[ 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. ]
I do not want the usual round of arguments, but would simply like to remind readers of this list the following points: 1. There is no good reason why repositories could not and should not achieve a state of relative autonomy with regard to the traditional publishing scene; 2. There is no reason why someone should not cite from an article placed in a reliable repository. This refers back to the question of the reference version and who controls it. I would rather have universities and research centers control the reference versions than external entities, especially when those are commercial in nature. 3. In fields where quotations are frequent and extensive, and where page numbers are required, people with no access to the published version find themselves at a distinct disadvantage, not to say worse. This is the case for most of the humanities and social science disciplines and these cover more than half of the research personnel of any typical university. First, the solution offered in 3 is generally not accepted by serious editors of serious journals. Second, the excerpts from the APA guidelines given below demonstrate the quandary very well: most if not all journal articles in electronic format *do* include page numbers. The APA recommendations for digital documents tries to cover the kinds of documents that, because they are in a sense "natively" electronic, do not follow a traditional page format (e.g. a web site). However, most published articles in electronic format follow the paper/print tradition and continue to include a page structure. The preeminence of pdf files underscores this fact very neatly. They clearly point to the incunabular state of our electronic publishing at this stage of history (the phrase belongs to Gregory Crane). Many thanks to Stevan for pointing out the APA recommendations because they clearly separate electronic documents without page numbers from electronic documents with page numbers. These recommendations demonstrate the wide need to cite the accessible document. 4. Point 2 is very important. If you cite the journal version of the article, do cite the repository article as well. This will underscore that there are two separate reference versions, including for archival purpose. Jean-Claude Guédon Le jeudi 05 mars 2009 à 07:54 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit : Colin, yes, this question has been much discussed in the Forum (not just for years, but for well over a decade now, well before the major OA developments of today), here , here and here. The answer is simple and I fervently hope it will not elicit another round of the usual back-and-forth: (1) Always cite the published version if the cited work is indeed published. (The published version is the archival work; the OA version is merely a means of access to a version of it. It is not the published work.) (2) Always give the URL or DOI of the OA version for access purposes, along with the citation to the published version. (3) In citing (in the text) the location for quoted excerpts, use the published versions page-span if you know them; otherwise use section-heading plus paragraph number. (Indeed, it is good to add section-heading plus paragraph-number in any case.) What follows is the pertinent extract from the APA Style Manual: -To cite a specific part of a source, indicate the page, chapter, figure, table or equation at the appropriate point in text. Always give page numbers for quotations. Abbreviate the words page and chapter in such text citations: (Cheek & Buss, 1981, p.332)
 (Shimamura, 1989, chap. 3) For electronic sources that do not provide page numbers, use the paragraph number, if available, preceded by the ¶ symbol or the abbreviation para. If neither paragraph nor page numbers are visible, cite the heading and the number of paragraph following it to direct reader to the location of the material. (Myers, 2000, ¶ 5)(Beutler, 2000, Conclusion section, para.1) (Contrast (1) how the rather trivial and obvious practical advice I gave the APA years ago has been sensibly incorporated into the Manual with (2) the endless trivial and pointless niggling in some of the prior exchanges on this topic in this Forum!) Stevan On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:04 AM, C.J.Smith <c.j.sm...@open.ac.uk> wrote: Stevan, In terms of journal papers, what do you advise if somebody wants to reference a quote from a particular page of a final accepted peer-reviewed manuscript they've found in a repository? Obviously the page numbers may differ to the final published PDF, but if they don't have access through a subscription to that final published version then they cannot find out what the equivalent page numbers are. I've recently created the following FAQ for our repository, but I'd be interested to hear whether you agree this is the best approach: <start> How do I cite articles I find on ORO? When you click on an item in ORO, you will see (under the main title in blue) a reference to the official published version. Always cite this published version, as this will result in the author(s) receiving proper recognition through services that track citation counts (e.g. Thomson's Web of Science). While you should always cite the published version when referencing the article as a whole, there may be instances (for example if you need to refer to a specific page of the article for a quote), where you will need to cite the ORO version. This is because the page numbering in the ORO version might not match the page numbering in the final published version. If you need to do this, here's how: Smith, C (2009). How to reference papers in ORO. Open Research Online. Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/xxxxx. Replace the 'xxxxx' with the item ID from the URL. In such cases, if you or your institution has access, the preference would be to click through and use the specific page reference from the published version. However, even if citing the ORO version, please try to cite the published version as well so that the author(s) receive proper recognition, as mentioned above. <end> I suspect this issue has been discussed at length on this list and others in the past, so if you'd prefer to reply personally rather than clog the list up with previously-discussed items that's fine by me! Thanks, Colin Colin Smith Research Repository Manager Open Research Online (ORO) Open University Library Walton Hall Milton Keynes MK7 6AA Tel: +44(0)1908 332971 Email: c.j.sm...@open.ac.uk http://twitter.com/smithcolin http://oro.open.ac.uk ____________________________________________________________________________ From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 04 March 2009 20:15 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Self-Archiving in a Repository is a Supplement, not a Substitute, for Publishing in a Peer-Reviewed Journal On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Klaus Graf <klausg...@googlemail.com> wrote: 2009/3/4 Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>: >SH: > Repository deposit is definitely not for papers that cannot meet the > peer-review standards of journals; the "preprint" is not a preprint if it > will never be acceptable to a journal. KG: (2) Repositories are not only for journal articles. The query was, as was plain from what was asked, from someone who had tried and and failed to meet the peer-review standards of the several journals to which they had submitted their paper, and wanted to know whether deposit in an OA repository like CogPrints would count as a publication. I replied, quite correctly, that a repository is not a publisher but an access-provider, hence it is not a substitute for publishing. An unpublished paper, deposited in an OA repository, remains an unpublished paper. (3) OA isn't only for journal articles and scientific data. I stated in my reply that an OA IR isn't only for published documents and data (which in some fields includes multimedia): "An OA Repository is also a good way to provide supplementary information about a published article; it can also provide access to postpublication revisions, and updates, and even unpublished commentaries on other articles and commentaries -- but the rather is more like blogging than formal publication.... In addition, before publication, even before submission, one can deposit the unrefereed "preprint: of the article in an OA Repository, in order to elicit feedback as well as to establish priority. The preprint too can be cited, as always, as "unpublished manuscript", but its repository URL can be added for access purposes." You can put your diary and your family pictures in an OA IR too, but that's not the reason OA IRs were created, and that is not the raison d'être of the OA movement. (4) Not all disciplines and countries have journals with formal peer review. And your point is? Of course published books are welcome in OA IRs too, and so are preprints of books to be published or submitted. Nor will (or should) IRs try to legislate about whether a journal (or book) is refereed or vanity-press. That's for the assessors of one's CV to judge. The essence of the query was simply whether deposit of an unpublished document thereby constitutes publication, eo ipso. And the reply was that it does not. Moreover, the query was about a Central Repository (for the cognitive sciences), called CogPrints, and CogPrints is very specifically reserved for papers that have been refereed or are being refereed. It is not a repository for unpublishable documents, first, because authors can put those on their own websites or on commercial vanity-sites, and, second, because OA (at 15%) has not yet had notable success in inducing authors to deposit OA's primary target content, refereed journal articles. It does not enhance the probability of capturing OA's primary target content if mostly empty repositories today are instead filled with unpublished and unpublishable "grey literature." (Once the mandates have done their work, and OA's target content is reliably speeding toward 100%, the superaddition of the grey literature -- and diaries and family photos -- will do no harm; that's what metadata are there to sort out. But right now, the just introduce noise where we need signal.) (5) It is misleading to speak of "peer-review standards of journals" because they differ from journal to journal and discipline to discipline. And your point is? Stevan Harnad --------------------------------- The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302). Jean-Claude Guédon Université de Montréal