Re: Research Reports as Advertisements: An Allegory

From: Jan Velterop <openaccess_at_BTINTERNET.COM>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 11:26:12 +0000

Arthur,

Perhaps we mean the same. If researchers were truly concerned about
sharing their knowledge with other researchers, or the whole world,
for that matter, why aren't they publishing their articles on the
open web, or at least self-archiving 'en masse'? My observation
(interpret that as a 'fact' if you wish) is that they don't and that
they appear to value the benefits to them of the formal publishing
system more. Which makes sense from their point of view and is
perfectly rational. But it doesn't bring open access. The discussion
is really only about the *way* to achieve open access. Needless to
say, I differ with others on that point.

Jan Velterop

On 3 Mar 2007, at 22:28, Arthur Sale wrote:

> This is a strange view Jan. You ascribe attitudes to researchers as
> though
> they were facts, when in actuality they are but secondary factors.
> Let me
> tease out your comments.
>
> Arthur Sale
> University of Tasmania
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
> [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-
>> ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Jan Velterop
>> Sent: Sunday, 4 March 2007 7:37 AM
>> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
>> Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Research
>> Reports as
>> Advertisements: An Allegory
>
> [cut]
>
>> The main oddity is perhaps his remark that "In the case of peer-
>> reviewed publishing, the "ad" is the research paper itself: there is
>> no other product it is trying to promote and sell."
>>
>> He is mistaken here. Authors are not trying to sell their papers.
>> What the author is trying to 'sell' (note the inverted commas,
>> please), his 'product' if you wish, is his scientific prowess, his
>> ideas, and when he is successful, he is able to 'sell' those for
>> citations, the currency of science. His adage in the scientific ego-
>> system is "I am cited, therefore I am". Top scientists are typically
>> better able to 'sell' their ideas and themselves, and get 'paid' in
>> citations, than more 'pedestrian' scientists. The article itself
>> conveys information about the researcher (the way he's done the
>> research, for instance) and his 'product' (the ideas, the research
>> results). The analogy with an advertisement is clear. PNAS used to
>> have a line at the bottom of the first page of an article that said
>> "This is an advertisement". I don't know if they still do, but how
>> right they were.
>
> This is nonsense. The 'product' is the article, because it is this
> article,
> and no other, that the author is motivated to get out in the research
> literature. It is this research that often the researcher has been
> paid
> substantial amounts to produce (much more than the dissemination
> costs) and
> often on condition that the work is published (implied or
> explicitly). In
> the advertising terminology, it is this article that he or she want to
> 'sell'.
>
> Of course the researcher wants to be recognized as well, but as a
> secondary
> aim. The advertising analogy holds good here too. Companies marketing
> commodities seek 'brand recognition' as well as selling the
> product, as a
> secondary characteristic of advertising. Though I will cheerfully
> admit that
> there are some ads which are solely or mainly aimed at brand
> recognition,
> they do not have an analogue I can think of in scholarly
> publication, unless
> it be review articles. No, scholarly publishing is mainly aimed at
> research
> dissemination, with a much lesser intent of scoring for the author
> as a good
> researcher. It is very disturbing to have you, as a Springer
> employee, say
> otherwise.
>
> Remember that even if the author has this intent in the back of his
> or her
> mind, the peer reviewers and the publishers don't. If they really
> believed
> this to be the intent of scholarly publishing, then they would
> behave very
> differently. Top rank authors would be star-billed; author
> citations would
> be listed; reviewers would look at track record; authors could pay
> from
> top-of-contents billing; etc. I am afraid the argument does not
> stand up.
Received on Sun Mar 04 2007 - 13:37:45 GMT