[ 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. ]
I do not want the usual round of arguments, but would simply like to
remind readers of this list the following points:
1. There is no good reason why repositories could not and should not
achieve a state of relative autonomy with regard to the traditional
publishing scene;
2. There is no reason why someone should not cite from an article
placed in a reliable repository. This refers back to the question of
the reference version and who controls it. I would rather have
universities and research centers control the reference versions than
external entities, especially when those are commercial in nature.
3. In fields where quotations are frequent and extensive, and where
page numbers are required, people with no access to the published
version find themselves at a distinct disadvantage, not to say worse.
This is the case for most of the humanities and social science
disciplines and these cover more than half of the research personnel
of any typical university. First, the solution offered in 3 is
generally not accepted by serious editors of serious journals.
Second, the excerpts from the APA guidelines given below demonstrate
the quandary very well: most if not all journal articles in
electronic format *do* include page numbers. The APA recommendations
for digital documents tries to cover the kinds of documents that,
because they are in a sense "natively" electronic, do not follow a
traditional page format (e.g. a web site). However, most published
articles in electronic format follow the paper/print tradition and
continue to include a page structure. The preeminence of pdf files
underscores this fact very neatly. They clearly point to the
incunabular state of our electronic publishing at this stage of
history (the phrase belongs to Gregory Crane). Many thanks to Stevan
for pointing out the APA recommendations because they clearly
separate electronic documents without page numbers from electronic
documents with page numbers. These recommendations demonstrate the
wide need to cite the accessible document.
4. Point 2 is very important. If you cite the journal version of the
article, do cite the repository article as well. This will underscore
that there are two separate reference versions, including for
archival purpose.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le jeudi 05 mars 2009 à 07:54 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
Colin, yes, this question has been much discussed in the
Forum (not just for years, but for well over
a decade now, well before the major OA developments of
today), here , here and here. The answer is simple and I
fervently hope it will not elicit another round of the
usual back-and-forth:
(1) Always cite the published version if the cited work
is indeed published. (The published version is the
archival work; the OA version is merely a means of access
to a version of it. It is not the published work.)
(2) Always give the URL or DOI of the OA version for
access purposes, along with the citation to the published
version.
(3) In citing (in the text) the location for quoted
excerpts, use the published versions page-span if you
know them; otherwise use section-heading plus paragraph
number. (Indeed, it is good to add section-heading plus
paragraph-number in any case.)
What follows is the pertinent extract from the APA Style
Manual:
-To cite a specific part of a source,
indicate the page, chapter, figure, table or
equation at the appropriate point in text.
Always give page numbers for quotations.
Abbreviate the words page and chapter in such
text citations:
(Cheek & Buss, 1981, p.332)

(Shimamura, 1989, chap. 3)
For electronic sources that do not
provide page numbers, use the paragraph
number, if available, preceded by the ¶
symbol or the abbreviation para. If neither
paragraph nor page numbers are visible, cite
the heading and the number of paragraph
following it to direct reader to the location
of the material.
(Myers, 2000, ¶ 5)(Beutler, 2000,
Conclusion section, para.1)
(Contrast (1) how the rather trivial and obvious
practical advice I gave the APA years ago has been
sensibly incorporated into the Manual with (2) the
endless trivial and pointless niggling in some of the
prior exchanges on this topic in this Forum!)
Stevan
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:04 AM, C.J.Smith
<C.J.Smith_at_open.ac.uk> wrote:
Stevan,
In terms of journal papers, what do you
advise if somebody wants to reference a quote
from a particular page of a final accepted
peer-reviewed manuscript they've found in a
repository? Obviously the page numbers may
differ to the final published PDF, but if
they don't have access through a subscription
to that final published version then they
cannot find out what the equivalent page
numbers are. I've recently created the
following FAQ for our repository, but I'd be
interested to hear whether you agree this is
the best approach:
<start>
How do I cite articles I find on ORO?
When you click on an item in ORO, you will
see (under the main title in blue) a
reference to the official published version.
Always cite this published version, as this
will result in the author(s) receiving proper
recognition through services that track
citation counts (e.g. Thomson's Web of
Science).
While you should always cite the published
version when referencing the article as a
whole, there may be instances (for example if
you need to refer to a specific page of the
article for a quote), where you will need to
cite the ORO version. This is because the
page numbering in the ORO version might not
match the page numbering in the final
published version. If you need to do this,
here's how:
Smith, C (2009). How to reference papers in
ORO. Open Research Online. Available at:
http://oro.open.ac.uk/xxxxx. Replace the
'xxxxx' with the item ID from the URL.
In such cases, if you or your institution has
access, the preference would be to click
through and use the specific page reference
from the published version. However, even if
citing the ORO version, please try to cite
the published version as well so that the
author(s) receive proper recognition, as
mentioned above.
<end>
I suspect this issue has been discussed at
length on this list and others in the past,
so if you'd prefer to reply personally rather
than clog the list up with
previously-discussed items that's fine by me!
Thanks,
Colin
Colin Smith
Research Repository Manager
Open Research Online (ORO)
Open University Library
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
Tel: +44(0)1908 332971
Email: c.j.smith_at_open.ac.uk
http://twitter.com/smithcolin
http://oro.open.ac.uk
____________________________________________________________________________
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]
On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 04 March 2009 20:15
To:
AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Self-Archiving in a Repository
is a Supplement, not a Substitute, for
Publishing in a Peer-Reviewed Journal
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Klaus Graf
<klausgraf_at_googlemail.com> wrote:
2009/3/4 Stevan Harnad
<amsciforum_at_gmail.com>:
>SH:
> Repository deposit is
definitely not for papers that
cannot meet the
> peer-review standards of
journals; the "preprint" is not a
preprint if it
> will never be acceptable to a
journal.
KG:
(2) Repositories are not only for
journal articles.
The query was, as was plain from what was
asked, from someone who had tried and and
failed to meet the peer-review standards of
the several journals to which they had
submitted their paper, and wanted to know
whether deposit in an OA repository like
CogPrints would count as a publication. I
replied, quite correctly, that a repository
is not a publisher but an access-provider,
hence it is not a substitute for publishing.
An unpublished paper, deposited in an OA
repository, remains an unpublished paper.
(3) OA isn't only for journal
articles and scientific data.
I stated in my reply that an OA IR isn't
only for published documents and data (which
in some fields includes multimedia):
"An OA Repository is also a good
way to provide supplementary
information about a published
article; it can also provide
access to postpublication
revisions, and updates, and even
unpublished commentaries on other
articles and commentaries -- but
the rather is more like blogging
than formal publication.... In
addition, before publication,
even before submission, one can
deposit the unrefereed "preprint:
of the article in an OA
Repository, in order to elicit
feedback as well as to establish
priority. The preprint too can be
cited, as always, as "unpublished
manuscript", but its repository
URL can be added for access
purposes."
You can put your diary and your family
pictures in an OA IR too, but that's not the
reason OA IRs were created, and that is not
the raison d'être of the OA movement.
(4) Not all disciplines and
countries have journals with
formal peer review.
And your point is?
Of course published books are welcome in OA
IRs too, and so are preprints of books to be
published or submitted. Nor will (or should)
IRs try to legislate about whether a journal
(or book) is refereed or vanity-press. That's
for the assessors of one's CV to judge. The
essence of the query was simply whether
deposit of an unpublished document thereby
constitutes publication, eo ipso. And the
reply was that it does not.
Moreover, the query was about a Central
Repository (for the cognitive sciences),
called CogPrints, and CogPrints is very
specifically reserved for papers that have
been refereed or are being refereed. It is
not a repository for unpublishable documents,
first, because authors can put those on their
own websites or on commercial vanity-sites,
and, second, because OA (at 15%) has not yet
had notable success in inducing authors to
deposit OA's primary target content, refereed
journal articles. It does not enhance the
probability of capturing OA's primary target
content if mostly empty repositories today
are instead filled with unpublished and
unpublishable "grey literature." (Once the
mandates have done their work, and OA's
target content is reliably speeding toward
100%, the superaddition of the grey
literature -- and diaries and family photos
-- will do no harm; that's what metadata are
there to sort out. But right now, the just
introduce noise where we need signal.)
(5) It is misleading to speak of
"peer-review standards of
journals"
because they differ from journal
to journal and discipline to
discipline.
And your point is?
Stevan Harnad
---------------------------------
The Open University is incorporated by Royal
Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in
England & Wales and a charity registered in
Scotland (SC 038302).
Jean-Claude Guédon
Université de Montréal
Received on Thu Mar 05 2009 - 15:19:46 GMT