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

Re: Results of the NIH Plan

hi Peter:

If ADA is truly concerned about the safety of the public - ensure that authors have a version to post which ADA believes is correct.

I am not recommending any reckless course at all. There is no reason why
publishers could not provide authors with a final copy reflecting all
substantive peer-reviewing. This need not include final (cosmetic)
formatting, which can be a value-add to help ensure ongoing sales.

In my view, it is inappropriate in the extreme to ask authors of research
in clinical medicine to post such a warning. We are not talking about
just anyone posting whatever on the internet. Most authors in clinical
medicine are fully qualified professional doctors, as well as researchers.

We trust these people to record accurate dosages on a brief doctor's visit
(without demanding that anyone check it!). What makes you think that
these people would carelessly post potentially dangerous information on
the internet?

Academic research generally takes place under much less time pressure than
the doctor's visit. Work is generally checked before it is submitted for
publication (it will be checked by one's peers, after all). If there is
potential danger in any errors in reporting or copy, it seems reasonable
to assume that a researcher in clinical medicine is fully qualified to
decide whether an article should be posted, and/or whether a warning would
be necessary.

Is there an open access alternative for diabetes researchers? If not,
might be time to start one up. How is this for a motto: we treat our
authors with respect!

regards,

Heather Morrison

On 15-Sep-05, at 12:34 PM, Peter Banks wrote:

Heather:

We deal with clinical medicine. That includes publishing drug dosages, reference ranges for clinical tests, etc. I have no intention of humiliating authors. I do intend to warn the public that the ADA cannot attest to the accuracy of details in the version of the manuscript over which we have no control. This is not to say that the author is careless, intentionally or otherwise. It is to acknowledge that manuscript submission and file conversion is imperfect and to warn the reader that no copyeditor or proofreader has double checked the information in the post-print.

It would be negligent to do anything to the contrary--and I frankly think it is irresponsible of any institutional repository not to include such disclaimers. I think it would be wise to consult an attorney before embarking on the reckless course your endorse. We have absolutely no intention of changing ADA's disclaimer.

I posted our data as one anecdotal case study, and I do not pretend it is anything more than that. I hope other publishers will add their experience, and that scholarly publishing societies can rigorously analyze the data.

I would point out, however, that our preliminary data is consistent with NIH's own (see: http://www.nihms.nih.gov/). If anything, it appears that compliance is decreasing, not increasing. There are a few spikes in submissions, which probably represent authors dumping older papers, but interest in the project seems to have dwindled in recent months.

Peter