Thanks! That's what I was planning to do, but the recruitement firm that would be paying me (and billing the client) is terrified of paying an invoice to a foreign firm, they are adamant about it. I might just have to go to the client directly, it's a company in the finance sector, I'm sure they can figure out how to send money to someone.
Thanks a bunch! Yes, I had a feeling this was possible, but they are very hesitant to simply wire money across the border to an individual, because it might look like money laundering (!)
On the other hand, focusing on a small number of great products is what Apple always did under Jobs. The first thing Jobs did when he came back to Apple was jettison superfluous products and concentrate on what Apple was good at. Seems to me like he was giving genuine advice.
He was giving genuine advice for himself. Apple did awesome with focus and top-down management because the guy at the top was Steve Jobs, who has an uncanny knack for sensing what the market needs. But companies are different: what was a core competency of Apple is something that Google doesn't have, and Google has various other core competencies that Apple never had. The general rule of business is "play to your strengths", not "emulate the winner".
The other thing to consider is to ask whether the presence of this feature is obtrusive or bothersome to the 95% who don't use it. Does it needlessly clutter some user interface? If instead it is mostly invisible to those who don't use it, then there is little harm is leaving the feature where it is.
I'm an avid Toggl user, and I've never used the project notes before, nor have I felt pressured to by the interface. The notes feature is completely unobtrusive. It takes a few clicks to get to it.
This kind of gouging soon won't be a problem anymore. I'm in the process of creating an online service (launch date sometime this summer) that will provide completely free full-text access to all academic journals in one fell swoop. Think Napster for academic research.
I won't give implementation details for now, and I'm still evaluating different domain names, but it will be called Acropolis.
Yes, I know it will create a legal shitstorm, but I feel it's a small price to pay for what is at stake. To hell with it. Academic research is supposed to be free.
The problem that needs to be solved isn't distribution, it's how to transition the traditional model of peer-review into one with much less overhead. Building a web app to allow researchers to submit their articles and have them peer-reviewed by other researchers would be an interesting project that could actually disrupt the industry. I don't think things like arXiv do that yet.
Your project seems disruptive and may cause people to talk about the issue but it doesn't solve anything, as it just undermines the system that is producing the very journals you are exposing. The same way Napster didn't solve the dependency between musicians and outdated industry business models, it just exposed how the models were outdated.
> Building a web app to allow researchers to submit their articles and have them peer-reviewed by other researchers would be an interesting project that could actually disrupt the industry.
True, but the chicken and egg problem prevents that from taking off: researchers submit to the highest impact journal they can get the article in, not the open access journals. Similarly, they won't submit their articles to such a service until it is already well established.
I'm hoping that bringing the problem to light will provide an impetus to evolve to a better system.
In a few fields the bootstrapping has taken place by having the entire editorial board of a top journal leave en masse to start a new one, which in a few cases then quickly takes over. The most successful case I know of is the Machine Learning board leaving to set up Journal of Machine Learning Research, which is now considered top-tier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Machine_Learning_Res...
We've seen Zotero and Mendeley trying to offer a platform for that (unconvincingly if you ask me); from mass adoption of those, points for good comments can be awarded to incite proper behaviour (reddit, HNews and Quora are here to attest it works, and abuses and their proper correction are well typed); I'm expecting the Livfe extention of Mekentojs' Paper 2 to come closer to something usable.
Hey, I work for Mendeley, so I can comment on a few things. Commenters here have noticed that it's the lamentable reliance on journal prestige that is keeping this whole dysfunctional system held together. The good news is that there are a number of smart people working on alternative metrics for papers (and for datasets and code as well) which focus on reuse, basically an extension of citation. Mendeley helps because we can collect and display some of these stats back to the academics who use our service. Not only does this allow research to proceed much faster by radically shortening the feedback cycle, but it provides a possibility that as the alt metrics get better uptake and respect, the lack of a suitable IF won't be a barrier anymore.
How are you doing this? Citeseer caches the free versions people upload to their personal sites, so they're already making a clearing house for papers that skirts the legality.
I am guessing you're crawling from behind some library account, but I'm not entirely sure how you'd be avoiding detection from the local library (assuming, perhaps wrongly, reasonable comp sec competency).
Maybe it will work like RECAP does for PACER. https://www.recapthelaw.org/ Basically, a bunch of libraries and schools who already have access will grab the articles and send them to the free archive. Of course the legal implications were less intimidating, since the documents (court records) in PACER are in the public domain and they only charge a processing fee.
I'd very much consider uploading a few of mine to that service, it's hard to justify what the IEEE deems as reasonable. Heck I don't even get access to my own papers.
Having published in an IEEE journal myself, this is false.
Unless the IEEE journals differ, you should have full rights to give people a preprint version of your paper, as well as to put a preprint version of your paper on your personal website. Not to mention that you need to ok the final version of the paper, it's hard to see how you don't have access.
This is not terribly surprising, and illustrates why Facebook and Twitter are completely different (and complementary) social networks.
Facebook for keeping tabs on people you know and who know you, i.e. symmetrical relationships.
Twitter turned out to be well suited for keeping track of people you know, but who have no idea who you are, because they are well-known, not you, i.e. asymetrical relationships.
This was my thought as well. And thus, I think it's hard to see how they are in competition with each other, aside from competing for users' attention in general.
