DOCSLIB.ORG

Gold Open Access Publishing Must Not Be Allowed to Retard the Progress of Green Open Access Self-Archiving

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gold Open Access Publishing Must Not Be Allowed to Retard the Progress of Green Open Access Self-Archiving LOGOS Gold Open Access Publishing Must Not Be Allowed to Retard the Progress of Green Open Access Self-Archiving Stevan Harnad Introduction Universal Open Access (OA) is fully within the reach of the global research community: research institutions and funders need merely mandate (green) OA self-archiving of the fi nal, refereed drafts of all journal articles immediately upon ac- ceptance for publication. The money to pay for gold OA publishing will only become available if Born in Hungary, Stevan Harnad did his under- universal green OA eventually makes subscriptions graduate work at McGill University and his gradu- unsustainable. Paying for gold OA pre-emptively ate work at Princeton University. Currently Harnad today, without fi rst having mandated green OA is Professor in Electronics and Computer Science at not only squanders scarce money, but it delays the University Southampton, UK, and Canada Research attainment of universal OA. Chair in Cognitive Science at Université du Québec à Montréal. He was founder and editor of CUP’s Be- Open Access (OA) means free online access. What havioral and Brain Sciences journal, past president of made Open Access possible was the advent of the the Society for Philosophy and Psychology, external networked online medium: the Internet, and even- member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and tually the Web, empowered the authors of digital author and contributor to over 300 publications. works to give them away free for all online if they Harnad’s research interests are in Open Access Sci- wished. entometrics, Category Learning, Symbol Grounding The term “Open Access” was fi rst coined by the and Language Origins. One of the most devoted and Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI),1 spon- outspoken supporters of Open Access to research, sored by the Open Society Institute (OSI)2 in 2001. Harnad spends a considerable amount of time advo- But the idea of providing free online access – and cating Open Access to scholarship worldwide. the provision of free online access – started much earlier than the BOAI and the adoption of the E-mail: [email protected] name “OA.” The inventors of Unix3 and the In- ternet4 – mostly computer scientists – had already Websites: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/people/harnad been providing OA to their research papers by http://openaccess.eprints.org self-archiving them in “anonymous FTP archives”5 since at least the 1970s. With the invention of the Web 6 in 1990, websites soon became the preferred way of self-archiving papers. High energy physi- cists – who had already been systematically shar- ing their works on paper before the Internet, and DOI: 10.1163/095796511X559972 then via email when it became possible – began 86 LOGOS 21/3-4 © 2010 LOGOS Downloaded from Brill.com10/03/2021 01:50:42AM via free access Gold Open Access Publishing Must Not Be Allowed to Retard the Progress of Green Open Access Self-Archiving self-archiving them in Arxiv,7 a centralized physics science are cited signifi cantly more than non-OA web archive, in 1991. Many individuals from many articles.17 Many subsequent follow-up studies18 con- other disciplines have since followed the lead of fi rmed that this “OA impact advantage” was also the computer scientists and the physicists. present in every other scholarly and scientifi c fi eld tested. But even the OA advantage was not suf- The “Subversive Proposal” to Self-Archive fi cient to induce the 85% of non-self-archiving au- Refereed Journal Articles thors to do so. A “Subversive Proposal”8 to make all refereed journal articles free for all by self-archiving them Mandating Self-Archiving online was posted in 1994. The proposal also iden- It had already been proposed since 1998 in the tifi ed the way to cover the cost of publication if American Scientist Open Access Forum19 that uni- OA self-archiving eventually made subscriptions versities and research funders should mandate OA unsustainable: fees for publishing individual arti- self-archiving (i.e., make it a requirement, as a cles instead of subscription fees for accessing them. natural extension of the requirement to publish-or- The fi rst OA journals began appearing in 1989;9 perish).20 The School of Electronics and Computer most were either the online versions of subscrip- Science at Southampton University (UK) was the tion journals or they were subsidised online-only fi rst in the world to adopt an OA self-archiving journals. mandate, in 2002.21 The fi rst university-wide OA Meanwhile, the 1994 Subversive Proposal to mandate was then adopted by Queensland Univer- self-archive went largely unheeded: For the follow- sity of Technology (Australia)22 and the fi rst Eu- ing decade, the rate of author self-archiving con- ropean university-wide mandate by University of tinued to hover at about 15-20 percent10 of yearly Minho (Portugal),23 both in 2004. refereed research output. The proportion of arti- cles published in OA journals was even lower.11 Providing centralized archives like Arxiv for other In 2001, Steve Lawrence disciplines (e.g., CogPrints12 for the Cognitive Sci- published a paper in ences) likewise failed to increase the rate of OA self-archiving. Nature reporting that In 1999, the Open Archives Initiative (OAI)13 OA articles in computer developed a metadata-tagging protocol in order to make all Open Archives “interoperable,” which science are cited means that depositing locally in any individual signifi cantly more than archive became equivalent to depositing centrally in one global, seamlessly searchable Open Archive. non-OA articles. In 2000, free software (EPrints)14 was designed at the University of Southampton (by adapting the Likewise in 2004, the UK Parliamentary Se- CogPrints software to make it OAI-compliant and lect Committee on Science and Technology rec- generic) to make it possible for all universities to ommended that universities and research funders create their own OAI-compliant Open Archives should mandate OA.24 In the same year, the US (which soon came to be called, instead, “Institu- House Appropriations Committee, too, recom- tional Repositories” [IRs]).15 Many IRs were subse- mended that NIH should mandate OA.25 The UK quently created, worldwide – their growth has been government failed to act on the Committee’s rec- monitored by the University of Southampton’s ommendation, yet within a few years all seven of Registery of Open Access Repositories (ROAR)16 the UK Research Councils nevertheless followed since 2001 – but IRs remained near-empty because it, each adopting a self-archiving mandate of its 85% of researchers still were not self-archiving. own.26 The Wellcome Trust became the fi rst re- In 2001, Steve Lawrence published a paper in search funder to mandate OA in 2005.27 In the Nature reporting that OA articles in computer same year, NIH adopted an OA request instead of a 87 LOGOS 21/3-4 © 2010 LOGOS Downloaded from Brill.com10/03/2021 01:50:42AM via free access Stevan Harnad mandate; that policy failed and was upgraded to a OA (publishing). In fact, the fastest and surest road mandate in 2007.28 to OA is the green road of OA self-archiving,44 A further incentive to mandate and provide OA for two fundamental reasons: (1) providing green was provided by the fact that the outcome of the OA is entirely in the hands (and interests) of the UK Research Assessment Exercise29 – in which providers of the research itself, the global research peers review and rank the research publications community, and (2) green OA can be mandated – of all departments of all UK universities every six whereas gold OA is in the hands of the publishing years – turns out to be highly correlated with the community and cannot be mandated. citation metrics that OA has been shown to in- Hence green OA needs to come fi rst, and it crease.30 The University of Southampton has been needs to be universally mandated, by institutions strongly promoting the development of OA met- as well as funders. It has been a great strategic mis- rics31 to track, evaluate and reward research usage take to wait instead for Gold OA.45 If, despite all and impact, creating Citebase32 as a model for a the benefi ts, most authors are not providing green scientometric engine for research evaluation and OA spontaneously of their own accord, at no cost, navigation and IRStats33 for gathering IR usage and without having to abandon their journal of metrics. choice, then they certainly will not provide gold Two international, cross-disciplinary author sur- OA, for an additional cost, and having to publish veys by Alma Swan in 200534 reported the most in a gold OA journal instead of their journal of fundamental strategic and practical fi nding about choice. Nor will their institutions have the mon- why OA growth had been so slow: although most ey to pay their authors’ gold OA publishing costs authors do not self-archive, over 90% of them in- while those funds are still tied up in paying for dicate that they would self-archive if their funders journal subscriptions. Nor can institutional jour- or institutions mandated it – over 80% of them nal subscriptions be cancelled while the journals’ indicating they would do so willingly. Outcome contents are still not otherwise accessible to the studies35 from Arthur Sale in Australia have since institution’s users. Moreover, the asking price for confi rmed that within two years of mandate adop- gold OA publishing is still much higher than it tion, compliance rates are indeed over 60% and needs to be, while journals are still producing print well on the road toward 100%. ROARMAP36 and online editions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Harnad (1994) Computation Is Just Interpretable Symbol Manipulation
    Computation Is Just Interpretable Symbol Manipulation: Cognition Isn't http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad94.computa... Harnad, S. (1994) Computation Is Just Interpretable Symbol Manipulation: Cognition Isn't. Special Issue on "What Is Computation" Minds and Machines 4:379-390 [Also appears in French translation in "Penser l'Esprit: Des Sciences de la Cognition a une Philosophie Cognitive," V. Rialle & D. Fisette, Eds. Presses Universite de Grenoble. 1996] COMPUTATION IS JUST INTERPRETABLE SYMBOL MANIPULATION; COGNITION ISN'T Stevan Harnad Department of Psychology University of Southampton Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM email:[email protected] ftp://cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pub/harnad/ http://cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/ gopher://gopher.princeton.edu/11/.libraries/.pujournals phone: +44 703 592582 fax: +44 703 594597 ABSTRACT: Computation is interpretable symbol manipulation. Symbols are objects that are manipulated on the basis of rules operating only on the symbols' shapes , which are arbitrary in relation to what they can be interpreted as meaning. Even if one accepts the Church/Turing Thesis that computation is unique, universal and very near omnipotent, not everything is a computer, because not everything can be given a systematic interpretation; and certainly everything can't be given every systematic interpretation. But even after computers and computation have been successfully distinguished from other kinds of things, mental states will not just be the implementations of the right symbol systems, because of the symbol grounding problem: The interpretation of a symbol system is not intrinsic to the system; it is projected onto it by the interpreter.
    [Show full text]
  • Affective Sentience and Moral Protection
    Rochester Institute of Technology RIT Scholar Works Articles Faculty & Staff Scholarship 1-9-2021 Affective sentience and moral protection Russell Powell Boston University Irina Mikhalevich Rochester Institute of Technology Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.rit.edu/article Recommended Citation Powell, Russell and Mikhalevich, Irina (2020) Affective sentience and moral protection. Animal Sentience 29(35). DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1668 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty & Staff Scholarship at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Sentience 2020.397: Powell & Mikhalevich Response to Commentary on Invertebrate Minds Affective sentience and moral protection Response to Commentary on Mikhalevich & Powell on Invertebrate Minds Russell Powell Department of Philosophy, Boston University Irina Mikhalevich Department of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology Abstract: We have structured our response according to five questions arising from the commentaries: (i) What is sentience? (ii) Is sentience a necessary or sufficient condition for moral standing? (iii) What methods should guide comparative cognitive research in general, and specifically in studying invertebrates? (iv) How should we balance scientific uncertainty and moral risk? (v) What practical strategies can help reduce biases and morally dismissive attitudes toward invertebrates? Russell Powell, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Boston University, specializes in philosophical problems in evolutionary biology and bioethics. Website Irina Mikhalevich, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology, specializes in conceptual and methodological problems in comparative cognitive science and their implications for the treatment of nonhuman animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Minds Without Spines: Evolutionarily Inclusive Animal Ethics
    Animal Sentience 2020.329: Mikhalevich & Powell on Invertebrate Minds Call for Commentary: Animal Sentience publishes Open Peer Commentary on all accepted target articles. Target articles are peer-reviewed. Commentaries are editorially reviewed. There are submitted commentaries as well as invited commentaries. Commentaries appear as soon as they have been reviewed, revised and accepted. Target article authors may respond to their commentaries individually or in a joint response to multiple commentaries. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMMENTATORS Minds without spines: Evolutionarily inclusive animal ethics Irina Mikhalevich Department of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology Russell Powell Department of Philosophy, Boston University Abstract: Invertebrate animals are frequently lumped into a single category and denied welfare protections despite their considerable cognitive, behavioral, and evolutionary diversity. Some ethical and policy inroads have been made for cephalopod molluscs and crustaceans, but the vast majority of arthropods, including the insects, remain excluded from moral consideration. We argue that this exclusion is unwarranted given the existing evidence. Anachronistic readings of evolution, which view invertebrates as lower in the scala naturae, continue to influence public policy and common morality. The assumption that small brains are unlikely to support cognition or sentience likewise persists, despite growing evidence that arthropods have converged on cognitive functions comparable to those found in vertebrates. The exclusion of invertebrates is also motivated by cognitive-affective biases that covertly influence moral judgment, as well as a flawed balancing of scientific uncertainty against moral risk. All these factors shape moral attitudes toward basal vertebrates too, but they are particularly acute in the arthropod context. Moral consistency dictates that the same standards of evidence and risk management that justify policy protections for vertebrates also support extending moral consideration to certain invertebrates.
    [Show full text]
  • A Resonant Message: Aligning Scholar Values and Open Access Objectives in OA Policy Outreach to Faculty and Graduate Students
    Please do not remove this page A Resonant Message: Aligning Scholar Values and Open Access Objectives in OA Policy Outreach to Faculty and Graduate Students Otto, Jane https://scholarship.libraries.rutgers.edu/discovery/delivery/01RUT_INST:ResearchRepository/12643424420004646?l#13643501240004646 Otto, J. (2016). A Resonant Message: Aligning Scholar Values and Open Access Objectives in OA Policy Outreach to Faculty and Graduate Students. In Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication (Vol. 4). Rutgers University. https://doi.org/10.7282/T3HT2RMZ This work is protected by copyright. You are free to use this resource, with proper attribution, for research and educational purposes. Other uses, such as reproduction or publication, may require the permission of the copyright holder. Downloaded On 2021/10/02 11:21:37 -0400 A RESONANT MESSAGE 1 A Resonant Message: Aligning Scholar Values and Open Access Objectives in OA Policy Outreach to Faculty and Graduate Students A RESONANT MESSAGE 2 Abstract INTRODUCTION. Faculty contribution to the institutional repository is a major limiting factor in the successful provision of open access to scholarship, and thus to the advancement of research productivity and progress. Many have alluded to outreach messages through studies examining faculty concerns that underlie their reluctance to contribute, but specific open access messages demonstrated to resonate most with faculty have not been discussed with sufficient granularity. Indeed, many faculty benefits and concerns are likely either unknown to the faculty themselves, or unspoken, so the literature’s record of faculty benefits and perceptions of open access remains incomplete at best. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM. At Rutgers University, we have developed a targeted message that both addresses these unspoken/unknown concerns and benefits and speaks to the promise and inevitability of open access in a changing scholarly communication landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • DOING the RIGHT THING an Interview with Stevan Harnad (By
    DOING THE RIGHT THING An Interview With Stevan Harnad (by Mark Bekoff, Psychology Today, January 2015) https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201501/doing-the-right-thing- interview-stevan-harnad MB: You’re Canada Research Chair in Cognitive Sciences at University of Quebec in Montreal and Professor of Web Science at University of Southampton in the UK: What do you actually do? SH: I do research on how the brain learns and communicates categories. Categorization is a very general cognitive capacity. I think it covers most of cognition. It just means doing the right thing with the right kind of thing: Eat what’s edible; avoid predators; and call a spade a “spade” (because most of language is categorization too). http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/261725/ And how do you do research on how the brain learns and communicates categories? Do you study animals’ brains? No. I study how humans do it, I try to model the mechanism generating that capacity computationally, and I test for clues and correlates with brain imagery (event- related potentials). Of these three methods, the third – observing and measuring brain events – is actually the least informative. Is that just because you can’t get deep enough into the brain, and manipulate it? No, even if we could manipulate people’s brains any way we wanted, what the brain can do, as an organ, is anything and everything we can do. The brain does not wear its functioning on its sleeve, to be read off by observation and manipulation, like the heart, which just pumps blood, or the lungs, which just pump air.
    [Show full text]
  • Stevan Harnad, University of Southampton, May 8, 1999
    Stevan Harnad, University of Southampton, May 8, 1999 [This is a revised draft of comments on the ebiomed proposal, sent to Harold Varmus earlier.] The following are my comments on: http://www.nih.gov/welcome/director/ebiomed/ebiomed.htm This extremely welcome and important initiative is deserving of the strongest support. The following recommendations are made in the interests of strengthening the proposal by clarifying some crucial central aspects and modifying or eliminating some minor, weaker aspects. E-BIOMED: A PROPOSAL FOR ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION IN THE BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES Prologue The full potential of electronic communication has yet to be realized. The scientific community has made only sparing use thus far of the Internet as a means to publish scientific work and to distribute it widely and without significant barriers to access. This generally accurate assessment of the current failure to exploit the full potential of the Internet for scientific publication has one prominent and extremely relevant and important exception. It would be much more accurate as well as helpful to note this explicitly from the outset, as this notable exception is very likely to be the model for all the rest of the disciplines: Physics is the exception (and to some degree, mathematics). It is now both an empirical and a historical fact that well over half of the current physics (journal) literature is freely available online from the Los Alamos Archive and its 14 mirror archives worldwide, and is being used by perhaps 50,000 physicists a day. http://xxx.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/show_monthly_submissions It would be misleading in the extreme to describe this as "sparing use"! Instead, it should be acknowledged that this has been a revolutionary change in Physics, and if there were a way to extend it to the other sciences (and the other learned disciplines) then the full potential of electronic communication WOULD indeed be realized.
    [Show full text]
  • The Symbol Grounding Problem
    The Symbol Grounding Problem http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad90.sgproble... Harnad, S. (1990) The Symbol Grounding Problem. Physica D 42: 335-346. THE SYMBOL GROUNDING PROBLEM Stevan Harnad Department of Psychology Princeton University Princeton NJ 08544 [email protected] ABSTRACT: There has been much discussion recently about the scope and limits of purely symbolic models of the mind and about the proper role of connectionism in cognitive modeling. This paper describes the "symbol grounding problem": How can the semantic interpretation of a formal symbol system be made intrinsic to the system, rather than just parasitic on the meanings in our heads? How can the meanings of the meaningless symbol tokens, manipulated solely on the basis of their (arbitrary) shapes, be grounded in anything but other meaningless symbols? The problem is analogous to trying to learn Chinese from a Chinese/Chinese dictionary alone. A candidate solution is sketched: Symbolic representations must be grounded bottom-up in nonsymbolic representations of two kinds: (1) "iconic representations" , which are analogs of the proximal sensory projections of distal objects and events, and (2) "categorical representations" , which are learned and innate feature-detectors that pick out the invariant features of object and event categories from their sensory projections. Elementary symbols are the names of these object and event categories, assigned on the basis of their (nonsymbolic) categorical representations. Higher-order (3) "symbolic representations" , grounded in these elementary symbols, consist of symbol strings describing category membership relations (e.g., "An X is a Y that is Z"). Connectionism is one natural candidate for the mechanism that learns the invariant features underlying categorical representations, thereby connecting names to the proximal projections of the distal objects they stand for.
    [Show full text]
  • Stevan Harnad I Propose to Consider the Question, "Can Machines Think?"
    I propose to consider the question, "Can machines think http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/turing.html To appear in: Epstein, Robert & Peters, Grace (Eds.) The Turing Test Sourcebook: Philosophical and Methodological Issues in the Quest for the Thinking Computer. Kluwer. ________________________________________________________________________ The Annotation Game: On Turing (1950) on Computing, Machinery, and Intelligence. Stevan Harnad I propose to consider the question, "Can machines think?" (Turing 1950) Turing starts on an equivocation. We know now that what he will go on to consider is not whether or not machines can think, but whether or not machines can do what thinkers like us can do -- and if so, how. Doing is performance capacity, empirically observable. Thinking (or cognition) is an internal state, its correlates empirically observable as neural activity (if we only knew which neural activity corresponds to thinking!) and its associated quality introspectively observable as our own mental state when we are thinking. Turing's proposal will turn out to have nothing to do with either observing neural states or introspecting mental states, but only with generating performance capacity (intelligence?) indistinguishable from that of thinkers like us. This should begin with definitions of... "machine" and "think"... [A] statistical survey such as a Gallup poll [would be] absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another... in relatively unambiguous words. 1 of 28 11/09/06 12:57 I propose to consider the question, "Can machines think http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/turing.html "Machine" will never be adequately defined in Turing's paper, although (what will eventually be known as) the "Turing Machine," the abstract description of a computer, will be.
    [Show full text]
  • Crowd-Sourced Peer Review: Substitute Or Supplement for the Current Outdated System?
    Crowd-Sourced Peer Review: Substitute or supplement for the current outdated system? blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/08/21/crowd-sourced-peer-review-substitute-or-supplement/ 8/21/2014 The problem with peer review today is that there is so much research being produced that there are not enough experts with enough time to peer-review it all. As we look to address this problem, issues of standards and hierarchy remain unsolved. Stevan Harnad wonders whether crowd-sourced peer review could match, exceed, or come close to the benchmark of the current system. He predicts crowdsourcing will indeed be able to provide a supplement to the classical system, hopefully improving efficiency and accuracy, but not a substitute for it. If, as rumoured, Google builds a platform for depositing un-refereed research papers for “peer- reviewing” via crowd-sourcing, can this create a substitute for classical peer-review or will it merely supplement classical peer review with crowd-sourcing? In classical peer review, an expert (presumably qualified, and definitely answerable), an “action editor,” chooses experts (presumably qualified and definitely answerable), “referees,” to evaluate a submitted research paper in terms of correctness, quality, reliability, validity, originality, importance and relevance in order to determine whether it meets the standards of a journal with an established track-record for correctness, reliability, originality, quality, novelty, importance and relevance in a certain field. In each field there is usually a well-known hierarchy of journals, hence a hierarchy of peer-review standards, from the most rigorous and selective journals at the top all the way down to what is sometimes close to a vanity press at the bottom.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Sentience: the Other-Minds Problem
    Animal Sentience 2018.100: Calvo on Reber on Origins of Mind Call for Commentary: Animal Sentience publishes Open Peer Commentary on all accepted target articles. Target articles are peer-reviewed. Commentaries are editorially reviewed. There are submitted commentaries as well as invited commentaries. Commentaries appear as soon as they have been revised and accepted. Target article authors may respond to their commentaries individually or in a joint response to multiple commentaries. Instructions: http://animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/guidelines.html Inaugural Editorial Animal sentience: The other-minds problem Stevan Harnad Cognitive Sciences Institute Université du Québec à Montréal Abstract: The only feelings we can feel are our own. When it comes to the feelings of others, we can only infer them, based on their behavior — unless they tell us. This is the “other-minds problem.” Within our own species, thanks to language, this problem arises only for states in which people cannot speak (infancy, aphasia, sleep, anaesthesia, coma). Our species also has a uniquely powerful empathic or “mind-reading” capacity: We can (sometimes) perceive from the behavior of others when they are in states like our own. Our inferences have also been systematized and operationalized in biobehavioral science and supplemented by cognitive neuroimagery. Together, these make the other-minds problem within our own species a relatively minor one. But we cohabit the planet with other species, most of them very different from our own, and none of them able to talk. Inferring whether and what they feel is important not only for scientific but also for ethical reasons, because where feelings are felt, they can also be hurt.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Sentience: the Other-Minds Problem
    Harnad, Stevan (2016) Animal sentience: The other-minds problem. Animal Sentience 1(1) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1065 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Sentience 2016.001: Harnad on Other Minds Call for Commentary: Animal Sentience publishes Open Peer Commentary on all accepted target articles. Target articles are peer-reviewed. Commentaries are editorially reviewed. There are submitted commentaries as well as invited commentaries. Commentaries appear as soon as they have been revised and accepted. Target article authors may respond to their commentaries individually or in a joint response to multiple commentaries. Instructions: http://animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/guidelines.html Inaugural Editorial Animal sentience: The other-minds problem Stevan Harnad Cognitive Sciences Institute Université du Québec à Montréal Abstract: The only feelings we can feel are our own. When it comes to the feelings of others, we can only infer them, based on their behavior — unless they tell us. This is the “other-minds problem.” Within our own species, thanks to language, this problem arises only for states in which people cannot speak (infancy, aphasia, sleep, anaesthesia, coma). Our species also has a uniquely powerful empathic or “mind-reading” capacity: We can (sometimes) perceive from the behavior of others when they are in states like our own. Our inferences have also been systematized and operationalized in biobehavioral science and supplemented by cognitive neuroimagery.
    [Show full text]
  • In This Issue JULY 2017
    in this issue JULY 2017 ARTICLES 2 OA Advocates Weigh in on Democratization of Academic Journals: Scholastica Webinar Recap By Danielle Padula 4 ISMTE Asian-Pacific Conference 2017 Reported by Michael Willis, Tony Alves, Donald Samulack, PhD, Jennifer Deyton, and Charley Miao 16 ISMTE Member Profile: Kristen Overstreet By Kristen Overstreet MISCELLANEOUS 15 Committee Update 17 Grammatic Fanatic Comic 19 From the Forum 21 Calendar 10 th Anniversary ARTICLE https://dx.doi.org/10.18243/eon/2017.10.6.1 OA Advocates Weigh in on Democratization of Academic Journals: Scholastica Webinar Recap By Danielle Padula • The sustainability of current OA journal publishing Community Development Manager approaches Scholastica • Possibilities and challenges surrounding the de- mocratization of academic journals • Next steps to speed up the transition from subscription-based journals to OA • The role of technology in democratizing academic journal publishing • In recent years, the open access (OA) movement has been How nonprofit organizations and scholars can facili- gaining ground within the academic community, but despite tate sustainable OA increased efforts to make scholarship free for readers online, there are concerns about how to do so in a way that’sstruc- Stevan Harnad spoke to his longstanding call for universal turally and economically sustainable. Funding for OA journals, Green OA to solve the serials crisis, which would require all like budgets for serials, still comes primarily from academic researchers to make their works freely available in in- institutions. With some article-processing charges creeping stitutional repositories or preprint servers and thereby en- into the high thousands of dollars, there is concern that OA able libraries to cancel expensive journal subscriptions.
    [Show full text]