IMHO, the best way to work it out is to assign identifiers (not form-
dependent like paragraphs, but meaning-dependent) to parts of text,
even if they overlap someway (this case is even more interesting,
although harder to work out). I thought about putting a student
working on this some time ago, but then other things came up and
never did.
No... I don't know how to do it. Well, I have some ideas, but not a
general solution. I just thought it would be nice to do and to have.
Best regards,
Ana
Ana Alice Baptista
http://www.dsi.uminho.pt/~analice
Em 2006/10/30, às 20:38, David Goodman escreveu:
> 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 Tue Oct 31 2006 - 11:47:33 GMT