RE: Certification and Dissemination

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

But in order to have BOTH, you have to pay for BOTH and that 
means paying both for repository dissemination and for peer 
review either using the established subscription model, author 
side payment (gold) open access or some other method...

You don't get both by imposing unfunded mandates like that 
announced by Southampton University.

And this is my point:  Whilst I agree with the argument that the 
output of publicly funded research (or from a research 
institution) - which is the author's original article - should be 
freely available to the public, I do not believe that the 
'refereed postprint' (to use your terminology, I prefer 'accepted 
manuscript') should necessarily be freely given away.  That 
decision should be up to the organization that added the value by 
peer reviewing it and associating it with its brand.

What right, exactly, do those imposing unfunded mandates have to 
stipulate that the value added in this way be given up for no 
compensation?

Of course, the authors have the right to choose where to publish 
and long may that continue.

In anticipation of arguments that peer review is done 'for free' 
I hasten to add that (i) this isn't the only value added (ii) 
operating peer review processes are very expensive and that (iii) 
referees have the choice whether or not to give their time and 
expertise to peer review articles (those investing in peer review 
are given no choice regarding whether or not to give away the 
fruits of their labours by unfunded mandates).

Ian Russell
Chief Executive, ALPSP

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-liblicense-
> l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 25 April 2008 14:44
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Certification and Dissemination
>
> It's not that the author must choose (1) (journal) 
> certification OR (2) (OA repository) dissemination: The right 
> choice is of course BOTH (1) journal certification (peer 
> review) AND (2) repository dissemination (OA self-archiving).
>
> Joseph Esposito seems to keep wanting to imagine that what is 
> being self-archived is only or mostly unrefereed preprints 
> (and, he goes on to imagine: preprints never even destined to 
> go on to become refereed postprints).
>
> It would be a good idea to look at what it is that the 41 
> self-archiving mandates in ROARMAP are actually stipulating 
> must be deposited. (Without a single exception, it is the 
> refereed postprint.) http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Joseph J. Esposito wrote:
>
>> 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