Re: Load balancing

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>]

No - I was not suggesting an author fraud in the cases you are writing
about.. There are author frauds but this is clearly not the case with the
example of malpractice that you have unearthed.

The onus was on the publisher because the articles in question (published
several times) appear to have gone through editorial process of only one
journal.

The editors of the journals (in which there were duplicate publications)
must have known that the articles in question did not go through their
editorial offices so I cannot believe that there was not some complicity -
whatever you may have been told.

My point about multiple publication by some authors and the difficulty of
spotting this until after publication was in response to a comment by
Chuck.

The problem with e-mail postings (unlike a really interactive medium like
a face-to-face conversations) is that it is easy to be ambigous - at least
I find it easy to be ambiguous.

Anthony

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Davis" <pmd8@cornell.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Load balancing

> "To repeat however - this is nothing to do with the publishing practice
> which you have exposed." -- Anthony Watkinson
>
> If I understand Anthony's argument correctly, his response puts the onus
> on the author, who may have submitted identical copies to multiple
> Emerald journals (paragraph 3).  While I postulated this cause in the
> outset of my research, authors (including Bernie Sloan responding to
> liblicense-l), claimed only to submit one copy and remember receiving a
> request from the publisher to republish.  Most of the authors I spoke to
> received such a request from the publisher.  So, your argument that the
> publisher was merely caught in the middle of author-fraud may not be
> valid.  The publisher has also admitted the practice of republishing
> without attribution in writing.
>
> This has "nothing to do with the publishing practice?"  The data suggest
> that this has everything to do with the publishing practice.
>
> --Phil Davis
>
>
> At 04:25 PM 11/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >Dear Phil,
> >
> >I think you are conflating a number of different issues. In the case you
> >have been investigating it is clear that the articles did not go through
> >the editorial processes of more than one journal. If they had gone
> >through the normal route the final versions would have been different 
> >because there would be different referees and different copy editors - 
> >even if the original submissions had been identical.
> >
> >Publishers do not receive articles as the publisher.. Sometimes the
> >office may be located at the publisher but it is the editor's office 
> >and operates just as it would operate if it is in the institution of 
> >the editor. Any editor of any library journal subscribing to this list 
> >will confirm.
> >
> >The publisher does not come into play until the article is accepted and
> >sent by the editor into the production process. It is quite possible (and
> >does happen) for an article in the same or more or less the same form
> >submitted to a number of journals, which may or may not be published by
> >the same publisher. This is of course forbidden in instructions to
> >authors and is not accepted as correct practice by any of the academic 
> >communities I am familiar with. It can happen that an article can be 
> >published in one journal at more or less the same time as a very 
> >similar article (never completely identical for the reasons which I 
> >have mentioned) is published in another and it can happen that the two 
> >journals are published by the same publisher. I have known this to 
> >happen once in recent years to journals I have some responsibility for.
> >
> >There are various procedures for drawing attention to this similarity
> >once it has been discovered (see the NLM site for explanations). 
> >Obviously also the editors of the journals will tell the person 
> >concerned not to submit again. I know of no publisher, who has 
> >procedures for stopping such a duplicate (or almost duplicate) 
> >publishing and the reason is quite simple.
> >
> >To put all articles accepted through the sort of software that is offered
> >would be costly and create a whole new step in the workflow i.e. cause
> >some delay.
> >
> >If the academic community were pressing for publishers to adopt this
> >step, publishers would have to listen but they do not and are unlikely 
> >to do so.  These are rare happenings. They are not the norm. The 
> >authors discovered in this practice are penalised.
> >
> >If you argue (as I am sure you do not) that publishers are morally
> >obliged to prevent this happening, i.e. duplication publication because 
> >two different journals have accepted more or less the same article, I 
> >can say little except to point out that libraries regularly buy more 
> >than one copy of different articles, books or even journals because of 
> >the different aggregations they subscribe to. I know some librarians 
> >(like Chuck) worry about this but I cannot see that it is easy to 
> >prevent this happening.
> >
> >To repeat however - this is nothing to do with the publishing practice
> >which you have exposed.
> >
> >Anthony