Re: Maximising research access vs. minimizing copy-editingerrors

[David Goodman <dgoodman@princeton.edu>]

I will summarize what I think are the key lessons of my group's paper, read in
connection with the Blackwell paper:

1/ Publishers' preparation of journal articles generally increases readability

2/ Publishers often but not always correct small errors, but occasionally
introduce new ones, some of which are important.  The accuracy of the
publishing process is not 100%.

3/ Significant errors are most frequent in connection with tables and figure
legends.

4/ Neither we nor anyone have ever seen a truly substantial  error affecting
validity of the work left uncorrected in an author manuscript but corrected in
the published paper.

4a/ Reported numerical values and units in author manuscripts can be trusted.

5/ Faculty websites are an unreliable place for copies of research papers, even
in the short run. (almost half of the locations were moved and unlinked after
18 months)

I consider none of these results the least surprising.

There is one policy implication from this: publishers are  important but not
essential.  I don't consider this the least surprising either.

None of this affects the need--or lack or if--for peer review.
None of this affects the need--or lack of it--for open access.
>From other arguments, we need both.

David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
previously:
Bibliographer and Research Librarian
Princeton University Library

dgoodman@princeton.edu


----- Original Message -----
From: Atanu Garai <atanugarai.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 4:06 pm
Subject: Re: Maximising research access vs. minimizing copy-editing errors
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu

> Stevan, Thanks for pointing out to this resource. In my opinion,
> in today's world it is erroneous to draw a straight line between
> publishers to access. You are aware that open access journals are
> also published by publishers like universities, societies, NFPs
> and even commercial publishers and the opposite is also true.
>
> The bottom line is that a publishing activity except blogging and
> mailing list posting does not emanate on its own, unless it is
> "motivated" by some external forces. These forces may be the
> employer, supervisor, commercial or non-profit publishing
> agencies, nagging editors, to name a few.
>
> The point I am trying to make is that this is where publishers
> are standing. It is altogether different matter whether the
> publishing output is open or closed or funded or commercially
> available. But the bottom line is that for publishing at least in
> a journal, you shall have an editorial board, peer reviewers who
> will trigger the whole process. And it is the norm that not the
> authors but the publishers have so far commissioned these people
> in making journal publishing worthwhile and scholarly.
>
> Open access (particularly gold/IR version) benefits from
> publishers' commissioning of editorial board and peer review
> panel by simply taking benefit of existing copyright law (which
> is fair enough from legal point of view), but blames the
> publishers for not having enough input to the publishing process.
> Is it right?
>
> I do not think this is right unless and until we have an
> alternative system of having the whole publishing support system
> without the publishers is ready. To add to this, we would be more
> practical if we avoid generalizations of the publishers across
> the board, and in this case the publishers in question are not
> the open access publishers, but the commercial publishers.
>
> Atanu
>
>
> From: "Stevan Harnad"
>
> > See Swan, Alma (2007) What a difference a publisher makes.
> > OptimalScholarship. Saturday, July 7 2007.
> >
> > http://optimalscholarship.blogspot.com/2007/07/what-difference-
> publisher-makes.html