and Information Science
> Long Island University
> dgood...@liu.edu
>
> -Original Message-
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Leslie Carr
> Sent: Sun 11/14/2004 5:18 AM
> To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
> Subject:
rr
Sent: Sun 11/14/2004 5:18 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Self-Archiving vs. Self-Publishing FAQ
On 13 Nov 2004, at 06:54, Rick Anderson wrote:
> Look, obviously we're proceeding from a different set of definitions
> here.
indubit
On 13 Nov 2004, at 06:54, Rick Anderson wrote:
Look, obviously we're proceeding from a different set of definitions
here.
indubitably
My point is simply that the word "publish" has a real-world definition
that is far different from the artificially narrow one created by the
OA establishment.
> (1) I guess that would mean that self-archiving one's already published
> journal article is "publishing a published article."
It depends. If you self-archive the article on your hard disk, then no, you're
not publishing it -- you're just archiving it. On the other hand, if you
self-archiv
Like many words in the english language, "publishing" likely has many
meanings. In a business sense, newspapers, paperback novels, and
scholarly journals are all publications.
The Open Access debate, however, is focused on the scholarly,
peer-reviewed journal article. It is reasonable to assume
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, R. Stephen Berry wrote:
> The American Chemical Society refuse to publish papers that have been
> put onto open sites such as ArXiV.
That's called the "Ingelfinger Rule" -- fast-fading now, and has nothing
to do with publication. (It always just some journals' arbitrary submi
Dear Forum Members,
Just a little reminder that Marty Blume made this distinction
by referring to "publishing" and "Publishing," in which his use of
the former is, I believe, equivalent to Heather Morrison's
"distribution." However it's clear that some organizations, e.g. the
American Chemical Soc
> Rick here is making the most fundamental errors of fact, reasoning and
> strategy in this area, and he is making them blithely and insouciantly
> (as so many others do too!) without so much as an inkling that this
> just might call for a deeper and more rigorous reflection and greater
> informedn
ected from AmSci Topic thread:
"Drubbing Peter to Pay Paul" (2004)
http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind04&L=american-scientist-
open-access-forum&D=1&O=D&F=l&P=99000
Prior AmSci Threads:
"Self-Archiving vs. Self-Publishing FAQ" (2000)
oss the
years, and broadcast their own thoughts only after they are tolerably
well informed. The fact that all of this is monumentally trivial
(and intellectually unchallenging) does not imply that one can do it
somnambulistically.
Stevan Harnad
Pertinent Prior Amsci Threads:
---
Moderator's Note:
This posting is redirected from AmSci Topic thread:
"Drubbing Peter to Pay Paul" (2004)
http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind04&L=american-scientist-open-access-forum&D=1&O=D&F=l&P=99000
Prior AmSci Threads:
. I've
stated my case in commonsensical terms and will leave it at that and, until
such time as I have anything new to say, will let others pick up the discussion
if they so choose.
Brian Simboli
Quoting Stevan Harnad :
> Prior Amsci Topic Threads:
>
> "Self-Archiving vs.
Prior Amsci Topic Threads:
"Self-Archiving vs. Self-Publishing FAQ" (Jan 2000)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0500.html
"Self-Archiving Refereed Research
vs. Self-Publishing Unrefereed Research" (Aug 2001)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.
Responses to Stevan Harnad:
1. I've so far taken no positions on the merits of central as opposed
to institutional solutions. Why do you attribute, once again, a view to
me that I don't hold? Perhaps that explains the need of various people
to reiterate points.
2. I think we're hitting definitio
The Emerald piece is at http://www.infotoday.com/it/nov02/poynder.htm.
Reinventing MCB University Press, Information Today 19(8)
Richard Poynder
Freelance Journalist
Phone: + 44 (0)191-386-0072
Mobile: 0793-202-4032
E-mail: richard.poyn...@journalist.co.uk
Web: www.richardpoynder.com
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Katherine Porter wrote:
>bn> I think Stevan Harnad is seriously underestimating the
>bn> importance of "prior discovery", which may be established
>bn> by the date attached to the placement of an unrefereed
>bn> article on an open electronic repository.
> >
> It seems to me thi
A very relevant paper has been drafted by a group of scientists (and
even a couple of publishers) on behalf of the AAAS. The paper attempts
to define 'publication' in the digital environment, and essentially
comes up with two definitions - 'first publication' and 'formal
publication'. Please do hav
> I think Stevan Harnad is seriously underestimating the
> importance of "prior discovery", which may be established
> by the date attached to the placement of an unrefereed
> article on an open electronic repository.
>
It seems to me this raises questions not only about dates of
placement for jou
There is no dispute with Bernard Naylor.
YES, online self-archiving of unrefereed preprints is valuable for
establishing priority,
YES, online self-archiving of refereed reprints is valuable for
maximizing access to the peer-reviewed research literature, but
NO, the former is not and will not be
I think Stevan Harnad is seriously underestimating the
importance of "prior discovery", which may be established
by the date attached to the placement of an unrefereed
article on an open electronic repository.
Anyone else coming along later to a journal editor and
inviting referees to consider a d
Bernard Naylor's corrections about the legal definition of publication
are no doubt correct, but I think they miss the points at issue.
When academics ask about public archiving vs. publication, what they
have in mind is not the technical or legal definition of "publication,"
but something closer
I am not sure that things are as clearcut as Stevan Harnad
appears to suggest so I have appended some notes to this
exchange.
Bernard Naylor
> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 16:34:54 +
> From: Stevan Harnad
> To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 1918
- Original Message -
From: Stevan Harnad
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Self-Archiving vs. Self-Publishing FAQ
>
> I think unrefereed papers and discussion on the Internet fall in
> exactly the same category as the above: Good for establishing prior
On Wed, 20 Feb 1918, Aline PELISSIER wrote:
> Dear Steve,
> I have some problems understanding your message.
> I have to know if this site is an archiving one or a publishing one via
> Internet.
Dear Aline:
There are too many preconceptions in your question. There is not an
"either/or" relation
24 matches
Mail list logo
