Re: Research Reports as Advertisements: An Allegory

From: Arthur Sale <ahjs_at_ozemail.com.au>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 08:27:24 +1100

Jan

You really don't understand top-class researchers and what motivates them,
do you? They want to do research - number 1 priority. Their institutions and
their funders insist they publish their findings in the peer-reviewed system
(a 'mandate') otherwise many would be satisfied with just doing the research
for curiosity or communicating to local colleagues. I know several who would
fall into this category.

They therefore (number 2 priority) engage in the peer-reviewed publishing
system specified by their 'employers'. In doing so they then seek to make
their research findings well-known by choosing journals that are well-read,
and which might give them useful collaborations. Similarly for those
disciplines in which conferences are important. Self-promotion, which I
remind you is what you claimed drives the researchers to publish, is further
down on the priority list, though of course it does exist as a motive.

Now we come to open access: researchers by and large do not think about
dissemination much. It is the flea on the tail of the research dog that they
have to assuage. So every obstacle such as copyright law, and every argument
about open access's advantages, generally leads to the same result: do
nothing. This is precisely why it is necessary for research funders and
institutions to make clear statements that they expect or require their
researchers to make their publications open access through green or gold
routes (a 'mandate'). If researchers see their 'employers' valuing and
requiring open access, then they will expend the effort, small though it is,
to comply.

You close with "The discussion is really only about the *way* to achieve
open access." Might it not be better to talk about the *ways*? In any
community there will be different views, and which will prevail (if any) is
generally shown by time. We shouldn't get in each others' way. Just to take
a small point, in this forum there is little talk about Google Scholar, and
yet its contribution to making open access a reality apparent to researchers
is quite large and irreversible.

Arthur

> -----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 10:26 PM
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Research Reports as
> Advertisements: An Allegory
>
> 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 - 22:03:29 GMT