On 15 May 2012, at 17:12, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: > With due respect to Eric, I will disagree with at least the devolution of the > first two tasks > > 1. The selection of editors should come from scientific communities > themselves, not from commercial publishers. This is a good instance where > commercial concerns (maximizing profits, etc.) can pollute research concerns. > There is also something weird in having commercial publishers holding the key > to what may amount to the ultimate academic promotion: being part of an > editorial board means power over colleagues; being editor-in-chief even more > so. At least, when journals were in the hands of scientific associations, the > editorial choice remained inside the community of researchers. What criteria, > beyond scientific competence and prestige, may enter into the calculations of > a commercial publisher while choosing an editor-in-chief, God knows…
With due respect, Jean-Claude, but there is absolutely nothing that stops the scientific community from organising itself, select editors and editorial boards and establish journals. In principle, that is. In practice, well, they don't do it, at least not to a sufficient degree. It is this academic inertia that gave publishers an opportunity to fill the gap. > > 2. Effective peer review should be organized by peers themselves, by scholars > and scientists, not by publishers. Tools to organize this process should > ideally be based on free software and available to all in a way that allows > disciplinary or speciality tweaking. The Open Journal System, for example, is > a good, free, tool to organize peer review and manuscript handling in the > editorial phase. Such a tool should be favoured over proprietary tools > offered to editors as a way to convince them to join a particular journal > stable, and as a way to make them dependent on that tool - yet another way to > ensure growing stables of journals. > There is an element of nephelokokkygia going on here, I'm afraid. There is nothing that stops academics from organising effective peer review. In principle, that is. In practice, well, they don't do it, at least not to a sufficient degree. It is this academic inertia that gave publishers an opportunity to fill the gap. It feels like I'm repeating myself here. It's not the availability of software that is the limiting factor; it's the lack of initiative and of l'esprit d'entreprise that is. When they are present in academics, for instance in Varmus, Brown and Eisen, it can lead to great success indeed, as we have seen. > Professional "looks" can indeed be given away to commercial publishers. > Layout, spelling, perhaps some syntaxic and stylistic help would be nice. But > I would stop there. > > As for the "archivable" historic record, I would have to see more details to > give my personal blessing to this. Remember how Elsevier pitted Yale against > the Royal Dutch Library when the issue of digital preservation began to > emerge a dozen or so years ago. I am not sure about the distinction between > archived and archivable. > > For searchability, remember what Clifford Lynch declared years ago in the OA > book edited by Neil Jacobs: no real open access without open computation. > Elsevier and other publishers do code their articles in XML, but provide only > impoverished, eye-ball limited, pdf or html files. When one uses Science > Direct, all kinds of links pop up to guide us toward other articles, > presumably from Elsevier journals. This is part of driving a competition > based on impact factors. That is not the kind of searchability we want, even > though it is of some value. I presume 'searchability' means discoverability here, and I'm pretty sure all Elsevier articles and any articles published by any serious publisher, for profit or NfP, are fully indexed by Google and their ilk. Searching in general for literature on any publisher's journal platform site other than for specific articles you know or suspect have been published by that publisher, is naive. > > The quest for "alternative comprehensive systems" is exactly what Elsevier > attempts to build with Scopus. In so doing, Elsevier picks up on the vision > of Robert Maxwell when the latter did everything he could, from cajoling to > suing, to get the Science Citation Index away from Garfield's hands. Is this > really what we want? If it were open, and open access, Eric's idea would make > sense; otherwise, it becomes a formidable source of economic power that will > do much harm to scientific communication. In effect, with a universal > indexing index and more than 2,000 titles in its stable, Elsevier could > become judge and party of scientific value. Again, there is absolutely nothing, in principle, that stops the scientific community from organising itself and establishing a comprehensive reference and abstract database. In the life sciences it's been done by PubMed (admittedly not quite academics themselves, but at least an academic funding body, the NIH). Why don't they do it? > Finally, I am not blaming companies for trying to make money, except when > they pollute their environment. Most do so in the physical environment, and > they are regulated, or should be. The commercial publishers do it in their > virtual environment by driving research competition through tools that also > favour their commercial goals. The intense competition around publishing in > "prestigious journals" - prestige being defined here as impact factors, > although impact factors are a crazy way to measure or compare almost anything > - leads to all kinds of practices that go against the grain of scientific > research. The rise in retracted papers in the most prestigious journals - > prestige being again measured here by IF - is a symptom of this "pollution. I agree it is pollution. But it's not the publishers who are in any position to keep the JIF going as proxy for quality. It's the academic community itself that is doing that. And yes, if you present the publishers with such a juicy bone, don't expect them not to grab it. > > The rise in journal prices was tentatively explained in my old article, "In > Oldenburg's Long Shadow" that came out eleven years ago. It tries at least to > account for the artificial creation of an inelastic market around "core > journals", the latter being the consequence of the methods used to design the > Science Citation Index. Incidentally, the invention of the "core journal" > myth - myth because it arbitrarily transforms an operational truncation > needed for the practical handling of large numbers of citations into an > elite-building club of journals - has been one of the most grievous obstacle > to the healthy globalization of science publishing in the whole world. Speak > to Brazilians like Abel Packer about this, and he will tell you tons of > stories related to this situation. Scientific quality grows along a > continuous gradient, not according to a two-tier division between core > science, so-called, and the rest. The only credible myth-busters would be academics themselves. Where are they? > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > > -- > Jean-Claude Guédon > Professeur titulaire > Littérature comparée > Université de Montréal > > > Le lundi 14 mai 2012 à 11:38 -0700, Eric F. Van de Velde a écrit : >> To Alicia: >> Here are what I consider the positive contributions by commercial >> publishers. For any of the positive qualities I mention, it is easy find >> counterexamples. What matters is that, on the average, the major publishers >> have done a good job on the following: >> >> >> - Select good editorial boards of leading scholars. >> - Develop effective systems for organizing peer review. >> - Produce articles/journals that look professional commensurate with the >> importance of the scholarship. >> - Produce an archivable historical record of scholarship. >> >> >> Publishers only receive a marginally passing grade for producing searchable >> databases of the scholarly record and journals. In the age of iTunes, >> Netflix, etc., it is inexcusable that to search through scholarship one must >> buy separate products like the Web of Knowledge in addition to the journal >> subscriptions. Publishers need to work together to produce alternative >> comprehensive systems. >> >> >> Most commercial publishers and some society publishers (like ACS) receive >> failing grades on cost containment. Because of their importance to academia, >> scholarly publishers have been blessed with the opportunity to reinvent >> themselves for the future without the devastating disruption other kinds of >> publishers faced (newspapers, magazines, etc.). However, instead of taking >> advantage of this opportunity, scholarly publishers are squandering it for >> temporary financial gain. Every price increase brings severe disruption >> closer. On the current path, your CEOs are betting the existence of the >> company every year. >> >> >> About the only company who understands the current information market is >> Amazon, and everything they do is geared towards driving down costs of the >> infrastructure. Your competition will not come from Amazon directly, but >> from every single academic who will be able to produce a high-quality >> electronic journal from his/her office. There may be only one success for >> every hundred failed journals in this system, but suppose it is so easy >> 100,000 try... Your brand/prestige/etc. will carry you only so far. (Amazon >> is focusing on e-books production now, but it is only a matter of time when >> they come out with a journal system.) >> >> >> To Jean-Claude: >> Blaming commercial enterprises for making too much money is like blaming >> scholars for having too many good ideas. Making money is their purpose. They >> will stop raising prices if doing so is in their self-interest. >> >> >> The real question is why the scholarly information market is so screwed up >> that publishers are in a position to keep raising prices. I am blaming site >> licenses >> (http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-if-libraries-were-problem.html >> and http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2011/09/publishers-dilemma.html), >> but I am open to alternative explanations. >> >> --Eric. >> >> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com >> >> Google Voice: (626) 898-5415 >> Telephone: (626) 376-5415 >> Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde >> E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> Jean-Claude, >> This is a great analysis and says almost exactly some of what I was planning >> to say. >> >> We cannot de facto trust the publishers to work in our interests. There was >> a time when this was posssible - but no longer. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Peter Murray-Rust >> Reader in Molecular Informatics >> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry >> University of Cambridge >> CB2 1EW, UK >> +44-1223-763069 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
