On 16 May 2012, at 15:23, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: > 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.
Jean-Claude, I don't think Eric said that. He said the publishers *did*, not that they *should*. And I don't believe he meant *should*. > > As for searchability, I believe it goes beyond discoverability. You're right. But with the right tools, literature, even in PDF, doesn't have to be 'eyeball-limited' any longer. See http://utopiadocs.com, for instance. Or http://pdfx.cs.man.ac.uk/ These tools are freely available to individuals as well as repositories. If it weren't for rights barriers, most of the material in repositories could all be 'libre' OA. > > 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
