Archive for Institute of Physics

Learned Societies and Open Access

Posted in Open Access with tags , , , , , on November 8, 2018 by telescoper

Tuesday’s quick post about a letter of opposition to Plan S generated some comments from academics about the role of “Learned Societies” in academic publishing.  I therefore think it’s relevant to raise some points about the extent that these organizations (including, in my field,  the Royal Astronomical Society and the Institute of Physics) rely for their financial security upon the revenues generated by publishing traditional journals.

Take IOP Publishing, for example. This is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Institute of Physics that has an annual turnover of around £60M generated from books and journals. This revenue is the largest contribution to the income that the IoP needs to run its numerous activities relating to the promotion of physics.  A similar situation pertains to the Royal Astronomical Society, although on a smaller scale, as it relies for much of its income from Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which as a matter of fact I have published quite a few papers.

Not surprisingly, these and other learned societies are keen to protect their main source of cash. When I criticized the exploitative behaviour of IoP Publishing some time ago in a recent blog post, I drew a stern response from the Chief Executive of the Institute of Physics, Paul Hardaker. That comment seems to admit that the high prices charged by IOP Publishing for access to  its journals is nothing to do with the real cost of disseminating scientific knowledge but is instead a means of generating income to allow the IoP to pursue its noble aim of  “promoting Physics”.

This is the case for other learned societies too, and it explains why such organizations have lobbied very hard for the “Gold” Open Access some authorities are attempting to foist on the research community, rather than the far more sensible and sustainable “Green” Open Access model and its variants.

Some time ago I came across another blog post, pointing out that other learned societies around the world are also opposing Green Open Access:

There is also great incentive for the people who manage and run these organisations to defend their cartel. For example, the American Chemical Society, a huge opponent to open access, pays many of its employees, as reported in their 990 tax return, over six figures. These salaries ranged from $304,528 to $1,084,417 in 2010.

The problem with the learned societies behaving this way is twofold.

First, I consider it to be inevitable that the traditional journal industry will very soon be completely bypassed in favour of some form of green (or at least not gold) Open Access. The internet has changed the entire landscape of scientific publication. It’s now so cheap and so easy to disseminate knowledge that traditional journals are already virtually redundant, especially in my field of astrophysics where we have been using the arXiv for so long that many of us hardly ever look at journals.

The comfortable income stream that has been used by the IoP to “promote Physics”, as well as to furnish its brand new building in King’s Cross, will dry up unless these organizations find a way of defending it. The “Gold” OA favoured by such organizations their attempt to stem the tide. I think this move into Gold `Open Access’, paid for by ruinously expensive Article Processing charges paid by authors (or their organizations) is unsustainable because the research community will see through it and refuse to pay.

The other problematic aspect of the approach of these learned societies is that I think it is fundamentally dishonest. University and institutional libraries are provided with funds to provide access to published research, not to provide a backdoor subsidy for a range of extraneous activities that have nothing to do with that purpose. The learned societies do many good things – and some are indeed outstandingly good – but that does not give them the right to siphon off funds from their constituents in this way.  Institutional affiliation, paid for by fee, would be a much fairer way of funding these activities.

I should point out that, as a FRAS and a FInstP, I pay annual subscriptions to both the RAS and the IoP. I am happy to do so, as I feel comfortable spending some of my own money supporting astronomy and physics. What I don’t agree with is my department having to fork out huge amounts of money from an ever-dwindling budget for access to scientific research that should be in the public domain because it has already been funded by the taxpayer.

Some time ago I had occasion to visit the London offices of a well-known charitable organization which shall remain nameless. The property they occupied was glitzy, palatial, and obviously very expensive. I couldn’t help wondering how they could square the opulence of their headquarters with the quoted desire to spend as much as possible on their good works. Being old and cynical, I came to the conclusion that, although charities might start out with the noblest intentions, there is a grave danger that they simply become self-serving, viewing their own existence in itself as more important than what they do for others.

The commercial academic publishing industry has definitely gone that way. It arose because of the need to review, edit, collate, publish and disseminate the fruits of academic labour. Then the ease with which profits could be made led it astray. It now fulfills little or no useful purpose, but simply consumes financial resources that could be put to much better effect actually doing science. Fortunately, I think the scientific community knows this and the parasite will die a natural death.

The question for learned societies is whether they can find a sustainable funding model that isn’t reliant upon effectively purloining funds from university library budgets. If their revenue from publishing does fall, can they replace it? And, if not, in what form can they survive?

Advertisements

The LGBT+ Physical Sciences Climate Survey – Final Reminder!

Posted in LGBT with tags , , , on April 27, 2018 by telescoper

This morning, a tweet from the Institute of Physics containing the above image reminded me to remind you all to participate (if you are so minded) in the LGBT+ Physical Sciences climate survey, which was launched amid the snows of 1st March this year. The deadline is coming up so if you want to complete the survey form and haven’t yet done so, please get on with it!

The survey is open to anyone (whether a member of a professional organisations or not) who identifies as LGBT+ or an ally and who may be working, teaching or studying in a physical sciences field. Respondents will need to be at least 16 years of age and above. The Institute of Physics (IOP), Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) and Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) are managing this survey on behalf of the LGBT+ Physical Sciences Network. Its aim is to collect evidence for what the working and studying climate is like for LGBT+ physical scientists in the UK and Ireland.

You can complete the survey here.

The survey is open until Monday 30th April, which is very close so why not do it right away?

The LGBT+ Physical Sciences Climate Survey – Reminder

Posted in LGBT with tags , , , on March 28, 2018 by telescoper

An email from the Institute of Physics yesterday reminded me to remind you all to participate (if you are so minded) in the LGBT+ Physical Sciences climate survey, which was launched amid the snows of 1st March this year.

As it happens, an IOP photographer was on hand to capture these images of yours truly giving a speech to open the event and chairing the subsequent panel:

The survey is open to members and non-members of professional organisations who identify as LGBT+ or allies and who may be working, teaching or studying in a physical sciences field. Respondents will need to be at least 16 years of age and above. The Institute of Physics (IOP), Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) and Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) are managing this survey on behalf of the LGBT+ Physical Sciences Network. Its aim is to collect evidence for what the working and studying climate is like for LGBT+ physical scientists in the UK and Ireland.

You can complete the survey here.

The survey is open until Monday 30th April, but why not do it right away?

LGBT+ Physical Sciences Climate Survey

Posted in LGBT with tags , on February 13, 2018 by telescoper

Very busy day today so I only have time to post a quick notice about an event coming up in a couple of weeks (on 1st March 2018) at the Institute of Physics in London:

This event celebrates the launch of the LGBT+ physical sciences survey, the first UK and Ireland survey of the working, teaching and studying climate for LGBT+ physicists, astronomers and chemists and those in related sciences.

Speakers from the community will be sharing their perspectives on the successes and challenges of creating a climate that enables everyone to be fully themselves in the workplace and place of study. The event is also an opportunity to find out more about the survey and meet other members of the network at an informal reception with drinks and snacks.

I am greatly honoured to have been asked to give a talk to introduce the event and chair the session, which ends in a panel discussion.The event is open to all, but space is limited at the venue so you will have to sign up if you want to go. You can sign up here.

See you there!

Building Momentum Towards Inclusive Teaching and Learning

Posted in Education with tags , , on May 2, 2017 by telescoper

I’ve had a very full day back after the Bank Holiday (Long) Weekend so I only have time for a brief post today.

I was giving a revision lecture this morning so I wasn’t able to attend an event in London organized by the Institute of Physics to launch a new report with the title Building Momentum Towards Inclusive Teaching and Learning. It was a shame I couldn’t go, as I’m a member of the IOP Diversity and Inclusion Committee which oversaw this report, but the exam period is coming up and I couldn’t reschedule the lecture.

Anyway, to quote the IOP web page:

There are particular challenges in providing an inclusive learning environment in all the physical sciences and especially in physics, due to the wide range of activities involved, such as lab sessions, problem classes and fieldwork, and the use of mathematical and scientific notation. General good practice guidance on inclusive curricula do not normally contain specialist information on the particular accessibility challenges of courses with substantial mathematical content given its non-linear nature (ie the relative positioning of letters, symbols and numbers and their relative sizes) and the limitations of assistive technology in manipulating this content.

The Equalities Act (2010) requires HEIs to make `reasonable adjustments’ to make their courses accessible to disabled students, but there’s often no reason why these `adjustments’ should not simply be standard provision for all students. That’s what `inclusive’ means. If, for example, lecture recordings and/or printed notes are made available for students who have difficulty taking notes, then why not make them available for everyone? That’s what `inclusive’ actually means.

To quote again:

By moving towards a more inclusive learning environment many organisational, structural and cultural barriers to disabled students can be removed. The focus on inclusivity means that “individual interventions is the exception, not the rule” as set out in the Department for Education’s report Inclusive Teaching and Learning in Higher Education as a Route to Excellence. This requires all staff in higher education – academics, support staff and senior institutional managers – to consider the needs of disabled students in all that they do – including the design, delivery and assessment of all academic teaching and learning.

I therefore encourage anyone who’s involved in teaching physics to read this report, which you can download as a PDF file here, and think about its recommendations when you start to plan teaching activities, whatever form they take.

Widening Participation in Physics

Posted in Education with tags , , , , on September 9, 2015 by telescoper

Following on from a provocative post I wrote a couple of weeks ago on this blog (which was subsequently reblogged by the Times Higher), I was contacted by Paul Crowther who sent me a copy of the slides used by Peter Main of the Institute of Physics in a talk in May 2015 on the subject of Widening Participation in Physics. With Peter Main’s permission I’m sharing those slides here as a service to the Physics community. There’s a lot of interesting information in these slides, which I think many UK physicists would be interested in.

The Critical Shortage of UK Physics Teachers

Posted in Education with tags , , on May 1, 2015 by telescoper

I came across this little video at the Gatsby Charitable Foundation website and thought I would share it here.

The video (or “motion graphic”) makes the point that the impact of innovative thinking and interventions resulted in an increase in the supply of physics teachers until 2012 but since then it has subsequently declined, with serious implications not only for physics but for the country as a whole.

I quote:

Modelling by the Department for Education (DfE) and the Institute of Physics (IoP) suggests that we need to recruit around 1,000 new physics teachers every year for at least the next decade in order to meet demand. This year, just 661 teachers started physics teacher training, down from a peak of 900 in 2012. The stark reality is that, if we are to meet the demand for physics teachers and ensure that all pupils have access to well-qualified, specialist teachers, we must look at new ways to recruit, train and retain physics teachers.

Indeed. We’re planning a bit initiative here in the Department of Physics & Astronomy at the University of Sussex, of which more anon..

It seems to me that the basic problem is threefold: (a) that there aren’t enough physics students at University in the first place; (b) that good physics graduates are very employable and get snapped up quickly by employers; (c) that teaching doesn’t seem an attractive career option compared to the many others available. Many efforts focus on (c) but the root cause of the problem is actually (a)…

..nevertheless, I will use this opportunity to point out that bursaries of £25K are available to excellent physics graduates wanting to become physics teachers, courtesy of the Institute of Physics. The deadline for the latest round of applications is this Monday (4th May). Here’s a promotional video: