It's not that the author must choose (1) (journal) certification OR (2)
(OA repository) dissemination: The right choice is of course BOTH (1)
journal certification (peer review) AND (2) repository dissemination
(OA self-archiving).
Joseph Esposito seems to keep wanting to imagine that what is being
self-archived is only or mostly unrefereed preprints (and, he goes on
to imagine: preprints never even destined to go on to become refereed
postprints).
It would be a good idea to look at what it is that the 41 self-archiving
mandates in ROARMAP are actually stipulating must be deposited. (Without
a single exception, it is the refereed postprint.)
http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php
Stevan Harnad
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Joseph J. Esposito wrote:
> It seems to me that what Paul Ginsparg did in one stroke was
> separate, or at least begin to separate, the publishing functions
> of certification (what Ian addresses) from dissemination. Prior
> to arXiv, these two functions were bound up with each other. I
> am not saying that Ginsparg set out to do this (How would I
> know?), but that is the effect of his innovation. Ian (rightly)
> notes that publishers still control the certification function,
> but there is another point to be made here, that in some
> instances the dissemination and certification functions compete
> with each other.
>
> For example, a poorly distributed journal or a journal published
> in such a way as to make it difficult for readers to find it
> (e.g., not indexed by Google) may nonetheless certify an article
> and, by extension, its author; but the author may still yearn for
> broader dissemination. Such an author may, the next time around,
> opt for a well-designed open access repository that has been
> optimized for search engine indexing and other Internet marketing
> techniques, with the hope that open dissemination will ultimately
> lead to certification. We can call this the principle of
> certification through acclamation; it is intended to supplant
> certification through deliberation.
>
> Publishers that stress the certification function alone are, in
> my view, making a very big mistake. Yes, publishers add enormous
> value in the editorial process, more than most authors could ever
> bring themselves to admit, but the real game is to stroke an
> author's ego through dissemination. In other words, the safe zone
> for a publisher is not the editorial fortress of careful
> selection, peer review, copy editing, and the like, but the sound
> of trumpets declaring that, yes, our magnificent author has
> arrived.
>
> The future of toll-access or traditional publishing lies with
> marketing. If an author comes to believe that an open access
> service could lead to wider dissemination of his or her work,
> publishers should fold their tents and go home, and no amount of
> shrewd editorial practices can prevent this.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian.Russell" <ian.russell_at_cytherean.co.uk>
> To: <liblicense-l_at_lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:58 PM
> Subject: RE: In the news (Georgia State)
>
> > Thomas' reply raises some further questions:
> >
> > 1) Strictly speaking, arXiv is an electronic preprint server so
> > the papers there may not be the published version. Are
> > researchers in physics happy to use that version? Would
> > researchers in human medicine be happy to use a version of
> > unknown providence? Would librarians be happy with that
> > situation?
> >
> > 2) The content that I am familiar with on arXiv almost always
> > associates a posted article with a journal. Authors very
> > quickly add 'submitted to Physical Review E' or 'Published in
> > Classical and Quantum Gravity' (or whatever journal) to their
> > preprint. Why? Well to get the authority / credibility /
> > imprimatur / brand identity of the journal. This is tied to -
> > but not exclusively gained by - the peer review process of the
> > journal. It is very important to note that for many, many years
> > (going back to pre-web) journals have NOT been the method of
> > primary dissemination in some subjects. arXiv may provide
> > access to content, but trustworthiness and authority - for the
> > time being at least - still comes from journals (whatever
> > business model is used). What would happen to academia if the
> > primary mechanism of identifying trustworthy content and
> > assessing the order in which to read papers was taken away?
> >
> > 3) As someone who represents society publishers I find Thomas'
> > final point very interesting. I would be even more interested
> > to hear any ideas for mechanisms to facilitate the flow of
> > money away from library acquisition budgets to scholarly
> > societies. Any ideas?
> >
> > Ian Russell
> > CEO, ALPSP
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-liblicense-l_at_lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-liblicense-
> > > l_at_lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas Krichel
> > > Sent: 23 April 2008 00:05
> > > To: liblicense-l_at_lists.yale.edu
> > > Subject: Re: In the news (Georgia State)
> > >
> > > Ian.Russell writes
> > >
> > > > So presumably this is one of the journals that Thomas
> > > > recommends librarians to cancel?
> > >
> > > Yes, because it is in Physics, where there is already a lot of
> > > open access. Presumably most papers in JHEP can be found on
> > > arXiv. The funds saved from cancellations should be used to
> > > sponsor scholarly societies or groups to set up open access
> > > resources.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel
> > > RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
> > > phone: +7 383 330 6813 skype: thomaskrichel
>
>
Received on Fri Apr 25 2008 - 03:44:09 BST