-- Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/ http://efoundations.typepad.com/ andy.powell_at_eduserv.org.uk +44 (0)1225 474319 > -----Original Message----- > From: American Scientist Open Access Forum > [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAX > I.ORG] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad > Sent: 02 October 2008 01:21 > To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG > Subject: Nihil obstat > > Summary: > > (1) For some odd reason, Jean-Claude is accusing me of > censorship: I wonder why? since every single one of his > postings to the AmSci Forum has appeared, in full, as he can > confirm by consulting the archive: > http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open- > Access-Forum.html > > (2) Everyone, including the moderator, has the right to post > replies to the AmSci Forum, just as Jean-Claude does. The > moderator's replies have no special status, one way or the > other, other than what status they may earn through their substance. > > (3) My own frequent strategy in these exchanges with > Jean-Claude (as anyone who looks over those sad sections of > the AmSci Archive can > confirm) has been to cease replying once Jean-Claude lapses > into flaming, as he alas almost invariably does, at least in > his exchanges with me. (I was on the verge of prepending that > caveat to my own first reply in this latest series, to the > effect that I would reply for the moment, but if and when > Jean-Claude started flaming again, the floor was his alone. > Well, I hereby postpend that now. The Forum is all yours, > Jean-Claude.) > > Imprimi potest! > > Stephanus Primus > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon > <jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca> wrote: > > I find this form of behaviour unacceptable. It borders on > > unacknowledged censorship. > > > > Let me give a quick example: I never conflated citability and > > branding, but Stevan does in his "summary". So beware of Stevan's > > "summaries". They read more like polemical devices or editorials. > > > > It also and clearly illustrates how he often misreads what > people write. > > > > I call on Stevan simply to post the whole message I sent > last night. > > It is not very long and it points out how Stevan does not > dialogue well. > > > > It is not for him, as moderator, to judge what is tedious or not, > > monumentally trivial or not. A moderator should address the > issue of > > relevance, not tediousness. He or she should also carefully > > distinguish between his (her) role as moderator and as > party in a discussion. > > > > Perhaps Stevan should give up the moderation of this list and thus > > enjoy greater polemical freedom. > > > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > > > Le mercredi 01 octobre 2008 à 09:19 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > > > > I think AmSci Forum readers may be finding this exchange rather > > tedious. I will summarize, and then let Jean-Claude have > the last word. > > > > (1) Jean-Claude thinks there is a problem for specifying > the locus of > > quoted passages when citing a work if the pagination of the OA > > postprint one has accessed differs from the pagination of the > > publisher's PDF. > > > > (2) He does not like the solution of citing the published work, as > > usual, linking the postprint's URL, for quote-checking, and > specifying > > the locus of the quote by paragraph number instead of page number. > > > > (3) He prefers to upgrade the status of the postprint in > some way, so > > as to "brand" it as "citable," and then citing the > postprint instead > > of citing the published work. > > > > Judicat Emptor. This strikes me as a monumentally trivial > non-problem > > and an unnecessary and incoherent proposed solution. > > > > Stevan Harnad > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon > > <jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca> wrote: > >> Sigh... I will respond below > >> > >> Le mardi 30 septembre 2008 à 17:48 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > >> > >> Jean-Claude Guedon thinks that because an article published by Joe > >> Bloggs in Nature (2008, volume X, Number Y, pp NN-MM) is > not OA, and > >> Joe Bloggs's OA postprint of the final, refereed draft of > his Nature > >> article, self-archived in his Institional Repository (IR), is > >> unpaginated, hence one cannot specify the location of a quoted > >> passage in the Nature version except by paragraph number, > one should > >> not cite the Nature version, but the self-archived postprint. > >> > >> 1. I am not going to introduce a new way of locating quotations by > >> using paragraph numbers. I do not even feel like counting > paragraphs. > >> > >> 2. I never said that the archived article was unpaginated; > I said it > >> may be paginated differently from the journal pagination. > >> > >> 3. It is not that one should not cite the Nature version; > it is that > >> one cannot cite the Nature version completely. > >> > >> What I ask is: What does it mean to "cite" the postprint of a > >> published Nature article? I would think you cite the > publication, the > >> Nature article, and give the URL of the postprint for > access purposes. > >> > >> So I have a quote and I refer to the journal article and > its general > >> citation, and then I send the reader to the archived version and > >> explain how to find the exact passage in the archived > version? This > >> is quite complicated, it seems to me. > >> > >> Jean-Claude seems to think the postprint itself should be upgraded > >> into a "publication" in its own right: How? And what does > that mean? > >> > >> It is not upgraded into a publication. It is de facto a > publication. > >> The article has been peer reviewed and it is publicly accessible. > >> > >> That instead of proudly listing his paper in his CV as having been > >> published by Nature, a peer-reviewed journal of some repute, Joe > >> Bloggs should list it as having been published by his own > >> Institutional Repository? > >> > >> That again is stretching my words in strange directions. I am > >> pointing to something lacking in referring precisely to a > quotation. > >> This does not prevent me from putting the journal > reference (and the > >> repository > >> reference) > >> in my cv. I dom not even begin to understand how that > issue ever arose. > >> > >> And what does "published" mean under these circumstances? With > >> Nature, it means Nature conducted a peer review, to > determine whether > >> the article met Nature's quality standards. > >> > >> the self-archived article is the same as the peer reviewed > article in > >> the journal. The archived article will also mention the general > >> citation from the journal. It may even link to that journal. This > >> still does not allow me to clarify completely a specific quotation > >> from the journal. But the article in the repository has > clearly been > >> perr reviewed. No problem there. > >> > >> Is > >> the author's institution to conduct yet another "peer > review" on the > >> same peer-reviewed article, to determine whether it has met that > >> institution's quality standards? Why? > >> > >> I never said that. > >> > >> And would this mean that all > >> postprints in that IR meet the same quality standards (Nature's)? > >> > >> I never even began to come close to this issue. Please read what I > >> write carefully. > >> > >> Sounds closer to in-house vanity publishing to me, except > that it's > >> more like in-house vanity RE-publishing. > >> > >> I suppose so, but it does not concern me. I never said > that. This is > >> science-fiction. > >> > >> I think this line of thinking is not only unrealistic but > incoherent > >> -- and, most of all, unnecessary, since it is trying to "solve" a > >> non-existent problem: What work to cite when you have > access only to > >> the OA postprint of a published article? The answer is > obvious: You > >> cite the *published article*, and add the OA postprint's > URL to the > >> citation for those who cannot afford access to the publisher's > >> proprietary version. (And quote passages by paragraph number.) > >> > >> The proposed solution is not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory > >> because, when I give a reference to a precise quote, I > must add the page number. > >> Now, > >> this page number may mean nothing to citation calculators, but it > >> means a whole lot to the reader and to the conventions carefully > >> taught in class about ways to cite a quotation in a > scholarly piece > >> of work. Adding a URL is not enough. For example, if > someone wants to > >> quote my quotation, that person should be able to quote an > original > >> source, not a derivative. If that person does not have > access to the > >> journal either, the problem I initially encountered recurs > for that > >> second author. > >> > >> Jean-Claude Guédon > >> > >> Stevan Harnad > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon > >> <jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca> wrote: > >> > >>> Quoting means extracting a passage from a text and inserting it > >>> within another text one is writing. It is often placed within > >>> quotation marks, but not always as quoting conventions > obey complex > >>> and variable rules. Citing means giving a reference for a quoted > >>> text, or for some facts or opinions found in another > article, book, > >>> etc. This distinction has been dealt with repeatedly in the past. > >>> > >>> Even if I follow Stevan's distinction, I need both to > quote and cite > >>> (in Stevan's sense of the words) when I work and I cannot be > >>> satisfied with only citing. I am not the only to have this need. > >>> Consequently, not having access to the citable version > prevents me > >>> from doing all of my work because the precise location of what I > >>> need remains unknown to me. However, if an IR declares that an > >>> article under its stewardship is also citable, then, I > can do all my > >>> work, including giving a precise location for a quotation, or a > >>> fact, or an opinion, etc. This simply means that I > recognize the IR > >>> as a publication instrument, i.e. it makes documents > public and not > >>> simply as a collection of texts open to reading and > nothing else. In > >>> fact, limiting IR texts only to reading would contravene the > >>> requirements for something to be truly in open access. > >>> > >>> At this junction, the question of which version(s) is (are) > >>> reference versions emerges. I submit that articles > archived in IR's > >>> can become references as much as the version appearing in > a journal. > >>> > >>> There is a well-known precedent for this. Articles are sometimes > >>> reprinted in a different journal or an anthology. Once > this is done, > >>> either version can be cited and is cited. Sometimes, it is the > >>> reprinted version that becomes the better known citation. > >>> > >>> Stevan may not like this line of reasoning because it blurs the > >>> distinction he tries so hard to maintain between journals > and IR's. > >>> His thesis is that IR's and journals can coexist simply > because they > >>> do not fulfil at all the same functions. However, this is > Stevan's > >>> thesis, not a universally accepted situation and it cannot be > >>> mistaken for a fact. A more sensible representation of > reality is to > >>> state that the functions of journals and IR's, although not > >>> identical, overlap. We can then discuss the amount of overlap. > >>> > >>> To say this amounts to claim a publishing role for IR's and for > >>> self-archiving. I claim that role. The fact that IR's can be > >>> harvested by powerful search engines supports the thesis that > >>> depositing an article in an IR is a form of publishing. > Only if IR's > >>> worked like the drawer of my desk (which I gladly leave in open > >>> access to anyone wanting to access it), could we say that > it is not > >>> a form of publishing. IR's are not shy silos of knowledge > that just > >>> sit there, in open access, but with no way to attract > attentiuon to > >>> themselves. on the contrary, they can be found and used thanks to > >>> some Google scholar or OAIster. > >>> > >>> The relationship between an article published in a journal and > >>> another version residing in a repository is quite different from > >>> that between an original piece of art and a copy. I > believe Walter > >>> Benjamin has meditated significantly on this topic (The > Work of Art > >>> in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility). The > article in the > >>> repository is not a copy of an original article; it is a > version of > >>> an article. The journal article is also a version, > another version, > >>> and nothing more. The article is identified by its title XXXX and > >>> its author(s) YYYYY and its content. This is how > copyright law would > >>> identify it. The ways in which a given version is branded > depends on > >>> a number of variables (authors' names, authors' institutions, > >>> journal titles, etc. ). For the moment, IR's do not yet > know very > >>> well how to brand, but nothing prevents thinking about > ways to achieve this result. > >>> Personally, I believe we should be thinking hard about > this precise > >>> issue. > >> > >> Jean-Claude Guédon > >> Université de Montréal > > > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > Université de Montréal >Received on Fri Oct 03 2008 - 12:01:55 BST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:29 GMT