The "should" here is the subjunctive "should", without the obligatory connotation.
My objection to Eric's statement is that it agrees with the idea of publisher selecting editorial boards. I totally disagree with this. Jean-Claude -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal Le mercredi 16 mai 2012 à 16:08 +0100, Jan Velterop a écrit : > > > 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
