[ The following text is in the "UTF-8" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
particularly #4 is of interest. the "scientific record" should be
independent, not erasable by anyone, imho. for example, the national
library of medicine's medline file (aka pubmed) has a whole set of
terms indexers assign to "bad research", but the citations are still
in the database. however, i must admit, independent publishers often
have the same bad habits as worried authors. when science magazine
and nature published fraudulent works, the first thing they did when
it was exposed was to snatch the articles off their web sites.
excuse my ignorance, but do reputable institutional repositories have
policies of non-removal of bad research? is that part of some code of
practice? of course, the research should be clearly marked as flawed
when found, but it shouldn't just disappear. the gaslight effect.
bq
-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Sale
Sent: Oct 27, 2008 7:46 PM
To:
AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Withdrawal from Open Access
I have recently come across two cases of an author asking
for their paper to be withdrawn from the proceedings
(online, OA) of a conference.<?xml:namespace prefix = o
/>
I am pursing these cases as I can to find out why. I
assume that the conferences did not have an appropriate
license agreement allowing them to make the paper OA,
though few authors would pay much attention to that
anyway.
There are a variety of possible reasons; perhaps reader
of this list can suggest others:
1. The authors want to publish their paper in a
journal as well to get double counted value in their cv
from their research.
2. Conferences don˙˙t count for anything in their
field, but journal articles do.
3. As above in 1 and 2, and the authors have been
scared by publisher˙˙s words about ˙˙prior publication˙˙
invalidating submission.
4. The work is plagiarized, fraudulent, or is a
case of multiple papers spread over one research nugget,
and the authors do not want to be found out.
5. The authors do not believe the Internet is
suitable for scientific publication and discovery.
6. The authors are in their 60s or 70s and set in
their ways (not Internet-savvy).
...
It is worthwhile trying to understand these
counter-intuitive actions. There may be lessons to be
learnt.
Arthur Sale
University of Tasmania
barbara quint
editor, searcher magazine
932 11th st., suite 9
santa monica, ca 90403
310/451-0252
bquint_at_mindspring.com
bquint_at_infotoday.com
http://www.infotoday.com/searcher
Received on Tue Oct 28 2008 - 01:46:24 GMT