Re: Future UK RAEs to be Metrics-Based

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_Princeton.EDU>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:51:15 -0400

This is about only one point in the exchange:

Charles--over the last few years, there has not always been any alternative to assigning the copyright.

Stevan, you have previously argued consistently on this list and elsewhere that the formally published
version is the version of record, not a version--improved or otherwise, that the author posted, previously
or subsequently.

If an author publishes something, and another person does the work better or differently, surely
the original author cannot update his work after the fact and pretend he got it right the first time.
. He can, of course, publish an additional paper based on the corrected understanding.

If there is to be an RAE, should it not assess what the author published? Views like yours will
give well-justified concern to administrators that the OA archives can not be trusted. I very
much regret you have thought this way, let alone publicised it. It brings disrepute on us all.

Yours,
David goodman
dgoodman_at_priceton.edu


CO:
> "On (2), if authors are so stupid as to assign copyright to
> publishers then indeed they (or their employers) do not have the
> freedom to
> pass copies to the RAE panels for evaluation. The exceptions to
> copyright in UK law are few, and do not apply when an RAE panel
> member wishes to read an item. The way round this problem is to
> ensure that academics never assign copyright to publishers!
SH:
> (b) So what if authors correct or improve their publications after
> publication? That's *good*, not bad!> review!
Received on Tue Sep 19 2006 - 01:55:55 BST