[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OA as provision against salami and double publishing

Bernie points out a nuanced distinction when it comes to salami and double publishing. The Nature article assumes that it is caused solely by authors who are trying to game the system. I pointed out the case of a publisher who decided to take advantage of the system, and especially the trust relationship between publisher and library. My main point was that the additional transparency afforded by a Utopian OA future does not put an end to salami and double-publishing. The CrossRef initiative, described in an earlier post by Joachim Engelland, assumes that all publishers share the same social norms and standards for what is acceptable practice, and effectively take action to prevent violations from taking place in their journals. Preventing salami and double publishing is not an accessibility issue, and there is nothing inherent in OA publishing to suggest that this form of publishing, by its design, abides by a higher standard of practice.

--Phil Davis

Philip M. Davis
PhD Student
Department of Communication
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
email: pmd8@cornell.edu

B.G. Sloan wrote:
From: Bernie Sloan [snip]

[E]arlier posts regarding the recent item in Nature, etc., seem to imply that
authors sometimes do this to inflate their publication records for their vitae.

[1] Davis, P. M. (2005). The Ethics of Republishing: A Case Study of
Emerald/MCB University Press Journals. Library Resources & Technical
Services, 49(2), 72-78. http://hdl.handle.net/1813/2572

[2] Davis, P. M. (2005). Article duplication in Emerald/MCB journals is
more extensive than first reported: Possible conflicts of financial and
functional interests are uncovered. Library Resources & Technical
Services, 49(3), 138-150. http://hdl.handle.net/1813/2574