Jan, I do not disagree with what you say, but I was disagreeing with what Eric was saying. He suggested publishers should select editorial boards. Like you, I believe that they should be organized by researchers themselves. The same applies to the peer review comment.
As for searchability, I believe it goes beyond discoverability. Etc. etc. Jean-Claude -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal Le mardi 15 mai 2012 à 18:47 +0100, Jan Velterop a écrit : > > > 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
