[ 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. ]
particularly #4 is of interest. the "scientific record" should be independent, not erasable by anyone, imho. for example, the national library of medicine's medline file (aka pubmed) has a whole set of terms indexers assign to "bad research", but the citations are still in the database. however, i must admit, independent publishers often have the same bad habits as worried authors. when science magazine and nature published fraudulent works, the first thing they did when it was exposed was to snatch the articles off their web sites. excuse my ignorance, but do reputable institutional repositories have policies of non-removal of bad research? is that part of some code of practice? of course, the research should be clearly marked as flawed when found, but it shouldn't just disappear. the gaslight effect. bq -----Original Message----- From: Arthur Sale Sent: Oct 27, 2008 7:46 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Withdrawal from Open Access I have recently come across two cases of an author asking for their paper to be withdrawn from the proceedings (online, OA) of a conference.<?xml:namespace prefix = o /> I am pursing these cases as I can to find out why. I assume that the conferences did not have an appropriate license agreement allowing them to make the paper OA, though few authors would pay much attention to that anyway. There are a variety of possible reasons; perhaps reader of this list can suggest others: 1. The authors want to publish their paper in a journal as well to get double counted value in their cv from their research. 2. Conferences donÿÿt count for anything in their field, but journal articles do. 3. As above in 1 and 2, and the authors have been scared by publisherÿÿs words about ÿÿprior publicationÿÿ invalidating submission. 4. The work is plagiarized, fraudulent, or is a case of multiple papers spread over one research nugget, and the authors do not want to be found out. 5. The authors do not believe the Internet is suitable for scientific publication and discovery. 6. The authors are in their 60s or 70s and set in their ways (not Internet-savvy). ... It is worthwhile trying to understand these counter-intuitive actions. There may be lessons to be learnt. Arthur Sale University of Tasmania barbara quint editor, searcher magazine 932 11th st., suite 9 santa monica, ca 90403 310/451-0252 bqu...@mindspring.com bqu...@infotoday.com http://www.infotoday.com/searcher