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

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_Princeton.EDU>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:38:40 -0500

I remind Stevan that the meaning of an author's copy is that the content
will be the same as the published one, but the formatting may vary, and generally does.
There is thus no guarantee whatsoever the paragraphs will be the same.

The simplest way around this is for everyone to cite what everyone can see, and
that is the author's copy.
 
David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
previously:
Bibliographer and Research Librarian
Princeton University Library

dgoodman_at_princeton.edu


----- Original Message -----
From: Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca>
Date: Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:35 pm
Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Paragraph-Based Quotation in Place of PDF/Page-Based
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG

> 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
> interestingadded 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
> outof 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,
> providedthe journal where this article is to be published accepts a
> paragraphscheme.
>
> The paragraphe approach is far more preferable than the page scheme
> forthe reasons that Stevan has put forth. It is embedded in the
> structureof the text and not the structure of the publication form
> (e.g. printed
> pages) used. In fact, with full-text searching available, we could
> evenmove 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
> Stevancorrectly 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
> shealso 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
>
>
Received on Mon Oct 30 2006 - 21:40:29 GMT