Translation to plain English of the Statement from APS Regarding Possible Executive Order Affecting Publications

On December 18th the American Association of Publishers published a letter protesting possible plans to mandate faster sharing of research articles. Signed by many commercial publishers (including Elsevier, Wiley, Wolters Kluwer), it was also signed by a number of scientific societies, including the Association for Psychological Science, one that has many members who support publishing reform. APS put out a statement regarding the issue.

Last week, reports emerged that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was in the process of developing an executive order to overturn established federal policy and make articles reporting on US federally funded research immediately free to the public.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

No details were available about the change, when such a change might take effect, or what the process would be for gathering input from the affected stakeholders, including scientific organizations like APS, as well as the public.

We knew this was coming but are acting surprised.

Given the potential ramifications,

Realizing we might lose money,

APS joined with other scientific societies and publishers in mobilizing a quick, broad response in opposition to the possible executive order,

we all collectively lost our sh*t and hastily signed a letter in which we argue that "Going below the current 12 month 'embargo'...would undermine American jobs, exports, innovation, and intellectual property"

so that there is more time to gather information and discuss implications.

so that we would have more time to lobby.

Both Congress and the OSTP are responding to the concerns that were expressed,

We hope that anyone who reads this letter sincerely believes that in the midst of the impeachment circus, holidays, and recess, congress is laser focused on issues related to academic publishing.

and we are hoping for a more balanced discussion around these issues going forward.

dear lord let us keep our embargo.

Society publishing is changing, and APS journals will continue to evolve with those changes. Currently, articles reporting on US federally-funded research findings become freely available 12 months after publication. A sudden change in that policy by executive order would take away APS’s ability to approach these changes in a manner that best serves our members, our diverse field, and our community, and delivers high-quality science.

Blah blah blah blah blah.

Translation to plain English of the editor's note on Nature's editorial on statues

Following a public outcry on 6-7 September 2017 Nature lightly edited their anonymous editorial from 4 September without preserving the original.

Anonymous (2017). Science must acknowledge its past mistakes and crimes. Nature 549, 5–6 (07 September 2017)

Editor's note: The original version of this article was offensive and poorly worded.

This op-ed sucks.

It did not accurately convey our intended message and it suggested that Nature is defending statues of scientists who have done grave injustice to minorities and other people.

Look, just because everyone who saw the article read it as defending statues of scientists who have done grave injustices to minorities and other people doesn't mean you can prove our intent in a court of law.

We have corrected the headline, standfirst and a line in the text to make clear we do not support keeping those memorials;

A few words here, a little tweak there, and Alakazam! A pile of dogshit becomes a diamond.

our position is that any such memorials that are allowed to stand should be accompanied by context that makes the injustice clear and acknowledges the victims.

A little plaque next to a huge statue makes up for everything, including slaves operated on without their permission and with no anesthetic.

We apologise for the original article

We are sorry if our original article offended you.

and are taking steps to ensure that we do not make similar mistakes in the future.

But, we are not changing anything. We are definitely not going to include one or more equally-sized op-eds in our next issue from non-white scientists who may have a different opinion.

We realise that many people disagree with the article more fundamentally;

Damn y'all on Twitter!

we will be publishing some of the strong criticisms that we have received and welcome further responses.

Please can we just whitewash this whole episode? Also can everyone just keep reviewing for us without mentioning this episode when we ask you please? (This includes Frontiers which we own!!!)

---

(Hat tip to Daring Fireball for inspiration)

Things I swore I would never do when I had my own lab but am now doing

1. Have a picture on my professional website that is more than 4 years old.

2. Drift in and out of email checking while I get real work done.

3. Be late to almost every meeting because I schedule back-to-back meetings and can never end them early.

4. Forget details about experiments we are running in my lab.

5. Tell that same story yet again because I have no idea if I told it before, or if so, to whom.