Re: In the news (Georgia State)

["Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

It seems to me that what Paul Ginsparg did in one stroke was 
separate, or at least begin to separate, the publishing functions 
of certification (what Ian addresses) from dissemination.  Prior 
to arXiv, these two functions were bound up with each other.  I 
am not saying that Ginsparg set out to do this (How would I 
know?), but that is the effect of his innovation.  Ian (rightly) 
notes that publishers still control the certification function, 
but there is another point to be made here, that in some 
instances the dissemination and certification functions compete 
with each other.

For example, a poorly distributed journal or a journal published 
in such a way as to make it difficult for readers to find it 
(e.g., not indexed by Google) may nonetheless certify an article 
and, by extension, its author; but the author may still yearn for 
broader dissemination.  Such an author may, the next time around, 
opt for a well-designed open access repository that has been 
optimized for search engine indexing and other Internet marketing 
techniques, with the hope that open dissemination will ultimately 
lead to certification.  We can call this the principle of 
certification through acclamation; it is intended to supplant 
certification through deliberation.

Publishers that stress the certification function alone are, in 
my view, making a very big mistake.  Yes, publishers add enormous 
value in the editorial process, more than most authors could ever 
bring themselves to admit, but the real game is to stroke an 
author's ego through dissemination. In other words, the safe zone 
for a publisher is not the editorial fortress of careful 
selection, peer review, copy editing, and the like, but the sound 
of trumpets declaring that, yes, our magnificent author has 
arrived.

The future of toll-access or traditional publishing lies with 
marketing.  If an author comes to believe that an open access 
service could lead to wider dissemination of his or her work, 
publishers should fold their tents and go home, and no amount of 
shrewd editorial practices can prevent this.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian.Russell" <ian.russell@cytherean.co.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: In the news (Georgia State)

> Thomas' reply raises some further questions:
>
> 1) Strictly speaking, arXiv is an electronic preprint server so 
> the papers there may not be the published version.  Are 
> researchers in physics happy to use that version?  Would 
> researchers in human medicine be happy to use a version of 
> unknown providence?  Would librarians be happy with that 
> situation?
>
> 2) The content that I am familiar with on arXiv almost always 
> associates a posted article with a journal.  Authors very 
> quickly add 'submitted to Physical Review E' or 'Published in 
> Classical and Quantum Gravity' (or whatever journal) to their 
> preprint. Why?  Well to get the authority / credibility / 
> imprimatur / brand identity of the journal.  This is tied to - 
> but not exclusively gained by - the peer review process of the 
> journal. It is very important to note that for many, many years 
> (going back to pre-web) journals have NOT been the method of 
> primary dissemination in some subjects. arXiv may provide 
> access to content, but trustworthiness and authority - for the 
> time being at least - still comes from journals (whatever 
> business model is used).  What would happen to academia if the 
> primary mechanism of identifying trustworthy content and 
> assessing the order in which to read papers was taken away?
>
> 3) As someone who represents society publishers I find Thomas' 
> final point very interesting.  I would be even more interested 
> to hear any ideas for mechanisms to facilitate the flow of 
> money away from library acquisition budgets to scholarly 
> societies. Any ideas?
>
> Ian Russell
> CEO, ALPSP
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-liblicense-
>> l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas Krichel
>> Sent: 23 April 2008 00:05
>> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>> Subject: Re: In the news (Georgia State)
>>
>> Ian.Russell writes
>>
>>> So presumably this is one of the journals that Thomas
>>> recommends librarians to cancel?
>>
>> Yes, because it is in Physics, where there is already a lot of
>> open access. Presumably most papers in JHEP can be found on
>> arXiv. The funds saved from cancellations should be used to
>> sponsor scholarly societies or groups to set up open access
>> resources.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Thomas Krichel                    http://openlib.org/home/krichel
>>                                RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
>> phone: +7 383 330 6813                       skype: thomaskrichel