In responding to
>> But there is no denying that
>> there is the potential that it substitutes publishing when - not if -
>> it gets organized properly and offers the material with journal
>> 'labels' attached. Journals (i.e. their publishers and organizers of
>> peer-review) will vanish.
it is not "mere semantics" to say that the response
"There may or not be the potential, but there is today not a shred of
evidence in that direction."
is misleading. It would be correct to say
"There is today not a shred of uncontested evidence
either in that direction or against that direction."
Scientists should observe the same standards of proof and logic
in discussions of OA that they would observe in their own scientific field.
Stevan would surely not pass a student who could not distinguish the two
sentences, and neither would I.
Stevan's summary of Jan's general views
"Jan is a publisher, concerned about future publishing models. Researchers
are concerned about present access and impact."
is however right on the spot. Publishers and librarians both have
long known that most scientists are concerned only about their immediate
project and its immediate publication and its recognition by their immediate circle,
who already have access. Unless they are judged by citation counting, they do not
care if their papers are not read or cited by those in second-rate institutions.
If they were concerned about the longer term effects or
broader questions of access and ownership, we would have had OA long ago.
Stevan has gone repeatedly on record about the difficulty of convincing authors to
routinely use OA. He here provides the reason. They have mostly shown they will
not learn from Stevan, or follow his own excellent practices. It will take the
development of "future publishing models" to establish OA.
Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman_at_liu.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Sun 9/11/2005 3:16 PM
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Green Party Green on Gold but not on Green
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Jan Velterop wrote:
> "Do not say a little in many words; say a great deal in a few"?).
Vide infra.
> 1. Researchers do not 'give away' their articles, certainly not to
> publishers, without anything in return.
Other authors ask royalties/fees; researchers don't.
> They seek something in exchange: recognition and impact: the 'brownie points'
> they need for their careers.
Not from their publishers, from their users.
> These things do not just come from making their
> articles visible, but to a large degree from citations and the
> 'label' that is the journal title attached to their article.
The label is the peer-review quality level. The reviewers are unpaid peers.
The publisher implements the peer review: that's why he gets to sell the text
(royalty-free).
> Wanting something in return makes it a trade, commerce. Authors do not
> 'give'; they 'pay' for what they want in return, either with
> exclusive rights (to be converted by the publisher into money), or
> with money.
The author can and does give away his own drafts online; over 90% of journals
(green) have explicitly blessed this (not that a blessing was needed).
> They could, of course, 'give' their work away, to the
> world. They don't need journals for that. But they won't get the
> 'brownie points' without peer-reviewed journals.
Authors need the peer review. Is that your point? So?
> 2. "Being required to give away" is in conflict with being required
> to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, as that implies a trade.
The self-archiving mandate applies to the author's drafts, which are given
to the publisher and also given to users (as in reprint days).
> 'Giving away' here is of the same nature as being required to 'give
> away' money to the taxman. There are plenty of verbs that could
> describe such a transaction, but 'to give away' isn't usually among
> them.
I can't follow this semiotics...
> 3. Self-archiving can, of course, be a supplement to formally
> published articles. Rather in the way that a soup-kitchen is a
> supplement to bakers, butchers and greengrocers, for those who can't
> afford to buy food. These traders won't object to a soup kitchen and
> may even donate their leftover loaves, pig-trotters and kale. But
> don't ask them to lend their quality reputation, their brand, to the
> soup kitchen's food.
No one is asking. It is the author's draft that is self-archived.
> Self-archiving could be a tool to put pressure
> on publishers to provide open access.
Self-archiving is a tool to maximise research impact, no more, no less.
> But there is no denying that
> there is the potential that it substitutes publishing when - not if -
> it gets organised properly and offers the material with journal
> 'labels' attached. Journals (i.e. their publishers and organisers of
> peer-review) will vanish.
There may or not be the potential, but there is today not a shred of
evidence in that direction.
> Unless they make the transition to viable
> publishing models that make open access possible.
Jan is a publisher, concerned about future publishing models. Researchers
are concerned about present access and impact.
> The Green Party seems to understand that,
The Green Party understood nothing, and left out the crucial component (green).
> but so did the HoC S&T Committee and the
> RCUK, if one reads their reports in full, and many others.
The Committee & RCUK mandated the crucial component (and also added a
lot of needless word ballast with no concrete policy implications).
See Berlin 3 for a streamlined version, minus the semiology.
http://www.eprints.org/berlin3/outcomes.html
Stevan Harnad
Received on Mon Sep 12 2005 - 13:21:53 BST