Re: Repository: publication or archive?

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:04:45 +0100 (BST)

My apologies if I have attributed to John Smith any views that he does
not hold!

Open Access (OA) and Publishing/Peer-Review Reform (PPRR) are certainly
compatible with one another, but they are completely different things. I
always pipe up when PPRR is brought up in an OA context, because it
causes confusion (about what OA is and what OA it is for).

I especially worry when it is suggested that OA (or Green OA) is
incomplete, or a half-step toward something else. When 85% of researchers
are still not yet taking that half-step (and their universities and
funders are still not yet mandating it) it is perhaps not the optimal
time to suggest that that step is not enough! Especially when the "next
step" is something other than OA...

And, until further notice, "publishing" and "publication" mean what they
mean today, and not what they may (or may not) mean at some possible
future time.

Stevan Harnad

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, John Smith wrote:

> Stevan,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-
> > REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> > Sent: 25 October 2007 19:02
> > To: JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> > Subject: Re: Repository: publication or archive?
> >
> > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, John Smith wrote:
> >
> > > This confusion reflects the beliefs of two distinct parts of the
> > > repositories community.
> >
> > Actually, I think the confusion is between beliefs and reality.
>
> I didn't say those who held these views were confused only that the
> existence of these two views caused confusion for others.
>
> Also, there is no disagreement about the value of self-archiving only
> about whether it is a final end in itself or merely a precursor to new
> forms of Publishing.
>
> So please keep pushing for self-archiving, more power to your elbow, it is
> a worthwhile end in itself but for me it is just preparing the ground for
> the next step.
>
> > > One group want to keep the old publishing model
> > > with refereed journals each having their own collection of
> > articles with
> > > the repositories being a supplement to this (offering
> > alternative access
> > > to publicly funded information) and the other group see
> > repositories as
> > > the beginning of new forms of academic publishing.
> >
> > One group want OA now, to what we have now. The other group prefer
> > to
> > keep waiting for some hypothetical future form of publication.
>
> There is no reference to waiting in what I wrote. What you are doing now
> will lead to what I want. There is no contradiction in the aims of the two
> groups I described only differences in the definition of words.
>
> > > Those in the first
> > > group argue that publication in a traditional journal (or
> > similar vehicle
> > > like a conference proceedings) is the 'definition' of publishing
> > and any
> > > other form of making publicly available is not publishing
> > despite the
> > > standard dictionary definition.
> >
> > No, it is academic assessors of research performance who
> > (correctly)
> > deem peer-reviewed journal publishing today as the criterion for
> > counting as a published article, not merely self-archiving an
> > unrefereed
> > preprint on the web (nor any untested third option).
>
> There is nothing in my note that disagrees with this. It is what I call
> Publishing.
>
> > > Many of those in the 'self archiving'
> > > community are in the first group and EPrints (for example) was
> > begun by
> > > the 'self archiving' community hence the statement in the
> > EPrints FAQ.
> > >
> > > It is all the fault of history (as many things are). In the past
> > > Publishers controlled all the activities related to academic
> > publishing
> > > not just the 'making publicly available'. They organised the
> > editorial
> > > boards, they organised the referring, etc. So Publishing (with a
> > > capital P) meant more than making available, it included all
> > these
> > > related activities.
> > And, for the most part, they still do. And OA is about freeing
> > access to
> > those articles from publishers' access-toll-barriers, not about
> > freeing
> > them from peer-review -- or hypothetical peer-review reforms.
>
> I say nothing about *freeing* them from peer review, I believe in the
> usefulness/value of peer review. However there may be other ways of
> providing this service.
>
> > > The two groups described above are to some extent talking past
> > each
> > > other. The first group are talking about Publishing and the
> > second group
> > > are talking about publishing.
> >
> > No, the first group are talking about actual publishing today and
> > the
> > second group are talking about hypothetical "publishing" (TBA).
> > And the
> > first group wants to free access to those actual publications
> > today
> > (2.5 million per year), whereas the second group wants to replace
> > them
> > by some hypothetical future form of "publication," some day.
>
> No, this just an attempt to explain why there are two definitions of
> 'publishing' to someone who was confused. There is no need to introduce
> negative terms like 'hypothetical', it is totally irrelevant and does
> nothing to clarify the situation.
>
> > > So putting an item in a repository is publishing (especially if
> > this is
> > > the only form of public access to it) but it is not, in and of
> > itself,
> > > Publishing because it does not provide those other requirements
> > of
> > > formal academic publishing like 'recognition of work done' or
> > 'peer
> > > review'.
> >
> > Putting an unrefereed, unpublished paper on the web makes it
> > publicly
> > accessible; it even makes it "published" in some legalistic/IP
> > sense,
> > but it does not make it published in the academic publish-or-
> > perish
> > sense. (And that reality has nothing whatsoever to do with the OA
> > movement,)
>
> There is no attack or negative statement concerning the OA movement in my
> note, absolutely none whatsoever, so why do you raise this point?
>
> > > These aspects need to be added by some other activities like
> > post
> > > publication review (which might just be counting the number and
> > quality
> > > of any citations the item gets), or it might be formally
> > reviewed/refereed
> > > by a body other that the body that makes it public, etc.
> >
> > Postpublication metrics, by all means. But RE-reviewing 2.5
> > million
> > already peer-reviewed publications yearly? at a time when the
> > 25,000
> > journals can barely get the peers to review them competently and
> > in time
> > for publishing them in the first place? This is no longer just
> > untested
> > hypothesis: it verges on science fiction...
>
> There is nothing about 're-reviewing' in my note, please comment on the
> current contents and not attack some hypothetical view I might have been
> expressing.
>
> > > As you may have guessed I belong to the second group and believe
> > that
> > > placing an item in a repository is publishing and it can/will
> > form part
> > > of a cooperative activity known as Publishing.
> >
> > Try conveying that belief to the RAE, or your annual review
> > committee...
>
> I don't need to, I just have to wait for time to pass. You and the others
> in the OA movement are doing much of the work for me providing the pool of
> freely accessible articles that others will build services on.
>
> Regards,
>
> John.
>
Received on Fri Oct 26 2007 - 15:04:59 BST