Researching programs with no access to articles?

[teamind]

Hi everyone,

I'm new to this site, so I apologize if this has been posted somewhere else. I can't seem to find any discussion on the matter.

I'm still trying to narrow down PhD programs to which I will apply come this fall. From all the wonderful advice on this forum, I've gathered that the best way to keep up with your field, figure out your research interests, and then find a program that fits those interests is to read, read, read articles by scholars in your field.

Since I finished undergrad over a year ago, I no longer have access to their library or online database. I can't seem to find any resources for alumni either (?).

My local library does not have any free access to databases or journals.

Is the only way to gain access to articles to pay for a membership to a database, or to buy them online?

This is very confusing for me; I feel like I must be missing a research pot of gold somewhere. Any insight as to how to research without having a university account or anything of the sort would be great. Thanks so much!

[TheFez]

Do you mind if I ask - what university did you attend?

[emmm]

The local U in my area lets members of the public purchase library privileges.

[teamind]

Do you mind if I ask - what university did you attend?

I attended a SUNY.

[fuzzylogician]

You can get a pretty good idea of what's out there by just searching on google. You should be able to find abstracts, conference proceedings and researchers' websites, if not full articles. How many full articles you find may depend on your field and how accessible it is. In my field, there are several open-source journals and free online proceedings, and there are open-source archives where people can upload drafts or full versions of whatever papers they want. The trick is to know what's out there. Additionally, many researchers publish their work on their website, and at the very least you can find people's interests and list of their publications. If all else fails, once you've narrowed down a list of possible advisors, email them and ask for a paper of theirs (mention one or two that seem potentially relevant, of course). Usually everyone will be happy to send you a copy of their work even if it appears in a copyrighted journal.

[ktel]

I know my supervisor, for example, has PDF versions of all his papers on his website. No library access required. I also find a significant amount of papers on Google.

[Eigen]

Most local universities (especially publics) will have a program to allow community members to access library resources, although almost always on-campus only. Call them up and ask! It may cost a little ($40-$60/year), but it's by far the cheapest way.

[ladybug3]

If you know a journal or two in your field, you can go right to their websites and consider ordering a subscription. This might not be as specific as your interests, but will give you a great overview of the current research in your field. You can also look for open source journals, which might publish journals each month that are free to access for everyone.

[virion]

Most local universities (especially publics) will have a program to allow community members to access library resources, although almost always on-campus only. Call them up and ask! It may cost a little ($40-$60/year), but it's by far the cheapest way.

Most public universities I've seen have free on-campus access (memberships allow them to check out a small number of books). Certainly worth checking out.

I read quite a bit of papers before interviews, and it turned out that most people I met had only read a few abstracts, maybe a paper or two. But while you're still basically screening universities, I can see why you'd want better access. Do you know anyone currently in school who would let you use their library login?

Edited June 30, 2012 by virion

[TakeruK]

Have you tried just using your old library card number / login information and see what happens? Sometimes you are not deactivated right away! Most alumni association also have library privilege programs too -- but I guess it sounds like you already checked that?

Going with the above poster, in addition to whatever everyone else already said, you could try going to the school and trying to use one of the public access computers. Maybe there are some student computers in the Student Union Building, or an unlocked computer lab in one of the buildings. Most of them will probably require a password but maybe not all! Usually you just need to have the right IP address (i.e using a on-campus computer is enough) to access the library's database. Bring a USB stick or email all the PDFs to yourself.

Otherwise, asking anyone you know who is still a student, anywhere, to find something for you. If a friend sends me a small list of links directly to the Journal article's webpage, I wouldn't mind taking 10 minutes out of my day to download the PDFs and email them to my friend. If you have several people who can do this, maybe ask each one of them once a week to not trouble them too much.

[teamind]

Thank you everyone for the great advice! I already found lists of publications and abstracts, I was wondering about full-text articles themselves; emailing advisors and asking for an article or two is a great idea. As for ordering a subscription to journals, it is super pricey, but if that ends up being the best option I'd consider it again. It's probably worth it, after all.

Have you tried just using your old library card number / login information and see what happens? Sometimes you are not deactivated right away! Most alumni association also have library privilege programs too -- but I guess it sounds like you already checked that?

I ended up contacting the Alumni Affairs dept at my old school and it turns out they switched the server so that's why I wasn't able to log in with my old username. I knew something was amiss. Now I can log in to my old account, but access is limited. I still will need to check out all of these other options as well. Thank you all!

[Eigen]

I'd get a friend that's still in school to either let you use their login, or send you articles, rather than getting a journal subscription.

I send lots of articles out to friends at schools with worse journal access, and swap articles with peers who have differing journal access to myself. I know most of my professors and friends do the same.

[Sigaba]

I'd get a friend that's still in school to either let you use their login, or send you articles, rather than getting a journal subscription.

I send lots of articles out to friends at schools with worse journal access, and swap articles with peers who have differing journal access to myself. I know most of my professors and friends do the same.

While this may be a commonly accepted practice, I would not use it. First, one never knows when a corporation that owns content is going to ask a subscriber for an audit. Second, it undermines the economic model of the Ivory Tower. Third, the practice perpetuates a broader dynamic that is having a huge drag on our economy.

Eventually, many of you are going to be in a position where your book sales are going to help put food on your kids' table. How would you feel to find that sales were down because others were circulating copies of your work for which they'd not paid a dime?

[Eigen]

Technically, I consider all exchanges of articles to be short term collaborations, which proctects them under the statutes of the agreements I have signed through my institution with publishers. Secondly, I don't send any articles out to people doing "for-profit" work, and I am a strong believer in the fact that academic research should be open access. Our user agreement stipulates that I can share research with collaborators, that I'm not to have in excess of 5000 articles downloaded at any one time, and that it's not to be used in a for profit sense. So I'm quite careful to obey the letter of the agreements, even though I don't believe in the spirit.

I have friends in non-academic reseach settings that have asked me to do the same thing, and I won't, since I can't technically obey the letter of the law.

It's the same thiing that allows me to send out a copy of an article that I have that is slightly off from a published article- ie, final paper as submitted vs. proof from the publisher. Technically, they only copyrighted the article that we both agreed on post-proof. It's a very shakes loophole, but that's what most professors use to put PDFs of their papers online, and its mostly accepted.

As to your second point, I'm not in a "book" field, I can't remember the last time anyone needed a copy of a book for research. And since most people in my field pay the editorial costs for journals, I'm definitely not taking royalties from any other researcher. And honestly, I'd prefer people to get a free copy of my work and actually have it disseminate than make royalties off of it, myself.

There's a huge pushback against the current practice of closed access publishing from within the Ivory Tower, so I think it's questionable to say that it undermines the economic model of the Ivory Tower (again, book fields accepted, we're talking about articles here). It's why NSF and NIH require any work done with their funding to be published open access, it's why the PLoS journals are taking off, and it's why journals in my field have been moving to upfront payments by the authors for publishing costs vs. a subscription model for non-print access.

[TakeruK]

Many people also believe that journals subscription practices are unfair because taxpayers' money (i.e. government grants) are being used to pay for costs related to publishing an article (in my field it's about $1000 per colour image) and then Universities have to pay again (using government money) to subscribe to the journal and get these articles.

Even though my agreement with the library may or may not allow me to share articles with others, I would still do it anyways. I want to see a change towards open access journals and not having to pay for ideas (it makes sense to charge if you are still getting print copies delivered, or a nominal fee to pay for server costs etc. but the Ivory Tower economic model should not be a for-profit one.) Researchers in the science generally lose money for every article published -- it costs money to pay us to work on the articles as well as publishing fees. But we do it because the point of research is to communicate our findings and published articles help us get grants for more research.

I think people should break the law/status quo, in non-violent ways, if they want the law/status quo to be changed. I also think that a rule/law that is hard/impossible to enforce is an invalid rule/law but that's just my philosophy. So I would encourage people to continue sharing articles and violate closed access agreements as much as possible, with as much risk as they are willing to take.

[Sigaba]

There's a huge pushback against the current practice of closed access publishing from within the Ivory Tower, so I think it's questionable to say that it undermines the economic model of the Ivory Tower (again, book fields accepted, we're talking about articles here). It's why NSF and NIH require any work done with their funding to be published open access, it's why the PLoS journals are taking off, and it's why journals in my field have been moving to upfront payments by the authors for publishing costs vs. a subscription model for non-print access.

Think of it this way. A corporation that isn't making its revenue goals decides to raise its licensing fees because it knows a customer cannot go anywhere else for a product. Is Happy Land University going to just eat those costs or is it going to find its way to pass them along by raising tuition and fees and/or by curtailing even more the amount of financial support for graduate students?

So when you talk about "push back" I ask: is it coming from the academic side of the Ivory Tower or from the business side of the Ivory Tower? As someone who has done consulting work for the latter, it is my experience that the former does not spend much time calibrating its sensibilities to the economic model.

(Also, how does the sensibility that says it is okay to break rules and laws that one considers unjust going to work for you when you're in a position of authority (i.e. a teaching assistant) and undergraduates say "Well, it's not fair"? Are you going to be all right with things if someone steals one of your ideas and beats you to the punch and then rationalizes the theft by saying "Well, it isn't fair that I didn't get that grant--the application is biased--so in non-violent protest I decided to break up the status quo"?)

[TakeruK]

As Eigen mentioned, journals with open access models, such as PLoS are doing well, so it's a business model that works. I hope to see an eventual shift so that either the current major journals switch to this model, or that researchers switch to publishing in these journals instead.

When I say one should break rules and laws that are considered unjust, I should also add that one should also be willing to accept the consequences of breaking said rules/laws (even though they are unjust). That's why I said "with as much risk as [one] is willing to take" -- if a student decides to protest the late assignment rule by handing their assignment in late, I'd expect them to take whatever penalty the rule stipulated. But this could still be an effective form of protest -- if the students believes that we didn't give them enough time to do the assignment, a large majority could hand in their work late -- this would certainly cause the prof and I to pause and think whether or not the timing was fair. It's not an excuse to create chaos/havoc and it's not picking-and-choosing which rules to follow because there are consequences.

Despite the above paragraph, in my post, I was actually talking about "hard to enforce" laws/rules -- not just those that a person might think is unjust. That is, rules that are unjust because they are hard to enforce, not necessarily for other reasons. For example, it would be very hard for a University to ensure that every single article downloaded was used purely for the user's own research. So it is not a valid rule to impose on its user. Similarly, it would not be a valid rule for the journal itself to impose on the University. How would you feel if the government decided that all toilet paper rolls have to be hung a certain way -- would it make sense to follow this rule when it is very difficult to actually get caught not doing it?

As for the theft of ideas -- generally you don't share your ideas unless you are okay with other people going with it. Presenting it at a conference or seminar means it's public domain. I guess someone could also steal my ideas by literally stealing my code, experiments, unpublished data, or steal them from reviewing a paper I submitted. This is generally considered theft and academic dishonesty and it's very enforceable. Even worse, maybe you mean a collaborator could steal the project and finish it and publish it without me. This is also enforceable because large collaborations (at least the ones I've been a part of) have clear contracts stipulating who will get credit for what and sometimes even the author list ordering. Usually most people avoid doing stuff like this because the reputation damage far outweighs any rewards from stealing. On the other hand, sharing articles has almost no risk.

In addition, to go with your idea of being "beaten to the punch", for a lot of data I would be working with (i.e. telescope data funded by government agencies), I usually am only allowed exclusive access to it for ~1 year before it's released to the public anyways. So it's not unusual for someone with knowledge of your techniques (because you published them) to use your data and produce results before you do. I think this is a good thing -- more research gets done! And the your data would still be cited.

[TheFez]

TakeruK - spoken like a true economist. As Gary Becker says, crime is an economic choice - weigh the cost vs. the benefit of committing the crime.

As far as text books... it's hard to find much sympathy for textbook publishers. The online resale market killed new textbook sales - so they responded by jacking prices up through the stratosphere, and then changing editions almost yearly even in suubjects (like math) that don't change very much.

I teach (economics), and I fight with book publishers constantly, making the poiint that if they overprice books students just wont buy them, or they will make inferior Xerox copies, etc. I work hard for my courses to find textbooks with low cost alternate editions, (including pay-as-you-go digital downloads), and I create homework seperate from the book excercises (which also eliminate the circulation of instructor copy solutions).

Power to the People!

[rising_star]

Sigaba, I'm not entirely sure I follow your argument.

Think of it this way. A corporation that isn't making its revenue goals decides to raise its licensing fees because it knows a customer cannot go anywhere else for a product. Is Happy Land University going to just eat those costs or is it going to find its way to pass them along by raising tuition and fees and/or by curtailing even more the amount of financial support for graduate students?

Actually, what most universities are doing is cutting down on journal subscriptions, limiting access to recently published articles (for example, having new articles become available one year after publication, rather than immediately), and making other changes within library operations. I highly doubt that the financial pressures libraries are facing (which, btw, are not limited solely to journal costs but also to factors like the increasing need for technology) have led to decreases in financial support for graduate students. I'd be curious to see an example of where this has occurred.

So when you talk about "push back" I ask: is it coming from the academic side of the Ivory Tower or from the business side of the Ivory Tower? As someone who has done consulting work for the latter, it is my experience that the former does not spend much time calibrating its sensibilities to the economic model.

Actually, with the whole Elsevier thing earlier this year, I read a number of lengthy email exchanges among academics that were concerned about how difficult it is becoming to access their published work. The suggestions for how to respond to this varied fairly widely, with some suggesting that people only publish in open access journals, others advocating making final paper versions available on their personal websites, and others encouraging their colleagues to freely distribute copies of articles upon request via email.

FWIW, the "economic model of the Ivory Tower" that you seem to believe exists is heavily reliant on research-labor that is either subsidized by universities, the federal government, or the researcher's own wallet. Think about it. Peer-reviewed journals don't pay their reviewers, academics do that as part of "service", which universities only minimally value (both in terms of tenure and in terms of remuneration). Then, you have to pay (either directly through a subscription/membership or indirectly through a library) to access the very article that you donated your labor to to see that it would be published. Is that really an economic model that should be sustained?

[Sigaba]

Sigaba, I'm not entirely sure I follow your argument.

My argument is simply this. The appropriation and distribution of content in violation of end user agreements is not a sustainable practice for those within the Ivory Tower given the current economic and political climate. If one wants to change the rules, I think that one should work within the system rather than deciding to bend those rules.

IMO, the decision to not pay for content is an issue that has had a devastating economic and social impact on the L.A. area. Within a couple of months, TakeruK will have the opportunity to go to 475 South Lake Avenue and see first hand the result of the "power to the people" mentality that seems to be popular with some members of this BB. At that address, one may find the empty building that used to house the local Borders Books and Music. At one time, that Borders had a selection of academic titles that rivaled the Borders near UCLA. (Neither could hold a candle to the Boarders on Michigan Avenue in Chicago.) The Borders on Lake, like the Borders near UCLA, died a long, agonizing death because students spent hours occupying tables and chairs, armchairs, and stools, reading books and magazines--but not buying them.

Similarly, television and movie production companies are hedging against piracy by moving location shooting out of the TMZ to Canada. This practice helps to protect the bottom line but it comes at the direct expense of craftsmen and women in unions. And then there's the epidemic of reality television programming and its impact on the ability of union writers to make a living.

While I anticipate that you--and those who want to give "power to the people"--will attempt to rationalize that not paying for content in a bookstore, and piracy of content produced in the TMZ is different from piracy of content in the Ivory Tower, and that the examples I provided above are not related, I wonder what the people who have lost their jobs because of the belt-tightening necessitated by those who think they're entitled to take what they want because they think a set of rules is unfair.

This sense of entitlement among those in the Ivory Tower (and/or the perception that such a sense of entitlement exists) is drawing an incredible amount of ire from the American political right today. (As a member of the Republican Party, it is my happy privilege to endure it on a daily basis.) If the GOP manages to win big in the general elections this November, it is absolutely going to punish public universities by slashing education budgets. The justification for these cuts will be the ongoing economic crisis, but the actual reason will be that many of the party's rank and file members believe that the Ivory Tower teaches values and practices that are anti-American. So when individuals such as yourself talk about bringing the Ivory Tower down because you don't like this business practice or that one, be careful of what you wish.

As for your thoughtful string of "actually"'s, we may be looking at different sources and/or have different conceptions of what "heavily reliant" means." So I ask: Is the economic model driving the University of California system "heavily reliant" on research-"labor" or does the money come from the State of California's investment of tax and bond revenue and the tuition and fees generated by the undergraduate population? Is the economic model of private universities such as Harvard "heavily reliant" on the "labor" of professors or does it center around revenue generated by endowed funds?

IRT your implicit comparison of the work that academics do is "labor" and, is therefore, somehow equivalent to the actual conditions members of the working classes have to endure on a daily basis, I have my doubts. I have worked in the Ivory Tower as a teaching assistant and as a research assistant. I have worked along side members of carpenters' and electricians' locals at convention centers in Los Angeles, Chicago, New Orleans, San Antonio, and Philadelphia. I have also managed Teamsters at one of America's busiest sea ports. IME, there is no comparison between what they do and what eggheads do.

One additional question. Since you seem to believe that it is all right to appropriate content when you think the rules governing its distribution are unfair, have you stood before The Man in person and said so--or do you just say it on the internet?

Edited July 16, 2012 by Sigaba

[Eigen]

Again, you seem to be conflating distributing books with distributing journal articles.

And as I mentioned, the EULA that I have quite explicitly allows sharing articles with collaborators *if* they are non-profit entities, which pretty much all academics are.

And since the content to which this is referring (journal articles) generate no income for the author, you aren't shortchanging the author. And since according to publishers, the cost lies nearly entirely in distribution (since the authors do the editing, copyediting, and often typesetting), that has already been paid for by my institution.

For areas in which it shortchanges the author or content creator, or in fields that are actually meant to turn a profit (books (academic or non, music, other forms of media), I completely agree with your argument. For research funded by tax dollars, with publication costs paid for by tax dollars, distributed to fellow researchers for non-profit use, I don't think your argument is relevant.

[TheFez]

Borders did not go out of business because people share/steal books any more than carbon paper companies went out of business because people steal documents.

Amazon is taking over Seattle as internet book sales are doing great thank you. Last year their e-books outsold printed books as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/technology/20amazon.html

I know the OP wasn't discussing books, but predatory pricing by college textbook publishers has become so onerous that congress is investigating: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/gaobookcosts.htm

One of the consequences of a monopoly - and textbooks is one of the worst cases since it's a "required" good - is a black market. The internet facilitated the sale of used textbooks, so the textbook makers respond by jacking up prices and crating new editions almost every year. What is a student expected to do. I just bought a used math text for $200 online. That's outrageous.

Edited July 17, 2012 by TheFez

[Usmivka]

I am learning a lot from this thread! It just ate my morning.

My own thoughts, for what they are worth:

Regardless of whether or not you believe that paper sharing rules are legitimate or just, accessing and sharing papers in the manner described--with a "friend" with no additional legal status, such as being incorporated as a non-profit, or university affiliation, who is not part of any access agreement--is most likely not allowed by your EULA (it is explicitly forbidden in mine). I have no problems sharing articles with another academic in my field, but I'd hate to risk my own or my library system's access by sharing another's work product (as opposed to papers I wrote) with an unaffiliated member of the public. I agree it is unjust, since taxpayer money paid for the research and most likely the journal publication fees, but the three University library stystems I've used specifically have warnings against unauthorized access of electronic materials in this manner.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Usmivka

[Dal PhDer]

OP: All the universities I have been at have had public libraries where there are computer terminals open for use. These computers are almost always connected to some database/server that can allow you to search and read articles. I might start there!

I don't dare dip my toe into this conversation because I am highly uninformed and ignorant on this issue ... BUT I WILL!...I truly believe that all government and public funded research should be made accessible to anyone. I have come across dozens of articles in my time that are funded through tax payers' money and are not accessible to the public. In essence, if the project was conducted using funds from the public, then the public should also 'own' the data and have equal access to the information generated from it. That's just my opinion...but what do I know? I would also like to make a law that pets can be taken to your place of employment.....

[rising_star]

If in fact this entire reply is directed at me, Sigaba, I want to point out that you have decided that I hold a viewpoint that I did not express at any point in my comment. I'm not sure why you're attributing all of these ideas to me, but I'll respond to a few of them anyway.

While I anticipate that you--and those who want to give "power to the people"--will attempt to rationalize that not paying for content in a bookstore, and piracy of content produced in the TMZ is different from piracy of content in the Ivory Tower, and that the examples I provided above are not related, I wonder what the people who have lost their jobs because of the belt-tightening necessitated by those who think they're entitled to take what they want because they think a set of rules is unfair.

I never said anything about wanting to give "power to the people". That's an idea that you are attributing to me. Let's be clear about the difference, please. Are there people who have lost their jobs because libraries are tightening their journal subscription budgets? Please, cite an example rather than making a specious argument.

So when individuals such as yourself talk about bringing the Ivory Tower down because you don't like this business practice or that one, be careful of what you wish.

Again, please tell me where I said that I want to bring the Ivory Tower down.

IRT your implicit comparison of the work that academics do is "labor" and, is therefore, somehow equivalent to the actual conditions members of the working classes have to endure on a daily basis, I have my doubts. I have worked in the Ivory Tower as a teaching assistant and as a research assistant. I have worked along side members of carpenters' and electricians' locals at convention centers in Los Angeles, Chicago, New Orleans, San Antonio, and Philadelphia. I have also managed Teamsters at one of America's busiest sea ports. IME, there is no comparison between what they do and what eggheads do.

In other words, because academics do not engage in manual labor, the work that they do has no real value? It's interesting that you cite carpenters' and electricians' locals, which are unionized, and require their workers to be paid for the hours they work. Academics do many hours of work for which they go uncompensated (the production of articles, editing journals, writing book reviews, peer reviewing manuscripts, etc.). Do you have a problem with this? Or does it not matter since academics are using their brains and laptops, rather than wiring houses? FWIW, it is labor to produce sound research, to write and deliver a good lecture, to grade papers, to write exams, to provide students with feedback, to advise undergraduates and graduate students, to read student dissertations and attend defenses, to serve on committees, etc. Or, if that's not labor, then what would you call what academics do all day? Twiddling their thumbs at a keyboard?

That, btw, is my nice way of saying that work is work, regardless of whether it entails manual labor. If you don't get that, I think you should either find a way to wrap your head around it or find another career and get yourself out of graduate school (which, according to your explanation, isn't work anyway).

One additional question. Since you seem to believe that it is all right to appropriate content when you think the rules governing its distribution are unfair, have you stood before The Man in person and said so--or do you just say it on the internet?

Again, I have no idea where you got the idea that I believe that "it is all right to appropriate content when you think the rules governing its distribution are unfair" since all I did was cite several email exchanges that I read (note: read, not participated in). At any rate, I do think that we should all be questioning the system of journal distribution and article access, and many are beginning to do so. The latest issue of Geoforum features an editorial where the editors lament the cost of access to the journal and ask why it's so expensive and what the public is receiving for this fee. The journal publishers then respond in their own editorial laying out their argument for the cost and the services they provide. A key issue is that, for many Elsevier journals, the burden of providing open access falls on the author(s), who must pay $3000 to have the article published via open access. That, of course, is a system that could and, in all likelihood, will be changed over time as people continue to question the wisdom of paying to do the research (as a taxpayer/institution) then paying again to be able to read the findings.

To answer your question, the view I just expressed is one I have expressed publicly elsewhere. If you're going to attempt to summarize what I believe, make sure you get it right. I'd appreciate that courtesy, at a minimum.