Monday 31 October 2011

TED Talk

1. Iain McGilchrist was the speaker who gave the talk about the divided brain.

2. The talk was about how humans have divided brains. It was about how one side of the brain does different tasks than the other. He used the game operation to explain how the brain works. Both sides of the brain feel emotion though.
3. The talk didn't change the way I think about the world. I have always thought that each side feels emotion but I was never sure about what each side does.

IF I had to choose between living forever and an unlimited supply of money, which would I want?

I would rather have an unlimited supply of money. It would be boring to live forever. With an unlimited supply of money I could buy whatever I want. I would be able to have unlimited entertainment. Living forever I would have to get new jobs. I would have to change the way the world changes. I would rather just have an unlimited supply of money.

Friday 28 October 2011

Tic-Tac-Toe

Journal Entry

Yesterday was good. In most of my classes we just chilled. They were empty for aims make up so we talked and played games. After school I went to bowling practice. I did decent. We have a match on tuesday so I hope I do well. After I went to go look at costumes with my brother. It was a good day.

Wednesday 26 October 2011

Interview with Nicola Rylett: InTech's response

Yesterday I posted an interview with Nicola Rylett, the marketing director of Open Access publisher InTech. I prefaced the interview with an introduction in order to give readers some background to the publisher. I now publish a statement and response from InTech to that introduction. 

Underneath that is my response to InTech’s statement. 

InTech Statement:

In the piece, “The OA Interviews: InTech's Nicola Rylett”, there were a number of valid issues discussed in great detail. However, despite a series of lengthy conversations which sought to not only address these historical issues but also to highlight the significant changes that InTech have implemented in recent months to eradicate said concerns, the author remains almost entirely focused on cases dating back as far as 2006. This, in our view, is an unfair representation of where the company currently stands, and this failure to shed light on more recent events with a balanced perspective may invariably lead the reader to a misinformed conclusion about InTech. We ask that readers persist with reading this comprehensive article which concludes with the full interview that Nicola Rylett, marketing director participated in with Mr Poynder – here is where the balance of the article is redressed, although it is questionable whether the reader will continue reading by the time they reach Page 17 of the piece.

The interview between Ms Rylett and Mr Poynder raised a number of important, pertinent and extremely interesting points that were not only relevant to InTech but also to the wider publishing- and- open access communities. The subject of peer review remains a hot potato among industry commentators, with advocates and critics seemingly at loggerheads over the extent to which it is enforced combined with its ability (or inability) to remain be the “quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller” (Richard Horton, editor, The Lancet) and impartial, rather than err on the side of bias.

Finally, quality is another issue that needs to be addressed. While InTech has initiated a process of quality review within the organization in recent months, we believe the issue of quality per se is one that should be debated across the whole sector in the same manner that we need to openly deliberate how we can help increase the pace of transferrable knowledge in research globally, introduce innovative ways to meet and exceed customer requirements and expectations, and how we can maintain sustainability throughout the publishing community. 

Article response, comments addressed as follows:

The statement, “Meanwhile it appears that no researcher ever received any royalties from the publisher,” is an assumption made by the author and our non-response should not be taken as an indication of confirmation nor denial. This remains a confidential matter between author and publisher.

Value for money is mentioned throughout the piece and at this point, we would like to highlight the significant differences between the article processing charges (APC) among our contemporaries. PloS, for instance, levy a c.2,086EUR APC, Biomed charge a fee of c.1,610EUR, while InTech's APC is among the lowest in the industry, between 590EUR for Books and 870EUR for Journals. It is also important to stipulate, as readers of the full interview will note, that there are variations with regard to the overall service provided for authors under the APC.

The statement, “I asked Rylett to put me in touch with four or five authors who had been granted a waiver, which she agreed to do. At the time of writing this, however, I had still not been sent any names”, is accurate. However, due to data protection protocol we can only forward author contact details upon receipt of their confirmation that they are willing to allow us to do so. We have sought permission from authors and will duly forward their information to Mr Poynder, as requested.

The statement, “Would not one expect the paragraph breaks to either be indented or double-spaced?” We have introduced paragraph indenting along with a number of other changes to the overall layout of our books which have already taken immediate effect, which will be evident upon publication of titles published within the forthcoming twelve months.

The statement, “And here is a front page of a book published in 2006,” followed by the statement, “We might also want to ask why, given the undeniable difference in quality, an author would opt to pay to publish with InTech rather than publish without charge with a traditional publisher,” seeks to convey to the reader that the company has failed to address previous discrepancies since their airing of said example some five years ago. This argument, in our view, has little conviction and it would be remiss of anyone to judge a company as it is in 2011 based on a solitary example dating back to 2006.

The statement, “What I do know is that InTech's critics have long maintained that it has a tendency to promise more than it delivers...the publisher is prone to exaggerate its achievements [and] are now inclined to conclude that InTech has succumbed to the same temptation in publishing and citing the new TBI survey,” is the author's own opinion and not representative of the wider community. In our interview, both Rylett and TBI demonstrated the results of the survey in an open and transparent way and it should be noted that Mr Poynder has continued to refute its findings, which is his prerogative.

The statement, “In other words, researchers based in the developing world who know they will be rejected out of hand by the traditional scholarly communication system, either because of where they are based, the quality of their written English, or both”, is the authors own opinion and should not be taken or accepted as a statement of fact. China and others members of the so-called BRIC nations and other countries have been largely unrepresented in the scientific publishing community, and InTech has enabled prospective authors who would ordinarily be excluded from doing so to have their work published and freely accessible. Language should not and will never be a barrier to becoming published with InTech - providing the quality is of the standard that we deem as acceptable. Indeed, it should be noted that like most of our contemporaries within the wider publishing community, we reject a significant number of proposals that we are presented with due to their failure to meet the required standards.

The statement, “Clearly one error InTech could make is to assume that it is enough to unleash on the world a plethora of upbeat PR messages and self-serving surveys, but omit to undertake the hard work necessary to improve its products, and to make the way it markets its services to scientists more acceptable,” is 100 per cent true in so much that if this is the approach we were to take then yes, that will invariably be the consequences of the company's inaction. However, that is not the stance we are adopting. Moreover, as the interview below will testify, we have already made significant strides in recent months to review all areas of the way we do business (focus on quality, customer services, external communications, etc.) and reacted accordingly which will effectively dispel much of the criticism levied against InTech by critics once the seeds we have sown now come to fruition over the course of the next twelve months.

The statement, “...it is not clear that InTech plans to cease bombarding researchers with unwanted email invitations”, is a gross exaggeration. Anyone with a basic understanding of marketing could never accuse an organization which sends fewer than 5 emails over a given twelve month period of 'bombarding' the recipient.

The statement, “Today, [InTech] describes itself – unfairly – as “the world's largest open access book publisher”, is factual and not an attempt at self-aggrandizement. While there are a number of other open access players within our market, their focus is overwhelmingly focused on the publication of journals, with InTech operating predominately in books.

The concluding statement, “The problem may be that the particular niche InTech has created for itself, and the modus operandi it has built around that niche, may make it very hard to up its game without eroding its customer base”, is an unfair statement and we refute the implication from the author which suggests that the quality of both our authors and publications is sub-standard.

####

Comment from Richard Poynder:

I appreciate that InTech took the time to speak with me in the first place, and to subsequently respond to my introduction. Below I address those issues raised by InTech where I believe a response is called for.

WIDER ISSUES

I agree that some of the issues I raised in connection with InTech could usefully be viewed in the context of the wider problems associated with the quality of published research today, peer review, and author-pays open access publishing; and I agree that there ought to be an industry-wide debate about this. Perhaps that is something that OASPA could organise?

I disagree that my introduction was “almost entirely focused on cases dating back as far as 2006”. For instance, I drew attention to quality issues connected with recently published books, including at least two published this month (e.g. this one, and this one). Likewise, I drew attention to peer review issues associated with a book published last year (this book), and I also cited InTech’s own survey (published in April) in which respondents repeated the same complaints made to me in 2010, and which have been made historically about InTech. E.g. complaints that journal articles and book chapters published with InTech appear sometimes either be reviewed too lightly, or not reviewed at all. As one of those cited in the TBI survey put it, “If there would be a review process, the writing process would be more natural and the chapter could be improved.”

ROYALTIES
 
I can think of no publisher that would refuse to say whether they have ever, or do now, pay royalties to their authors. And why would they refuse? I invite InTech/Sciyo once again to answer the question I posed in the interview: Has it ever paid royalties to any of its authors and, if so, how much has it paid out since 2010 (without naming any authors, or breaching any client confidentiality)?

VALUE FOR MONEY

I agree that some Open Access publishers charge a higher APC than InTech. In light of the issues raised, however, some might argue that there is a danger here of trying to compare apples with oranges. It also assumes that the other OA publishers cited themselves provide value for money, which again some might question. As such, citing what other publishers charge may be to miss the point. The issue is this: what do authors get for their APC when they publish with InTech, and does that represent value for money; it is not a case of making price comparisons with other publishers.  

THE TBI SURVEY

InTech says, “Rylett and TBI demonstrated the results of the survey in an open and transparent way and it should be noted that Mr Poynder has continued to refute its findings, which is his prerogative.”

I do not think it is accurate to say that I refuted the findings of the TBI survey. I aired the concerns of some OA advocates about the wider relevance of the survey, the way in which the results had been put into the public domain, and the selective way in which the data had been presented. Since I did not get answers to all my questions, I invite InTech again to address these ones:

·         Why did not the TBI survey state that only 5,000 of the 8,000 respondents to a survey that had polled 25,000 researchers answered the section on InTech?

·         Can the online survey that was used be made public?

RESEARCHERS FROM THE DEVELOPING WORLD

InTech says, “China and others members of the so-called BRIC nations and other countries have been largely unrepresented in the scientific publishing community, and InTech has enabled prospective authors who would ordinarily be excluded from doing so to have their work published and freely accessible.” That is exactly the point I made. As I put it, “[O]ne could argue that InTech is providing a valuable service for those who are currently excluded from mainstream science.”

REJECTION RATES

InTech says, “[W]e reject a significant number of proposals that we are presented with due to their failure to meet the required standards.” I invite InTech to publish the figures on its rejection rates — for book proposals, chapter proposals and journal articles.

SPAM

It seems to me that there are two important issues to consider with regard to email marketing. First, the number of messages sent out and the randomness or not of the targeting. Second, the purpose of the messages and whether or not the recipients have opted-in to receiving them.  As I understand it from InTech’s FAQ, the publisher continues to trawl public databases for details of researchers, and then despatches multiple marketing emails inviting them to buy a service from InTech. It is not clear to me that all the recipients of InTech’s messages have opted-in to receiving them. It also seems that many of them will not be existing customers of InTech. If that is not correct, perhaps InTech could clarify?

If it is correct, then I think it would be fair to say that InTech is sending out unsolicited commercial email, and in many legal jurisdictions this is subject to regulation. I don’t know what the current law on spam is in Croatia, but I believe the country is expected to join the European Union in 2013. It is my understanding that Article 13 of the EU Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications regulates the use of email addresses for marketing purposes, and it established an opt-in regime. As such, I am told, unsolicited emails can only be sent with the prior agreement of the recipient.

But I am not a lawyer, and I am sure that InTech has taken legal advice on this. It might, however, be helpful if the publisher could confirm that its email marketing activities are conformant with Croatian law, and that they will be conformant with European law?

WORLD’S LARGEST OPEN ACCESS BOOK PUBLISHER

My comment regarding InTech “unfairly” calling itself the world's largest open access book publisher was in fact a typo! It should have read “Today, [InTech] describes itself — not unfairly — as the world's largest open access book publisher”. I will correct that in the PDF.

I assume that InTech’s main competitor in this field is Bentham eBooks?

The introduction and interview can be accessed here (PDF file).

Journal Entry

Yesterday was alright. I bowled terrible. We have practice tommorrow so I hpe I do better. We have a match on tuesday. All my classes were alright. They were pretty boring. In math we have a group project. I hope we get it done. We have to graph points and make inequalities. We have a lot to do. Hopefully we det it done today. I filled aplications out last night. I hope I can get a Job soon. I have to start to pay my car insurance. That is what I will probably do today to.

Tuesday 25 October 2011

The OA Interviews: InTech’s Nicola Rylett

The history of Open Access (OA) publisher InTech is a complicated and somewhat confusing one. According to a Scribd presentation, the company was founded in Vienna in 2004. Over the subsequent seven years it has undergone a series of name changes, moved country, and attracted considerable criticism, both for the quality of its peer review and the way in which it markets its services. The company appears to inhabit a strange binary world: while some accuse it of repeatedly spamming researchers, and preying on the vulnerabilities and egos of researchers in order to make money, the company itself maintains that it is a victim of misinformation and misperception, and that it has a growing and happy customer base. As evidence of the latter, it cites a survey that it commissioned earlier this year. 81% of those responding to the survey, says InTech’s new marketing director Nicola Rylett, rated their publishing experience with the company as either 'excellent' or 'good'.

What do we make of these conflicting pictures of InTech? The quality of peer review can be difficult to assess. Nevertheless, the publisher has acknowledged problems with its peer review in the past, and when I drew Rylett’s attention to a chapter in one of its recently published books she agreed that the quality was “unacceptable”. It also seems fair to conclude that the company’s marketing techniques leave a lot to be desired. However, Rylett insists that InTech is addressing these issues. To that end, she explains, it is currently recruiting a new middle and senior management team.

It seems clear that InTech has proved very successful in selling its pay-to-publish services to thousands of researchers around the world. But can it persuade the wider research community, the scholarly publishing industry, and the Open Access movement to endorse it?

Nicola Rylett
InTech first came to my attention in 2007, when researchers began to raise questions about a Vienna-based company called I-Tech Education and Publishing which, they complained, was sending out unsolicited emails inviting scientists to contribute chapters to books — for which a 380Euros publication charge was being demanded. Many appeared to be concluding that the company was engaged in either mass spamming, or scamming, or possibly both.

At the time, I contacted the CEO of the company Vedran Kordic, who posted a response to the American Scientist Open Access Forum. “[M]ore than 1,500 authors published to date in the open access mode by us,” he said. “There is no one of them thinking that this is a kind of online cheat or that we are working on pay-publish mode.”

Over the next couple of years the complaints appeared only to grow, and by now researchers were posting their grievances on blogs as well as mailing lists. At some point the company changed its name to In-Tech. It also began to launch scholarly journals.

In November 2009 the company changed its name again — to Sciyo. It also created a second web site that appeared to be running in parallel to In-Tech’s site (intechweb.org). And shortly afterwards it announced that anyone publishing a book chapter with the company would receive royalties. These would be based on the number of times an author’s work was downloaded.

An OA publisher paying royalties was a novel idea; an idea, however, greeted with some scepticism. Nevertheless, it stimulated me to contact the company again — an enquiry that led to my doing an email interview with Aleksandar Lazinica, who introduced himself to me as the CEO of Sciyo ...

####

If you wish to read the rest of this introduction and the interview with Nicola Rylett please click on the link below. 

I am publishing it under a Creative Commons licence, so you are free to copy and distribute it as you wish, so long as you credit me as the author, do not alter or transform the text, and do not use it for any commercial purpose. 

To read the interview and introduction (as a PDF file) click here.


IN-TECH HAS ISSUED A STATEMENT AND A RESPONSE TO THE INTRODUCTION TO THIS INTERVIEW. IT CAN BE READ IN THE PDF FILE LINKED ABOVE, OR ALTERNATIVELY HERE


Journal enrtry

I want today to go by fast. I have bowling practice after school and i can't wait to get on the lanes. Need to keep my 195 average up. Yeasterday was a decent day. I was pretty bored in most classses except this and american history. In history we had to match documents on slavery. after school I went to gamestop to trade a few games in. I got 22 and decided to get madden. When I got home me and my brother played each other. Yesterday was a good day. Can't wait till later though.

Monday 24 October 2011

Journal Entry

I had a good weekend. Friday I went to dinner with my family. On saturday I went bowling. I did decent not my averae but where I need to be. Sunday I worked and made a little extra spending money. I then watched football for the rest of the day. I had a pretty good weekend.

Friday 21 October 2011

Aliens

A game I worked on is coming out with an additional scenario that you can download and it's all about aliens.  The project was so fun to work on.  They've released this image that I did for promotional purposes.  Thought I would share it here.  Enjoy.

Thursday 20 October 2011

Journal Entry

Yesterday went by slowly. It could have gone by faster but I was bored in most of my classes. I want today to go by fast. I have to finish a test but it should go by fast. In most of my clases I dont think we are doing much. After school I am going to go home and relax. I hope it is an awesome day.

Wednesday 19 October 2011

Journal Entry

Yesterday was preety good. I didn't have much homework. I had to go to bowling after school. I did pretty good. I had a 587 series. my average was 195. That is right were I need to be to stay on varsity. I think we have a pretty strong team. We shouldn't have any problems making it to State. We have the same team as last year and we made it to state without any problems. I have done pretty good so I hope I stay were I am at. I want today to flyt by. I hope I pass my history test.

Tuesday 18 October 2011

Journal entry

Yesterday was preetty good. I didn,t have homework and I just chilled in most of my classes. I wish it was like that more often. Today after school I have bowling practice. I hope I do good. I need to keep my average at at least 195 to stay on varsityagain this year. I hope we have the same people as last year. I hope today goes by fast.

Monday 17 October 2011

Journal Entry

I had a pretty good weekend. On Saturday I went and did my usual bowling. After I went to earn some money working for my grandpa. After I went to my cousins football game. It was a good game but they lost in over time. On Sunday I went to help my aunt and uncle do some work around there house. They are paying me $8 an hour. I worked for 5 yesterday so I made 40. I am helping them more so I will be able to pay my car insurance. I then went to a different cousins party. It was really fun. I am glad we have 2 half days this week.

Friday 14 October 2011

What is the definition of success to me?

Success? Success means to bea able to accomplish something. It can mean various different things. To me success means to be able to have acomplished something. I can only think of that definition of success. There are many more but that is the only definition of success to me.

Thursday 13 October 2011

Graphic Design Principles

1. Elements of Design? type, text, graphics, backgrounds, etc.
2. What is the Optical Center? the place where a viewer's eye spends most of its time—is slightly above the geometric center.
3. What is alignment?Alignment is the placement of text and graphics so they line up on the page. Learn how to use alignment and view examples of different types of alignment used in page layout.
4. What is Balance? Visual balance comes from arranging elements on the page so that no one section is heavier than the other.
5.What is consistency? consistent use of type and graphics styles within a document shows a reader where to go and helps them navigate your designs and layouts
6. What is contrast? In design, big and small elements, black and white text, squares and circles, can all create contrast.
7. What is gestalt? It's the perception of a composition as a whole.
8. What is the golden rectangle? the golden rectangle or golden section is a visually pleasing geometric shape with specific proportions.
9. What is proximity? keeping like items together and creating unity by how close or far apart elements are from each other.
10. What is Use Similar Colors to Denote Relationships? When similar (but not identical) colors are used, the suggestion is one of relationship, with the degree of color similitude denoting the strength of the relationship.
11. what is Halftone?   the array of tiny dots that make up a newspaper photograph.
12.Never Rely on Color Alone- Color coding should be limited to the emphasis of visual information conveyed by other means.
13.Consider Perceptual Disabilities- it is important to vary as many primary colors as possible.
14.Be Aware of the Social Connotations of Colors- Colors carry a strong emotional weight for most people, due to the social connotations that are often associated with them.
15.Develop Color Design Under User Conditions- Many factors affect the perception of color, and these effects are generally not uniform across the spectrum
16.Consider Readability- A common misconception about type is that "Sans Serif is hard to read."
17.Use Italics Sparingly- Letters printed in italic typefaces, in any medium, are crowded more closely together than their associated roman versions
18.Use Typefaces Consistently- Different typefaces have different visual characteristics
19. Shape of Type Affects Cognition- The shape of words, sentences, paragraphs and pages affects cognition as much as the choice of typeface.
20.Create a Rhythm- Repetitions of similar or varying graphic elements can create a visual rhythm that a reader will understand as a sense of organization and unity.

What is my favorite school subject?

My favorite school subject is History. I like history because i get to learn what went on way back in the day. I like to know what happened. History sticks in my head better than any other subject. Last year I took world history and it was an awesome class. Now I'm in american history and its fun because I get to learn about stuff that happened in america. History is my favorite subject in school.

Wednesday 12 October 2011

Journal Entry

Yesterday was a good day. I went outt to eat for my mom's birthday. It was great. During the school day I didn't have much work to do in any of my classes. The day went by superfast. I hope today is another day like yesterday, I want it to go by fast. My weekend was pretty good I went to Uproar which was a music festivel With my favorite band as the main group. Life is going good.

Tuesday 11 October 2011

Occupy Wall Street?

Occupy Wall Street is a group of people protesting on wall street. They want democracy. They want to have less debt. They also want to get rid of congress. The want to have a democracy for a government. They arre also protesting about social inequality. They are also protesting that obama is an inordain president. The protester are looking to end welfare. The occupy wall street is a group of protesters Protesting the government.

Friday 7 October 2011

Journal Entry

Yesterday was good. I didn't have any homework. The day went by fast I was surprised. I hope to day goes as fast as yesterday. Tommorrow I am going to the Avenged Sevenfold concert at the rockstar uproar music festival. 3 of my favorite bands will be there. I can't wait.

Thursday 6 October 2011

If I died tommorrow , what would I want people to remember about me?

If I died tommorrow I would want people to remember me by my bowling. I am a good bowler and that is what I would want them to remember about me. I would also want them to remember be by my attitude. I always have a good attitude. I never get real mad at people. I am also nice to people. I don't treat people bad. I always treat them with respect. That is how I would want to be remembered.

Wednesday 5 October 2011

Journal Entry

Yesterday was a pretty good day. I didn't do very much but it was still pretty good. All my grades are pretty good. My car is running good. Tommorrow before school I have a bowling meeting. I think today should be a pretty good day. I hope that I don't have too much work to do. I want it to be a nice a simple day.

Tuesday 4 October 2011

TED 3

Who? Skylar Tibbits was the speaker who gave the talk.
What about? The talk was about how one day phisical objects will be able to build themselves like DNA or proteins.
What I learned? I learned that one day there will be buildings and bridges that can build themselves.With technology advancng it is very likely that it will happen one day in the near future.

Journal Entry

Yesterday I had a pretty good day. I watched movies in every class except this and algerbra 3-4. After school I went out to my car and it wouldn't start. Luckily I was able to get it started. When I got home I hooked it up to our battery charger. That wasn't the problem so today my step dad has to look at it. Hopefully it is just a simple short in a wire or just the spark plugs. I had a pretty good day for the most part though.

Monday 3 October 2011

My page!

What is my favorite holiday?

My favorite holiday is Christmas. Christmas is because we get 2 weeks out of school for it. Also because we get presents. In the 2 weeks we get to do what we want. My other favorite holiday is 4th of July. I like 4th of july because I can light fireworks. The 4th of July and Christmas are my favorite holidays.