Parallel journals
Hi, Today, thinking hard again about the (dis)advantages of Green OA the following idea flashed through my mind. Green OA leads to `parallel articles', i.e. the post prints of the pdf's in official journals. Why not having `parallel journals' as well? It's not so difficult I think. Someone has to generate a list of journal titles and issues with empty article records. And then every repository can complete these records with the metadata of the post prints that they hold. Just like we created union catalogs in the old days. As I see it, the main advantage is that we can integrate the worlds of Gold and Green OA at journal level. Wouldn't that be a relief to readers, funders and authors? Cheers, Leo.
Parallel journals
[ The following text is in the "WINDOWS-1252" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Begin forwarded message: From: Stevan Harnad List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: October 2, 2009 1:12:37 PM EDT (CA) To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk Cc: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Parallel journals (1) We don't need "parallel journals": we just need parallel ACCESS to the articles in the journals that already exist. (2) That's what green OA self-archiving of the author's final refereed, revised draft provides. (3) Green OA does not provide "parallel articles" either. It just provides parallel access to the same journals. (4) The difference between the publisher's PDF and the author's self- archived final refereed, revised draft are completely trivial. This is not something a researcher would worry about. Researchers are worried about access denial, not PDF. (5) A journal issue is just a hodge-podge of mostly unrelated articles; no need to "reconstruct" that; open access to all the articles plus good boolean search power is all that's needed. (6) The PostGutenberg journal is just a peer-review service provider, for quality assurance, plus a tag (the journal name) certifying the outcome as having met the quality standards for which the journal has an established track record. (7) The rest is just the journal-tagged, peer-reviewed file, sitting safely in the author's institutional repository (suitably backed up, mirrored, preserved, etc.), plus central harvesters providing powerful search capability across the entire distributed corpus. (8) Gutenberg print editions, and even para-Gutenberg publisher-PDFs will only last as long as there is still a user demand for them; with 100% Green OA, I promise you that that demand will not be coming from researchers, nor from students... Stevan Harnad On 2-Oct-09, at 12:50 PM, J.W.T.Smith wrote: > Leo, > > You can approximate this by using Google Scholar Advanced Search. Search > for a specific journal title and limit to a time period. > The result of a search for articles in ?Journal of biological chemistry? > for 2008 looks like this: > > http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=&as_publication=%22Journal+of+ > biological+chemistry%22&as_ylo=2008&as_yhi=2008&btnG=Search > > Of course the results are not clustered by issue but ranked by number of > citations. However I am sure there are people reading this list who could > write some code to reorder this results list and cluster by issue or page > number range. A little more coding and maybe we could cluster by issue and > then by page number within each issue thus giving exact copies of contents > pages. > > What could we call this new form of journal, ah yes, it would be a > ?Reconstructed Journal? :-) . > > John. > > > > From: Repositories discussion list > [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of leo waaijers > Sent: 02 October 2009 14:39 > To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk > Subject: Parallel journals > > Hi, > > Today, thinking hard again about the (dis)advantages of Green OA the > following idea flashed through my mind. Green OA leads to ?parallel > articles?, i.e. the post prints of the pdf?s in official journals. Why not > having ?parallel journals? as well? It?s not so difficult I think. Someone > has to generate a list of journal titles and issues with empty article > records. And then every repository can complete these records with the > metadata of the post prints that they hold. Just like we created union > catalogs in the old days. > As I see it, the main advantage is that we can integrate the worlds of > Gold and Green OA at journal level. Wouldn?t that be a relief to readers, > funders and authors? > Cheers, > Leo. >
Re: Parallel journals
[ The following text is in the "WINDOWS-1252" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] (1) We don't need "parallel journals": we just need parallel ACCESS to the articles in the journals that already exist. (2) That's what green OA self-archiving of the author's final refereed, revised draft provides. (3) Green OA does not provide "parallel articles" either. It just provides parallel access to the same journals. (4) The difference between the publisher's PDF and the author's self-archived final refereed, revised draft are completely trivial. This is not something a researcher would worry about. Researchers are worried about access denial, not PDF. (5) A journal issue is just a hodge-podge of mostly unrelated articles; no need to "reconstruct" that; open access to all the articles plus good boolean search power is all that's needed. (6) The PostGutenberg journal is just a peer-review service provider, for quality assurance, plus a tag (the journal name) certifying the outcome as having met the quality standards for which the journal has an established track record. (7) The rest is just the journal-tagged, peer-reviewed file, sitting safely in the author's institutional repository (suitably backed up, mirrored, preserved, etc.), plus central harvesters providing powerful search capability across the entire distributed corpus. (8) Gutenberg print editions, and even para-Gutenberg publisher-PDFs will only last as long as there is still a user demand for them; with 100% Green OA, I promise you that that demand will not be coming from researchers, nor from students... Stevan Harnad On 2-Oct-09, at 12:50 PM, J.W.T.Smith wrote: Leo, You can approximate this by using Google Scholar Advanced Search. Search for a specific journal title and limit to a time period. The result of a search for articles in ?Journal of biological chemistry? for 2008 looks like this: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=&as_publication=%22Journal+of+bi ological+chemistry%22&as_ylo=2008&as_yhi=2008&btnG=Search Of course the results are not clustered by issue but ranked by number of citations. However I am sure there are people reading this list who could write some code to reorder this results list and cluster by issue or page number range. A little more coding and maybe we could cluster by issue and then by page number within each issue thus giving exact copies of contents pages. What could we call this new form of journal, ah yes, it would be a ?Reconstructed Journal? :-) . John. From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of leo waaijers Sent: 02 October 2009 14:39 To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk Subject: Parallel journals Hi, Today, thinking hard again about the (dis)advantages of Green OA the following idea flashed through my mind. Green OA leads to ?parallel articles?, i.e. the post prints of the pdf?s in official journals. Why not having ?parallel journals? as well? It?s not so difficult I think. Someone has to generate a list of journal titles and issues with empty article records. And then every repository can complete these records with the metadata of the post prints that they hold. Just like we created union catalogs in the old days. As I see it, the main advantage is that we can integrate the worlds of Gold and Green OA at journal level. Wouldn?t that be a relief to readers, funders and authors? Cheers, Leo.
Re: Parallel journals
[ The following text is in the "WINDOWS-1252" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Begin forwarded message: From: Stevan Harnad List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: October 5, 2009 9:11:36 AM EDT (CA) To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Cc: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk, SPARC Open Access Forum Subject: Re: Parallel journals On 5-Oct-09, at 3:44 AM, Kuil, van der Annemiek wrote: > Apparently there are differences between countries (although acadamia goes > beyond borders) and therefore it is difficult to generalise and say that > > > > "(4) The difference between the publisher's PDF and the author's > > self-archived final refereed, revised draft are completely trivial. This > > is not something a researcher would worry about. Researchers are worried > > about access denial, not PDF." > > ... this is certainly not the case in the Netherlands. What I hear from > people in the field (and among them are important decsionmakers) is that > a large group of researchers does not want to bother with different > versions. There is only one version they are concerned with, and that is > the publisher's PDF. This fundamental misunderstanding has arisen, and been discussed, many times before. There are no differences whatsoever among researchers -- either in terms of country or in terms of discipline -- when one puts the question correctly (i.e., in terms of actual access needs, conditions and contingencies today, rather than some other ideal contingency): INCORRECT, OPEN-ACCESS-IRRELEVANT WAY TO PUT THE QUESTION: -- INCORRECT USER VERSION: Would you rather have access to the published PDF or to the author's self-archived final refereed postprint? -- INCORRECT AUTHOR VERSION: Would you rather users have access to the published PDF of your article or to your self-archived final refereed draft (postprint)? It is the above kind of questions that have been asked in the past, and the replies are predictable and of no particular interest or relevance to Open Access strategy, policy, or options. CORRECT (OPEN-ACCESS-RELEVANT) WAY TO PUT THE QUESTION: -- CORRECT USER VERSION: If you have no access to the published PDF, would you rather have access to the author's self-archived final refereed draft (postprint), or no access at all? -- CORRECT AUTHOR VERSION: If they have no access to the published PDF, would you rather users have access to your self-archived final refereed postprint, or no access at all? As far as I know, no survey has ever put the questions thus correctly to authors and users. I am pretty confident about what the outcome will be (the response is almost as predictable as the response to the irrelevant questions), but if someone doubts this, let them conduct the survey with the questions formulated correctly, and post their outcomes. Put correctly, the questions go the the very heart of the Open Access problem; put incorrectly, they simply miss both the real problem and its immediately reachable solution. Aside: The very same user and author questions and contingencies can also be posed substituting "a Gold OA version" [in place of "the published PDF"] and "the author's GREEN OA version" [in place of "the author's self-archived final refereed draft"]. Just as free access to the published PDF of any given article is rare today, hence for all users who don't have paid subscription access today the only real choice is between the author's (Green) OA version or waiting in vain for publishers to provide or allow free access to their PDF, so, because the option of a Gold OA version of any given article being Gold OA is rare today, the only real choice is between the author's (Green) OA version today or waiting in vain for all journals to convert to Gold OA. In other words, "waiting for the published PDF" and "waiting for Gold" is not a viable option for the researcher who needs access (or impact!) today. The issue is not ideal preferences for PDF (or Gold OA), all else being equal (hence equally available). Putting the question realistically to researchers is also important because it makes the real causal contingencies transparent: Providing access to the published PDF or providing Gold OA are matters that are in the hands of publishers, and for the 2.5 million articles published annually today, the proportions are low, as is also their annual rate of growth. (Before someone cites the "fast rate of growth" in the annual number of Gold OA journals -- now perhaps 20% and perhaps increasing by about 10% per year -- not only are users who need access today not in a position to wait 7+ years more for a response to their click, but the
Re: Parallel journals
[ The following text is in the "WINDOWS-1252" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Begin forwarded message: From: Stevan Harnad List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: October 5, 2009 10:19:31 AM EDT (CA) To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Cc: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk Subject: Re: Parallel journals On 5-Oct-09, at 4:49 AM, Talat Chaudhri wrote: > This attitude is also reported quite widely in Britain, certainly in my > experience as an ex repository manager. I believe that Stevan Harnad in > particular considers this to be wrong-headed, from his earlier posts on > this subject, but we may wish to bear in mind that repositories are a > service for academics and need to take account of their views. Academics' views can only be taken into account if their views are known. If one asks them a question without providing the realistic contingencies, one is not addressing their practical views or needs but just their hypothetical fantasies. The status quo is that academics want access to peer-reviewed articles to which they lack subscription access, and most publishers do not allow authors to provide free online access to the publisher's PDF -- only to the author's own final, peer-reviewed, accepted draft. Hence hypothetical preferences for PDF are irrelevant. The question that needs to be asked of academics today is whether they would rather have (and provide) access to peer-reviewed final drafts or no access at all (in the absence of subscription access to the PDF). > Nonetheless, there seem to be two main counter arguments: > > 1) having the content free to access, even if not in the publisher's > format, is better than not having it (especially for the many that cannot > afford journal subscriptions, notably but increasingly not limited to the > developing world) That is correct. > 2) the insistence on the canonical publisher's PDF is created out of a > culture in which publishers possess a kind of magic wand that gives the > aura of academic acceptablity, when in fact that acceptability should > properly derive from peer review, not from the page setting and other > publisher services. This is a red herring. It is the author's final *peer-reviewed* draft that we are talking about. > Thus, we idealists can happily point out (as I suspect Stevan would) that > there is always a means to cite by section, paragraph etc This changes the topic from the fundamental OA problem of access-denial itself, to the far more minor problem of how to cite page-spans when quoting from an author's postprint that lacks the published PDF's page numbers. (As noted, there is a simple solution, even there.) > and that the academic herself/himself could, if they were so minded, > contribute to a culture where they themselves set what is the canonical > version. Perhaps we may feel that this ideal is something worth pursuing. > We may remember that the earliest academics had full control over the > dissemination of their papers, and publishers originally came to exist as > a service to make that task easier. That, of course, was in a world where > there were very few academics, so our view of this ideal must be tempered > by the knowledge that contemporary systems must always scale up to a world > in which there are many times more academics. This is all worthy, but pie-in-the-sky, again. We were talking about what academics need and want (and lack) today, and what can be done, practically, to remedy that immediate need today. The only culture-change required for that is Green OA self-archiving mandates. The rest of the cultural change, far less urgent, can be allowed to take its own natural course once the immediate, urgent problem -- the fundamental problem that OA was conceived in order to solve -- is solved. > In reality, it seems that academics are like most other people in wanting, > for the most part, to work within the methods usually practised within > their profession, rather than to radically change them. The real practical issue at hand is not about radical changes, but just about a few keystrokes by authors to deposit their final drafts in their IRs. It is the bigger cultural scenarios that are talking about "radical" changes -- worthy and welcome, no doubt, but not within immediate reach, as the self-archiving of author postprints is. Yet it is the latter that will solve academics immediate access/impact problems -- and hence the OA problem, today. The rest is superfluous notional over-reaching at the expense of the immediately reachable, practical goal. > If they feel that other academics will not take the non-publisher PDF > seriously (and they are in a good position to jud
Re: Parallel journals
2009/10/6 Stevan Harnad : > Begin forwarded message: > (4) The difference between the publisher's PDF and the author's > self-archived final refereed, revised draft are completely trivial. This is > not something a researcher would worry about. Researchers are worried about > access denial, not PDF. I think this is wishful thinking. My experiences with ZORA or Harvard's new IR are going in the same direction: a strong preference for publisher's pdf (and no OA, because it isn't free). > > (5) A journal issue is just a hodge-podge of mostly unrelated articles; no > need to "reconstruct" that; open access to all the articles plus good > boolean search power is all that's needed. I do not think that you can prescribe readers how to browse journal issues. There are lots of theme-issues where browsing makes sense. Klaus Graf
Re: Parallel journals
On 5-Oct-09, at 8:49 PM, Klaus Graf wrote: > 2009/10/6 Stevan Harnad : > > > (5) A journal issue is just a hodge-podge of mostly unrelated > > articles; no > > need to "reconstruct" that; open access to all the articles plus good > > boolean search power is all that's needed. > > I do not think that you can prescribe readers how to browse journal > issues. There are lots of theme-issues where browsing makes sense. Then just retrieve all and only the entire theme-issue with a suitable boolean descriptor... (You vastly underestimate the power of online boolean search over an OA inverted full-text corpus -- and you also overestimate the persistence of obsolete, dysfunctional habits, once more powerful means become available. But the real reason all this prognostication is missing the mark is the persistent absence of most of the target OA full-text corpus. The latent power is not at all evident from the arbitrary, sparse OA subset we have so far. Until the token drops and we realize that the only thing standing between us and that full corpus is author keystrokes -- and that all that is needed to inspire those author keystrokes is Green OA self-archiving mandates from universities and funders -- our imaginations will continue to fail, and mislead us.)
Re: Parallel journals
There is, it seems to me, an unacknowledged non-dysfunctional purpose served by journal issues that would be difficult to satisfy with any search interface: non-duplication. Once a researcher has scanned the table of contents for an issue looking for articles of interest, that person feels no need to look at those articles again. If those previously scanned and ignored articles show up repeatedly in a search query (worse yet, if there are half a dozen instances of the same article content in the search, the same or slightly different versions from different sources) that is not only annoying, but a waste of the researcher's time spent keeping up with the literature. News readers for RSS feeds of journals handle this non-duplicative purpose nicely; a search query-based RSS feed could serve the same purpose but the technical requirements are somewhat different from just searching. Though perhaps that's what you were implying by "the power of online boolean search", the need for tracking what has previously been looked at (whether read or not) needs to be acknowledged. Arthur Smith Stevan Harnad wrote: > On 5-Oct-09, at 8:49 PM, Klaus Graf wrote: > > > 2009/10/6 Stevan Harnad : > > > > > (5) A journal issue is just a hodge-podge of mostly unrelated > > > articles; no > > > need to "reconstruct" that; open access to all the articles plus good > > > boolean search power is all that's needed. > > > > I do not think that you can prescribe readers how to browse journal > > issues. There are lots of theme-issues where browsing makes sense. > > Then just retrieve all and only the entire theme-issue with a suitable > boolean descriptor... > > (You vastly underestimate the power of online boolean search over an > OA inverted full-text corpus -- and you also overestimate the > persistence of obsolete, dysfunctional habits, once more powerful > means become available. But the real reason all this prognostication > is missing the mark is the persistent absence of most of the target OA > full-text corpus. The latent power is not at all evident from the > arbitrary, sparse OA subset we have so far. Until the token drops and > we realize that the only thing standing between us and that full > corpus is author keystrokes -- and that all that is needed to inspire > those author keystrokes is Green OA self-archiving mandates from > universities and funders -- our imaginations will continue to fail, > and mislead us.) > >
Re: Parallel journals
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Arthur Smith wrote: > There is, it seems to me, an unacknowledged non-dysfunctional purpose > served by journal issues that would be difficult to satisfy with any > search interface: non-duplication...Though perhaps that's what you were > implying by "the power of online boolean search", the need for tracking > what has previously been looked at (whether read or not) needs to be > acknowledged. Yes, simple de-duping (and tracking) of hits is a lot more parsimonious than generating a parallel journal! (Co-appearance in a joint issue is also a detectable condition.) What people keep envisioning as journals and issues is all down to tags now, bespoke tags, and tags generated (and stored on the fly) by smart, customized search engines. If google or amazon or ebay can remember what you've shopped for in the past, for you preference profile, surely so should a smart OA search service! Stevan > > Arthur Smith > > Stevan Harnad wrote: >> >> On 5-Oct-09, at 8:49 PM, Klaus Graf wrote: >> >>> 2009/10/6 Stevan Harnad : >>> (5) A journal issue is just a hodge-podge of mostly unrelated articles; no need to "reconstruct" that; open access to all the articles plus good boolean search power is all that's needed. >>> >>> I do not think that you can prescribe readers how to browse journal >>> issues. There are lots of theme-issues where browsing makes sense. >> >> Then just retrieve all and only the entire theme-issue with a suitable >> boolean descriptor... >> >> (You vastly underestimate the power of online boolean search over an >> OA inverted full-text corpus -- and you also overestimate the >> persistence of obsolete, dysfunctional habits, once more powerful >> means become available. But the real reason all this prognostication >> is missing the mark is the persistent absence of most of the target OA >> full-text corpus. The latent power is not at all evident from the >> arbitrary, sparse OA subset we have so far. Until the token drops and >> we realize that the only thing standing between us and that full >> corpus is author keystrokes -- and that all that is needed to inspire >> those author keystrokes is Green OA self-archiving mandates from >> universities and funders -- our imaginations will continue to fail, >> and mislead us.) >> >> >
Re: Parallel journals
References: <200909150629161.SM03840@[64.239.149.125]> <721c5fd7-b6dd-4c5d-9c3c-a651c3cd0...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <002101ca3652$40ba2680$c22e7380$@com.au> <4ab0c9bc.5030...@ulcc.ac.uk> <6db67d56-be4b-4c2b-9b5b-35ce68863...@its.monash.edu.au> <413600fa-0e7f-4507-b355-3f98155f8...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <4ac60261.2040...@xs4all.nl> <5e392918b3b73e40b8283baecdb027a125a5374...@mapi.ad.kent.ac.uk> A<4ac63739.5030...@xs4all.nl> <509d52452c720b4ebb8e64554bdd888...@aspsha2037.asp.multrix.! local> <942c1799-eda5-439e-a4b7-2bf7e71d9...@blackmesatech.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2009 19:02:10.0026 (UTC) FILETIME=[29B35CA0:01CA4E93] On 16-Oct-09 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [CS] wrote: > CS: [Contrary to] the claim that there the differences > between the last version of a paper sent in by the author and the > paper that appears in the journal are always "completely trivial" > ...many of the articles I've been involved with, as > author or as journal editor, have had editorial changes I'd > regard as important, not as trivial. Some of them have been > improvements. Any sensible author will of course incorporate into his public postprint (final revised draft) any nontrivial correction resulting from either refereeing or editing/copy-editing. (I wouldn't bother transferring changes of "which" to "that" but reference corrections, grammatical corrections and any [rarissimum] corrigendum of fact will certainly be incorporated into the version the author is providing free for one and all.) The point is that *none of this requires the publisher's PDF*, hence it is a colossal strategic and practical error to balk at making the postprint OA now (or at mandating that it be made OA now) and hold out instead for a day when the publisher's PDF can and will be available online for free. Whenever this undying issue of postprint vs. PDF arises, the very same nonsequiturs keep being raised. So I am under no illusions when I say, again, and again once and for all: OA is about *access to research*, and access to the postprint is infinitely preferable and more beneficial to the progress of research than the perils of PDF/ postprint discrepancies that those who keep misunderstanding what is really at stake keep banging on about instead. Harrumph, Ezekiel > > On 5-Oct 09 Kuil, van der Annemiek [AK] wrote: > > > AK: Apparently there are differences between countries (although > > > acadamia goes beyond borders) and therefore it is difficult to > > > generalise and say that > > > > > > > SH: "(4) The difference between the publisher's PDF and the > > > > author's self-archived final refereed, revised draft are > > > > completely trivial. This is not something a researcher would > > > > worry about. Researchers are worried about access denial, not PDF." > > > > > > AK: ... this is certainly not the case in the Netherlands. .. > > On 5 Oct 2009, at 07:11 , Stevan Harnad [SH] wrote: > > SH: This fundamental misunderstanding has arisen, and been > > discussed, many times before. > > > > There are no differences whatsoever among researchers -- either in > > terms of country or in terms of discipline -- when one puts the > > question correctly (i.e., in terms of actual access needs, > > conditions and contingencies today, rather than some other ideal > > contingency): > > ... > > CORRECT (OPEN-ACCESS-RELEVANT) WAY TO PUT THE QUESTION: > > > > -- CORRECT USER VERSION: If you have no access to the published > > PDF, would you rather have access to the author's self-archived > > final refereed draft (postprint), or no access at all? > > > > -- CORRECT AUTHOR VERSION: If they have no access to the published > > PDF, would you rather users have access to your self-archived final > > refereed postprint, or no access at all? > > CS: Those are certainly interesting and useful questions to ask, and > the answers I'd expect them to get certainly would tend to support > the kind of Green OA Steven Harnad advocates. > > But they don't seem to support the claim that there the differences > between the last version of a paper sent in by the author and the > paper that appears in the journal are always "completely trivial." > > Certainly many of the articles I've been involved with, as > author or as journal editor, have had editorial changes I'd > regard as important, not as trivial. Some of them have been > improvements.
[BOAI] Re: Parallel journals
g Green OA today by self-archiving their final refereed drafts (postprints) is entirely in the hands of authors themselves, today, and also within the immediate prerogative of their institutions and funders to mandate that they do it, today. Based on multiple properly formulated surveys, authors are ready to self-archive, but because of (groundless) worries (about legality), they are willing to do it only if their institutions and/or funders mandate it. These are the real contingencies facing the scholarly and scientific community today, not red herrings about PDF (or Gold OA). Stevan Harnad Ceterum censeo: If one is minded toward wishful thinking rather than immediate action, there are far better formats to to wish for than the published PDF! > > Met vriendelijke groet, > Annemiek > > > From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk > ] On Behalf Of leo waaijers > Sent: vrijdag 2 oktober 2009 19:24 > To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk > Subject: Re: Parallel journals > > Sorry that I did have an idea of my own. > > Stevan Harnad wrote: >> >> (1) We don't need "parallel journals": we just need parallel ACCESS >> to the articles in the journals that already exist. >> >> (2) That's what green OA self-archiving of the author's final >> refereed, revised draft provides. >> >> (3) Green OA does not provide "parallel articles" either. It just >> provides parallel access to the same journals. >> >> (4) The difference between the publisher's PDF and the author's >> self-archived final refereed, revised draft are completely trivial. >> This is not something a researcher would worry about. Researchers >> are worried about access denial, not PDF. >> >> (5) A journal issue is just a hodge-podge of mostly unrelated >> articles; no need to "reconstruct" that; open access to all the >> articles plus good boolean search power is all that's needed. >> >> (6) The PostGutenberg journal is just a peer-review service >> provider, for quality assurance, plus a tag (the journal name) >> certifying the outcome as having met the quality standards for >> which the journal has an established track record. >> >> (7) The rest is just the journal-tagged, peer-reviewed file, >> sitting safely in the author's institutional repository (suitably >> backed up, mirrored, preserved, etc.), plus central harvesters >> providing powerful search capability across the entire distributed >> corpus. >> >> (8) Gutenberg print editions, and even para-Gutenberg publisher- >> PDFs will only last as long as there is still a user demand for >> them; with 100% Green OA, I promise you that that demand will not >> be coming from researchers, nor from students... >> >> Stevan Harnad >> >> >> On 2-Oct-09, at 12:50 PM, J.W.T.Smith wrote: >> >>> Leo, >>> You can approximate this by using Google Scholar Advanced Search. >>> Search for a specific journal title and limit to a time period. >>> The result of a search for articles in ?Journal of biological >>> chemistry? for 2008 looks like this: >>> >>> http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=&as_publication=%22Journal+of+biological+chemistry%22&as_ylo=2008&as_yhi=2008&btnG=Search >>> >>> Of course the results are not clustered by issue but ranked by >>> number of citations. However I am sure there are people reading >>> this list who could write some code to reorder this results list >>> and cluster by issue or page number range. A little more coding >>> and maybe we could cluster by issue and then by page number within >>> each issue thus giving exact copies of contents pages. >>> >>> What could we call this new form of journal, ah yes, it would be a >>> ?Reconstructed Journal? :-) . >>> >>> John. >>> >>> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk >>> ] On Behalf Of leo waaijers >>> Sent: 02 October 2009 14:39 >>> To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk >>> Subject: Parallel journals >>> Hi, >>> >>> Today, thinking hard again about the (dis)advantages of Green OA >>> the following idea flashed through my mind. Green OA leads to >>> ?parallel articles?, i.e. the post prints of the pdf?s in official >>> journals. Why not having ?parallel journals? as well? It?s not so >>> difficult I think. Someone has to generate a list of journal >>> titles and issues with empty article records. And then every >>> repository can complete these records with the metadata of the >>> post prints that they hold. Just like we created union catalogs in >>> the old days. >>> As I see it, the main advantage is that we can integrate the >>> worlds of Gold and Green OA at journal level. Wouldn?t that be a >>> relief to readers, funders and authors? >>> Cheers, >>> Leo. >>> >> -- To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f
