Open-source access and copyright issues

Regarding the pros and cons of open-source access to writing, I've heard two sides in the scientific community. One is that scientists need access to the results of each other's work as soon as possible, particularly in a global community. Many prestigious departments and universities have begun permitting papers to be posted on their websites as soon as they are written or vetted by the authors' respective departments. Who becomes known for a discovery first is very important in terms of prestige, honors and possible commercial offshoots. Most academic writing benefits scientists' (and other academics') careers indirectly; they are usually not paid for their writing. In fact, most academic and scientific journals charge them to publish, so much more of their time than they would like to spend goes toward seeking grants to cover such charges.

On the other hand, scientific journals say that the volunteer peer-review process is crucial to maintaining the quality and integrity of research. As for attribution, each journal article includes its submission date as verification in case of a dispute over who discovered a process or phenomenon first. Such journals are already under a great deal of pressure from their members to reduce page charges, particularly for color reproductions of charts, graphs and other illustrations. Some are now discouraging print subscriptions and trying to move individuals and institutions, including libraries, to exclusively electronic subscriptions. Surprisingly, however, publication costs do not decline as much as one might think when paper and postage are eliminated.

Another issue is that papers that are posted before peer review may be revised by the authors as more information is available. This may result in confusion over which results are accurate. The increasing use of multimedia supplements to papers also affects the publishing process. Work that is available electronically can be much richer, in terms of color, video, etc., than what can be economically printed. So a journal's dilemma becomes: Which is the official journal, the print journal academic libraries still subscribe to, or the electronic version? So far, most journals are requiring authors to pay color charges for images to be printed if they want them to be available in color electronically. Resistance to electronic-only subscriptions remains high but is declining as the advantages of cost, speed and supplementary materials are recognized.

The copyright process in scientific journals is different from other publications. Authors must transfer their copyrights to the journals upon submission, but they still retain most rights. Reprints, however, require permission from the journals. Increasingly, U.S. journals are publishing work from abroad, where copyright laws are quite different. Another trend is that many individuals and institutions are collaborating on research and publication of results. Consequently, journals are being driven to change their policies. In 2007, for example, one scientific society that publishes a number of journals began making accepted papers accessible via its website immediately upon acceptance by the peer-review editor, if desired by the author(s). Some accepted papers require considerable post-acceptance editing, which is why the production process can take several months, but at least the meat of the work will be searchable as soon as it has been validated by the peer-review process.

This helps to explain why a substantial number of academics support open-sourcing. Their self-interest is quite different from that of the typical writer. For one thing, most of their work is developed by teams and most articles are co-authored, with any financial benefits shared by their institutions. The sooner their work becomes known, the sooner they receive invitations to speak, inquiries from potential commercial interests, promotions, and funding for further research.

A matter of significance

The use of the word "significant" in scientific writing poses a unique problem because it is implicitly ambiguous in the term "statistically significant".  While the dictionary definition of "significant" does not necessarily invoke statistical measure, and its synonyms include "notable" and "important", its use in a nonstatistical sense in a scholarly article amounts to a misuse.  

This is especially true when the comparison being made could indeed be tested for statistical significance.  In such a case, the "statistical" modifier should be understood, because a statistical test should be undertaken during any serious analysis.

During broad introductions, the use of "significant" in a nonstatistical sense may be appropriate, although its use should be discouraged.  Elsewhere in scientific writing, it should absolutely be avoided unless a statistical demonstration of significance is offered.  This guideline will disambiguate a term for which there are an ample number of synonyms to be used in cases where statistical significance cannot be shown.

contributed by Dr. Ron McTaggart-Cowan
Numerical Weather Prediction Section
Meteorological Service of Canada
ron.mctaggart-cowan@ec.gc.ca

A new PAC: the Period And Comma manifesto

One of the frustrations of writers is the differing rules of grammar as used in English-speaking countries. Perhaps the spirit of activism engendered by the election year will stimulate a new PAC: the Period And Comma liberation movement!

Many rules of grammar were created not by writers or editors but by typesetters to accommodate the needs of their equipment. The placement of punctuation is one. While the period and comma appear before the final quotation mark in U.S. style books, other punctuation appears after it. I've adapted an anthem for our new PAC. To join, post a comment.

It's based on "The Internationale", of course! There! I've done it! I placed a comma after a final quotation mark! You, too, can be bold!

Arise, ye writers from your slumbers
Arise, ye prisoners of type
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of tripe.
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise
We'll change henceforth the old tradition
And spurn the rule to win the prize.

So editors, do not dally
Be brave and boldly take a stand
International style unites the human race!
So editors, do not dally
To this fight we must lend a hand
International style unites the human race!

No more deluded by reaction
Tyrants of type we'll heed no more
The writers too will take fast action
They'll say farewell to guides of yore
And if those old style books keep trying
To sacrifice sense to their pride
They soon will see the marks go flying
Illogic we shall nevermore abide!

Let us stand together for tomorrow
International style unites the human race!

No savior on high will deliver
No lord have we in print or year
Our own strong minds the chains must shiver
Chains of handset movable type and fear.
To such silly rules no more we'll hark!
Put the period and the comma
Beyond the final quotation mark!
To one English style we'll say, "Hurrah!"

Let us stand together for tomorrow
International style unites the human race!

Word Choice Influences Readers

FairerScience.org focuses on gender and science. On this simply written page, the authors contrast the use of different phrases to convey meaning. Their advice is useful to avoid offending or confusing readers or listeners, whether the words represent gender or ethnicity, or even arcane concepts that might be of interest to scientists outside the narrow field of the authors of a paper.

http://www.fairerscience.org/WordsMatter.html

For authors: Tips on responding to reviews

Dr. Roger Samelson has generously provided these tips to authors of scientific papers as a guide to preparing responses to reviewers' (and editors') comments:

Here's what I would recommend, based on what has been most helpful to me as an editor and reviewer:

1. Identify each conceptually independent reviewer comment in some straightforward way: quote the first few words, refer to numbers if given, etc. In general, don't repeat or quote the entire reviewer comment. Most reviews are best read as a continuous document, and the editor or reviewer will want to refer to the original anyway.

2. For each such comment, list the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript, by section, page number, etc., as specifically as possible. If practical, quote added or edited passages in the response. Avoid general statements, such as "Section X was rewritten to address the reviewer's comments," that give little specific information as to what changes were made and to which paragraphs and sentences.

3. If no revision was made in response to a comment, say that and explain why. Recognize that if a detailed response to a reviewer comment is necessary, the inclusion of at least some portion of the response in the revision is frequently merited, even if it is a rebuttal. Most of the questions that occur to reviewers will occur to other readers.

4. In general, focus on clearly identifying what revisions were made, or requested but not made, and explaining why they were or were not made. Avoid responses that are not clearly tied to specific changes in the text or figures, or that don't specifically rebut certain suggested changes.

5. Include an introductory statement that briefly outlines the main elements of the response, especially if major changes were made, or suggested but not made. This can be helpful simply because it allows the editor or reviewer to estimate quickly how much time the review will take to complete.

Pretty simple, really! In my experience, most authors do it well.

Roger Samelson
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University

http://www.coas.oregonstate.edu/faculty/samelson.html

Why early-career scientists should review papers

MWR Chief Editor Dave Schultz offers concise tips on reviewing on his blog at http://mwr-editors.blogspot.com.

Weather Coalition Town Hall Meeting 1/22/08

Is the Weather Enterprise Ready for the Next Administration?

Town Hall Meeting at the AMS Annual Meeting
Tuesday, January 22
7:15-8:15 AM (Light breakfast)
Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, Room 208

The Weather Coalition, an advocacy group composed of members from
industry, academia, and scientific and professional associations, will
hold a Town Hall Meeting to discuss coalition priorities and advocacy
strategies for the second session of the 110th Congress, and the next
Administration.

Climate change issues have gained traction in Congress.  This has
created an important opportunity for the weather enterprise to advance
its agenda – but it will take the active participation of the entire
enterprise to be successful. Legislation of relevance to our community
should move forward next year, including the NOAA Organic Act.  What
issues are important to the weather enterprise in such an act? In this
time of declining budgets, have the following community priorities
changed?

* Restore NOAA budget (FY08 below FY05 levels)
* Pass a NOAA Organic Act (including language to create a Weather
Services Advisory Committee and support for extramural research
partnerships)
* Support the NOAA Profiler Network
* Support for Observing Systems
* Pass Hurricane Research Legislation

This timely discussion will help guide our advocacy efforts for this
year and beyond.  The meeting will include an update by Joel Widder of
Lewis-Burke Associates on the outcome of the FY08 Omnibus Bill for
agencies of importance to our work and a brief presentation by Jack
Fellows on a community transition document.  We urge you to join us
for this heavy discussion and light breakfast!

For more information, contact Laura Curtis at lcurtis@ucar.edu