Re: Paragraph-Based Quotation in Place of PDF/Page-Based

From: (wrong string) édon <jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:55:37 -0500

    [ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

Le dimanche 29 octobre 2006 à 18:00 +0000, Stevan Harnad a écrit :

 On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:

> I agree with Stevan that paragraph numbering is a very good idea. It
> has an interesting consequence: if paragraph numbering becomes accepted
> usage, one has to rely only on the version found in a repository. This
> means that the repository version begins to acquire a status equal to
> that of the published version, especially if the institution behind its
> repository makes explicit statements regarding the quality of the
> documents placed in its repository. This is a consequence Stevan may
> not like, but it looks very good to me.

Jean-Claude again seems to forget that the repository version we
are talking about in OA self-archiving is the repository version of a
*published* article, i.e., it has been peer-reviewed by and published in
a journal. It is not a raw preprint, waiting for some sort of validation,
institutional or otherwise.


I do not "again" forget etc... I am just saying that if I am in a
position to use paragraph numbers instead of page numbers (and in a
number of situations, particularly in SSH publications, a page number is
required to refer to a specific quotation), then I can simply use the
repository version. This has de facto consequences that the
publisher-side will easily recognize, I am sure. It gives an interesting
added value to the repository version. In short, linking back to the
publisher's site becomes essentially redundant. All is needed now is some
guarantee from the host institution of the repository that the documents
preserved in it are good copies of the journal version (see below).

 I am more than happy with the (intended) consequences of the autonomous,
internal-structure-based section/paragraph/sentence citation system
for pinpointing quotations and specific passages, a system I have
been advocating for over a decade. But among those consequences, the
replacement of independent, answerable, 3rd-party-certified peer review
(i.e., not vanity review conducted by the author or his own institution),
is conspicuously absent. The other name for "independent, answerable,
3rd-party-certified peer review" is (and continues, in the online era
to be) a *journal*.


Sure. No problem with this. I strongly suspect other sites for peer
review will eventually evolve, but this is another issue, best kept out
of this particular thread.

If a university makes a statement to the effect that the version of a
published, peer-reviewed, article in its repository is a reliable,
quotable copy of the journal version, then it becomes citable as well:
that is to say anyone can legitimately cite the OA version. He or she can
then do so using the paragraph scheme that Stevan proposes, provided the
journal where this article is to be published accepts a paragraph scheme.

The paragraphe approach is far more preferable than the page scheme for
the reasons that Stevan has put forth. It is embedded in the structure of
the text and not the structure of the publication form (e.g. printed
pages) used. In fact, with full-text searching available, we could even
move back to incipits and add paragraph numbering... :-)

 The "status" of an article comes from its own quality; and its quality is
determined by its success in meeting the established quality standards of
a peer-reviewed journal, with a known, public track-record. Jean-Claude
keeps thinking there is another way, but quality control is quality
control, and the quality-controllers have to be (1) qualified experts
(peers), (2) answerable (to an editor or editorial board, to which the
author is likewise answerable), and (3) autonomous. This autonomous
entity is called a "journal," irrespective of the medium in which it
is implemented, and irrespective of whether access to its outcome is
toll-gated or free. The journal is in turn answerable to the research
community, based on its track record for quality and hence the rigour
of its peer review standards.


I am not talking about the status of an article, but about the status of
a *version* of the article - an entirely different matter. So
"Jean-Claude" does not "keep thinking, etc...", Jean-Claude is talking
about version, not article, status. The status of an article, as Stevan
correctly states, has (so far) depended on a journal (or a book in the
case of an anthology). The status of a version is a different issue. I am
sure Sally Morris would agree with me on this point. And I think she also
worries about that point.

[snip]

Best,

jc

 --
Dr. Jean-Claude Guédon
Dept. of Comparative Literature
University of montreal
PO Box 6128, Downtown Branch
Montreal, QC H3C 3J7
Canada


    [ Part 2, Image/PNG 1.1KB. ]
    [ Unable to print this part. ]
Received on Mon Oct 30 2006 - 02:39:32 GMT