to scientific journal editor

bjoern.brembs.blog

There has been some
[outrage](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2020/11/are-natures-apcs-outrageous-or-very-attractive/)
at the announcement that *Nature* is following through with their [2004
declaration](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we163.htm)
of charging \~10k (\$/€) in article processing charges (APCs). However,
not only have these charges been 16 years in the making but the original
declaration was made not on some obscure blog, but at a UK parliamentary
inquiry. So nobody could rightfully claim that we couldn't have seen
this development coming from miles away.

In fact, already more than 10 years ago, such high APCs were very much
welcomed, as people thought they could bring about change in scholarly
publishing. Some examples, starting with [Peter
Suber](https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/03/will-oa-progress-lead-to-pyrrhic.html)
in 2009:

> As soon as we shift costs from the reader side to the author side,
> then, we create market pressure to keep them low enough to attract
> rather than deter authors.  \[...\] precisely because high prices in
> an OA world would exclude authors, and not merely readers, there is a
> natural, market-based check on excessive prices.  BTW, I'm not saying
> that these market forces will keep prices within reach of all authors

[Cameron
Neylon](https://cameronneylon.net/blog/in-defence-of-author-pays-business-models/),
2010:

> I have heard figures of around £25,000 given as the level of author
> charge that would be required to sustain Cell, Nature, or Science as
> Open Access APC supported journals. This is usually followed by a
> statement to the effect "so they can't possibly go OA because authors
> would never pay that much". 
> \[...\] 
> If authors were forced to make a choice between the cost of publishing
> in these top journals versus putting that money back into their
> research they would choose the latter. If the customer actually had to
> make the choice to pay the *true* costs of publishing in these
> journals, they wouldn't. 
> \[...\] 
> Subscription charges as a business model have allowed an appallingly
> wasteful situation to continue unchecked because authors can pretend
> that there is no difference in cost to where they publish, they accept
> that premium offerings are value for money because they don't have to
> pay for them. Make them make the choice between publishing in a "top"
> journal vs a "quality" journal and getting another few months of
> postdoc time and the equation changes radically. 
> \[...\] 
> We need a market where the true costs are a factor in the choices of
> where, or indeed whether, to formally publish scholarly work.

[Mike
Taylor](https://svpow.com/2012/06/30/belated-thoughts-on-the-finch-report-on-achieving-open-access/),
2012:

> the bottom line is that paying at publication time is a sensible
> approach. It gives us what we want (freedom to use research), and
> provides publishers with a realistic revenue stream that, unlike
> subscriptions, is subject to market forces.

[Stephen
Pinfield](https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/75285/1/WRRO_75285.pdf), 2013:

> But Gold OA is not like \[subscription\]. It has the potential to
> reintroduce genuine competition into the journal market with authors
> sensitive to price making choices about where they place their
> articles. If journals put APCs up, authors can go elsewhere and the
> adjustments can happen quickly. 
> \[...\] 
> Gold OA, on the other hand should make price changes clearer --and
> customers will be able to respond accordingly.

[Danny
Kingsley](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00048623.2014.945135),
2014:

> However the increase in the payment of APCs has awoken many
> researchers' awareness of the costs of publication. An author's
> reaction of surprise to the request for a US\$3000 \[approx.
> AU\$3180\] APC when they are contacted by a publisher provides an
> opportunity for the library to discuss the costs associated with
> publication. There is an argument that as payment for publication at
> an article level becomes more prevalent, it gives the researcher an
> opportunity to determine value for money and in some arguments this
> means that scholarly publishing would be a more functional market

Convinced that authors would be price sensitive, it was even mentioned
as a problem, if someone would pay the APCs for the authors. Kingsley:

> This is then one of the disadvantages of having centralised management
> of APCs -- it once again quarantines the researcher from the cost of
> publication

Pinfield:

> But there is a danger with many of the processes now being established
> by universities to pay for APCs on behalf of authors. These systems,
> which will allow payment to be made centrally often with block
> pre-payments to publishers, will certainly save the time of authors
> and therefore ought to be pursued, but they do run the risk of once
> again separating researchers from the realities of price in a way that
> could recreate some of the systemic failures of the subscription
> market.They need to be handled with caution.

Hindsight is always 2020. Little did people know back then that authors,
when faced with a choice, would actually tend to [pay the most expensive
APCs](https://www.liberquarterly.eu/articles/10.18352/lq.10280/) they
could afford, because such is the nature (pardon) of a prestige market.
It is as such not surprising to us now, that rich institutions hail the
10k price tag for *Nature* APCs as ["very attractive" and "not a
problem"](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02959-1).

The above were just the few examples I could readily find with the help
of Richard Poynder, Danny Kingsley, Cameron Neylon and Mike Taylor. The
sentiments expressed there were pretty much mainstream and discussed
widely even before 2009 (and you can sense that in the referenced
sources). Thus, the idea that high APCs are a feature and not a bug,
thought to bring competition into a market was a driving force for gold
OA for a long time. Even today, you can still find people claiming that
"If we switch from subscription publishing to pay-to-publish open
access, \[publisher profit\] margins are likely to drop to 10%-20%."
(Lenny Teytelman as late as 2019). We now see that this view was
spectacularly wrong. People will pay no matter what when their
livelihoods are at stake, even if it costs them their last shirt (German
saying). We ought to think hard what the consequences now have to be, of
having been so catastrophically wrong.

This is how *Nature*'s high APCs came about. Many thought it was a good
thing and kept pushing for them until *Nature* gave in.

**Update**: One of the quoted authors, Mike Taylor, just confirmed that
he still thinks 10k APCs are good and that the outrage people feel at
their livelihoods being put in jeopardy is what will drive change:

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large is-resized">
<a
href="https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/image.png"><img
src="https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/image.png"
class="wp-image-2192" loading="lazy" decoding="async"
srcset="https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/image.png 881w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/image-300x162.png 300w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/image-768x414.png 768w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/image-50x27.png 50w"
sizes="(max-width: 661px) 100vw, 661px" width="661" height="356" /></a>
</figure>

There has been some outrage at the announcement that

 Nature

is following through with their 2004 declaration of charging ~10k ($/€) in article processing charges (APCs). However, not only have these charges been 16 years in the making but the original declaration was made not on some obscure blog, but at a UK parliamentary inquiry. So nobody could rightfully claim that we couldn’t have seen this development coming from miles away.

High APCs are a feature, not a bug

Last week, there was a lot of outrage at the announcement of Nature's
new pricing options for their open access articles. People took to
twitter to voice their, ahem, concern. Some examples:

<figure class="wp-block-image">
<img
src="https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-9.png"
class="wp-image-185590" decoding="async" />
</figure>

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image.png"
class="wp-image-2169" loading="lazy" decoding="async"
srcset="https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image.png 657w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-300x234.png 300w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-50x39.png 50w"
sizes="(max-width: 657px) 100vw, 657px" width="657" height="512" />
</figure>

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-6-563x1024.png"
class="wp-image-2175" loading="lazy" decoding="async"
srcset="https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-6-563x1024.png 563w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-6-165x300.png 165w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-6-27x50.png 27w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-6.png 643w"
sizes="(max-width: 563px) 100vw, 563px" width="563" height="1024" />
</figure>

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-3.png"
class="wp-image-2172" loading="lazy" decoding="async"
srcset="https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-3.png 635w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-3-300x242.png 300w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-3-50x40.png 50w"
sizes="(max-width: 635px) 100vw, 635px" width="635" height="512" />
</figure>

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-4-464x1024.png"
class="wp-image-2173" loading="lazy" decoding="async"
srcset="https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-4-464x1024.png 464w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-4-136x300.png 136w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-4-23x50.png 23w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-4.png 647w"
sizes="(max-width: 464px) 100vw, 464px" width="464" height="1024" />
</figure>

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-5.png"
class="wp-image-2174" loading="lazy" decoding="async"
srcset="https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-5.png 655w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-5-300x233.png 300w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-5-50x39.png 50w"
sizes="(max-width: 655px) 100vw, 655px" width="655" height="509" />
</figure>

There are many more that all express their outrage at the gall of Nature
to charge their authors these sums,. even [Forbes
interviewed](https://www.forbes.com/sites/madhukarpai/2020/11/30/how-prestige-journals-remain-elite-exclusive-and-exclusionary/?sh=7ec99c254d48)
some of them. At the same time, the people who have been paying
publishers these sums for decades find that the \~10k per paper is
actually ["very attractive" and "not a
problem"](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02959-1).

So which is it? Are Nature's APCs 'outrageous' or are the prices 'very
attractive and not a problem'?

What is clear is that these charges are definitely not a surprise.
Already back in [2004, in a Parliamentary inquiry in the
UK,](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we163.htm)
Nature provided testimony that they would have to charge 10-30k for a
Nature paper, given their revenues at the time (i.e., their subscription
and advertising income). While back then, most people scoffed at the
numbers and expected that no author would ever pay such fees, Nature got
to work and invented a whole host of 'lesser' journals (i.e., Nature XYC
as in "Nature Physics", Nature Genetics" and so on), which would serve
several purposes at once: They increase revenue. As hand-me-down
journals they keep desperate authors attached to the Nature brand. As
less selective journals, they would bring down average costs per article
for the brand total, when they would need to go open access.

So this year, after open access advocates, funders and the now also
pandemic-stricken public had kept demanding open access for 16 years
after they had been warned, Nature was finally ready to deliver. Due to
the dilution of their costs by way of the 'lesser' journals, they
managed to keep their APCs close to their lower bounds of 2004, despite
16 years of inflation. Given that libraries have been paying these kinds
of funds for Nature journals for decades, this price tag then really is
a bargain, all things considered.

Given this analysis, all the online outrage strikes me as unwarranted.
While I of course agree that it should have never come so far (we ought
to have realized where this is headed already in 2004!), crying foul now
comes about 16 years too late. We have had plenty of time to prepare for
this, we have had more than enough time to change course or think of
alternative ways to the legacy publishers. And yet, nearly everybody
kept pushing in the same direction anyway, when we could have known in
2004 that this was not going to end well. The people warning of such not
quite so unintended consequences were few and far between.

Having only gotten interested in these topics around 2007 or so myself,
it took me until [2012 to
understand](http://blogarchive.brembs.net/comment.php?comment.news.888)
that this kind of APC-OA was not sustainable and, indeed, would stand to
[make everything
worse](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2016/04/how-gold-open-access-may-make-things-worse/)
just in order to worship the sacred open access cow.

If you were even later to the party and are outraged now, direct your
outrage not to Nature, who are only following external pressures, but to
those who exert said pressures, such as open access advocates pushing
for APC-OA and funders mandating authors to publish in such journals.

Last week, there was a lot of outrage at the announcement of Nature’s new pricing options for their open access articles. People took to twitter to voice their, ahem, concern. Some examples:  There are many more that all express their outrage at the gall of Nature to charge their authors these sums,. even Forbes interviewed some of them.

Are Nature’s APCs ‘outrageous’ or ‘very attractive’?

Arguably, there is little that could be more decisive for the career of
a scientist than publishing a paper in one of the most high-profile
journals such as *Nature* or *Science*. After all, in this competitive
and highly specialized days, where a scientist is published all too
often is more important than what they have published. Thus, the journal
hierarchy that determines who will stay in science and who will have to
leave is among the most critical pieces of infrastructure for the
scientific community -- after all, what could be more important than
caring for the next generation of scientists? Consequently, it receives
quite thorough scrutiny from scientists (bibliometricians,
scientometricians) and there is a large variety of journals which
specialize in such investigations and studies. Thanks to the work of
these colleagues, we now have [quite a large body of empirical
work](https://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291/full)
surrounding journal rank and its consequences for the scientific
community. This evidence points to *Nature*, *Science* and other high
profile journals, rather than publishing the 'best' science, actually
publishing the methodologically most unreliable science. One of several
unintended consequences of this flawed journal hierarchy is that the
highest ranking journals have a higher rate of retraction than the lower
ranking journals. The data are also quite clear that this
disproportional rate of retractions is largely (but not exclusively) due
to the flawed methodology of the paper published there, and only in
small (but significant) portion due to the increased attention
high-profile journals are attracting.

Perhaps not surprisingly, both *Nature* and *Science* actively ignore
and disregard the available evidence in favor of less damning
speculations and anecdotes. Given that both journals were [made
aware](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2013/06/everybody-already-knows-journal-rank-is-bunk/)
of the evidence as early as 2012, one could be forgiven for now starting
to speculate that the journals are attempting to safeguard their
unjustified status by suppressing dissemination of the data. First,
after rejecting the publication of the self-incriminating data, *Science
Magazine* published a [flawed
attempt](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2013/10/science-magazine-rejects-data-publishes-anecdote/)
to discredit lower ranking journals, concluding, implicitly, that one
better rely more on the higher ranking, established journals. Then,
barely a fortnight later, *Nature Magazine* (which also rejected
publication of actual data on the matter) [followed
suit](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2013/10/not-to-be-outdone-nature-magazine-rejects-data-publishes-opinion/)
and publishes an opinion piece on how scientists *feel* about journal
rank. Today, completing the triad, *Nature*
[publishes](https://www.nature.com/news/why-high-profile-journals-have-more-retractions-1.15951)
something like a [storify](https://storify.com/) from different tweets,
citing the fact that higher ranking journals have higher retraction
rates and speculating if the higher rates may stem from increased
attention.

Needless to say, we have maybe not entirely conclusive, but pretty
decent empirical data showing that there are several factors
contributing to this strong correlation and that increased attention to
higher ranking journals is likely to be one of these factors, but
probably a minor, if not the least important one. Instead, the data
suggest that the methodological flaws of the papers in high-profile
journals, in conjunction with the incentives to publish eye-catching
results are much stronger factors driving the correlation. The
consistent disregard for the empirical data suggesting that the current
status of high-profile journals is entirely unjustified, could raise the
suspicion that this last news piece in *Nature Magazine* may be part of
a fledgling publisher strategy to divert attention away from the data in
order to protect the status quo.

However, not only due to [Hanlon's
Razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor), one has to
consider the more likely alternative that none of the various authors or
editors behind the three articles actually is aware of the existing
data. For one, none of these authors/editors was involved with handling
the manuscript in which we reviewed the data on journal rank. Second,
the first article, [Bohannon's
sting](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2013/10/science-magazine-rejects-data-publishes-anecdote/),
was so obviously flawed, one wonders if the author is familiar with
*any* empirical work at all, let alone the pertinent literature. Third,
the evidence points to the editorial process at high-ranking journals
selecting flawed studies for publication -- it appears that only very
few, if any, of the editors at these journals are any good at what they
do. Given these three reasons, one can only conclude that this string of
three entirely misleading articles can only be due to "stupidity" and
not to "malice", to use Hanlon's words.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

**UPDATE**: I had no idea how wrong I was, until I saw this tweet from
Jon Tennant:

> [@brembs](https://twitter.com/brembs?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
> [@CorieLok](https://twitter.com/CorieLok?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) I see
> your comment. I did push your article when asked for comments, but
> this didn\'t make it into the article
>
> --- Jon Tennant (@Protohedgehog) [September 18,
> 2014](https://twitter.com/Protohedgehog/status/512592854217408512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

[@**brembs** @**CorieLok** I see your comment. I did push your article
when asked for comments, but this didn't make it into the
article](@brembs%20@CorieLok%20I%20see%20your%20comment.%20I%20did%20push%20your%20article%20when%20asked%20for%20comments,%20but%20this%20didn't%20make%20it%20into%20the%20article)

In other words, the author of the article (which I assume must be Cori
Lok) did know about the data we have available and nevertheless pushed
the anecdote. Given this new information, it may be time to reject
Hanlon's razor and exclude "stupidity" in favor of "malice"?
