RE: In the news (Georgia State)

["Ian.Russell" <ian.russell@cytherean.co.uk>]

Not wishing to split hairs, Joe, but Paul Ginsparg didn't 
separate certification and dissemination - the high energy 
physics community had done that already.  For years they had 
shared preprints with the rest of the (fairly small) community. 
What arXiv did was make that process faster, cheaper and more 
convenient.  That's why it didn't take a government mandate to 
force authors to use it.

As David notes there is still an interesting relationship between 
arXiv and journals - at least in high energy physics.  Most of 
the readership comes from arXiv, but the libraries for the time 
being are still subscribing to the journals.  For how much longer 
I wonder... the academics seem to understand the value that the 
journals add, so maybe forever!

Ian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-liblicense-
> l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph J. Esposito
> Sent: 25 April 2008 00:41
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: In the news (Georgia State)
>
> 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