RE: First Monday article on OA

["RAPPAZ Francois" <francois.rappaz@unifr.ch>]

Some more objections to Joe Esposito's comparison of blogs with scientific
papers:

- authority in blogs (or threads in news groups) is not well defined
contrary to an accademic publication.

- version is also ill defined in blogs, and version is related to
authority, since in a scientific paper who (authority) says what (what
version) is of paramount importance.

As long as scientific publication is bound with prestige, career and
financial resources, scientific papers will remain discrete communication
entities and the need for a ranking (beeing published in journal x or
beeing the most highly downloaded pdf) will not disapeared.

Francois Rappaz

> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David 
> Groenewegen
> Sent: mercredi, 18. ao�t 2004 21:43
> Subject: Re: First Monday article on OA
> 
> It's an interesting take on the issue, but I'd have to argue with at
> least one of the assumptions that underpins many of the conclusions:
> 
> "In a world of electronic networks, however, peer review can and should
> take place after publication. Such review can take place virtually in
> real time, so our patient remains safe;  and the marginal cost of such
> publication (which essentially amounts to uploading the text to a Web
> server) approaches zero. Post-publication peer review does not require
> expensive and slow-moving infrastructure. It therefore assists authors
> in their goal of getting published quickly and potentially provides
> wider feedback from the broad community of scholars. Quackery that gets
> published will be recognized as such and dismissed rapidly."
> 
> This assumes that everybody reads the online version in real time - but
> we know that most users, even technically skilled ones, prefer to print
> what they read, especially longer and more complicated material. I know
> that if someone sends me an interesting link I generally go to the site,
> read the abstract, and if it sounds interesting print it for later
> reading and reference.
> 
> If I printed it before someone else notes the fatal error (and the fatal
> error to a patient could be well hidden), then I might inflict the fatal
> error on the patient because there is a good chance that I will never
> return to the online version to check for updates.
> 
> This would imply that some peer review still needs to come before
> publication, at least in some areas - which means you would still need
> some of the expensive infrastructure. To suggest otherwise is to have to
> much faith in the efficiency of the community.
> 
> David Groenewegen
> Digital Resources Librarian
> Information Resources Division
> Monash University Library
> AUSTRALIA
> email: david.groenewegen@lib.monash.edu.au