-- Sely M S Costa, PhD Departamento de Ciência da Informação/Department of Information Science Universidade de Brasilia Campus Universitario Darcy Ribeiro, Asa Norte 70910-900 Brasilia-DF, Brasil Tel.: +5561 33071205; +5561 33072842 +5561 33072422 Cel.: +5561 99717442 Fax : +556132738424 email: selmar_at_unb.br Citando Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>: > On Wed, 13 Feb 2006, Sarah Kaufman wrote: > > > having spoken to academics within this institution, it has become > > apparent that potential depositors may be wary of depositing into a > > digital repository as they fear that a repository that includes pre-prints > > may not appear 'credible'. > > > > Has anyone else dealt with this sort of concern, and how you responded > > to those that have voiced this concern? Do any repositories exclude > > items that have not gone through the peer-review process? If you accept > > items that have not gone through the peer-review process, do you apply > > any forms of quality control on the item? > > This can save people a lot of time that will otherwise be wasted > re-inventing > this superfluous wheel: > > (1) The right way to make the distinction between published, peer-reviewed > material and unpublished material is the classical way: by *tagging* it as > such. > > (2) The IR softwares have tags for peer-reviewed articles as well as for > unrefereed preprints. > > (3) The scholarly/scientific community is quite aware of this distinction; > it has already been dealing with it for years in the paper medium, > in the form of published articles versus unpublished drafts. > > (4) An IR is not a publication venue -- it is a means for providing > *access* to published -- and, if the author wishes, unpublished -- work. > > (5) Any user who wishes to reserve their time and reading to > peer-reviewed, published work can do so; they need only note the tags (is > it "peer-reviewed"? is it "published"? what *journal* is it published in?) > > (6) Disciplines differ in the degree to which they use pre-referring > preprints: > physics relies heavily on them, biology less. This is a choice for > researchers > to make, both as authors (deciding what to deposit) and as users (deciding > what > to read). > > (7) This decision cannot and should not be made a priori by IR managers. > An IR deposit is not a publication, any more than a mailed first draft > on paper is. It is a decision by an author to provide, and by a user to > use, a document. > > (8) The most absurd thing of all would be to institute IR-level system > of "quality" control: Leave that to the peer specialists and the journals. > IRs are just access-providers. > > (9) It can and should, however, be decided whether an IR is for research > output only (documents and data, whether pre- or post-peer-review) > or it is also for non-research output (e.g., teaching materials). Some > IRs that are sectored by subject matter will also want to decide what > disciplines they are catering for. > > (10) The right thing to tell naive researchers who have never self-archived > or > never use and OA IR, is that an OA IR is neither a publication nor a library > catalogue of publications: It is a means for researchers to maximize access > to > their research output, both before and after peer-reviewed publication. > > See the well-worn self-archiving FAQs on these questions: > > http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#What-is-Eprint > http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#7.Peer > http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#5.Certification > http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#6.Evaluation > http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#2.Authentication > http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#3.Corruption > http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#23.Version > > Stevan Harnad > ------------------------------------------------- Mail enviado através do WebMail/UnB CPD - Centro de InformáticaReceived on Thu Feb 16 2006 - 17:40:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:12 GMT