RE: Darnton on the Google settlement

["Sally Morris \(Morris Associates\)" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>]

David asks for evidence.  Here's some:

In the survey done by Kaufman-Wills Associates in 2005 for ALPSP, 
while 72% of OA journals reported that they did any copy-editing 
(for style and grammar) of research articles, almost 100% of the 
non-OA journals did so.

As far as substantive editing of content is concerned, only 34% 
of OA journals did any, and around 50% of non-OA journals.

Sally Morris
Email: sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: 02 February 2009 23:02
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Darnton on the Google settlement

Sandy

It is certainly true that copy-editing can add value, but it is 
not true that un-copyedited documents are valueless.  Many 
disciplines are very comfortable with un-copyedited papers - from 
physics (though arXiv), economics (with working papers), and 
biomedicine (with some publishers making pre-copyedited 
manuscripts available on acceptance).  The circulation of these 
thousands of documents is not causing any appreciable harm to the 
academic enterprise.

And what is the alternative?  That the theses and dissertations, 
for example, from our universities should be kept under lock and 
key, never to be seen?

I'm also sure that there are any number of OA journals that do 
little or no copyediting.  But I'm also sure that there are any 
number of subscription-based journals that do little of no 
copyediting.  Do you have any evidence that the average standard 
of copyediting for OA journals is lower than the average standard 
of copyediting for subscription-based journals?

And your definition of Green OA is wrong - green OA is the 
deposit of authors' papers in suitable repositories.  There is 
nothing in the definition that dictates which version is used. 
Some publishers, in fact, insist that the final, copyedited and 
formatted version is the only one that authors should use.

Best wishes

David

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sandy Thatcher
Sent: 30 January 2009 04:02
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Darnton on the Google settlement

I don't doubt you're right, David, but Green OA papers are, by
definition, not copyedited, dissertations never are, and I'm sure
there are any number of OA journals that do little or no
copyediting. If my assumption is right, based on the evidence I
have, then a lot of research is being shared with plenty of
mistakes in it, which as one study showed with respect to
citations and quotations simply get repeated ad nauseum because
scholars rarely go back to check the original sources.

>If the contents of local IRs were only available locally then
>Jan may just be right.  But we have the internet now.  Local
>content is available internationally.  And if it is open it can
>be federated and re-used and re-purposed.  The local
>OAI-compliant IR is, in many cases, less 'atomistic' than many
>international journals with limited circulation.
>
>We are seeing the effects of this, anecdotally, with the offers
>of international collaboration to researchers who have
>depositing their papers locally, the students offered
>international post-graduate positions after depositing their
>theses, etc.  Open access through IRs has the potential to make
>research more international, more collaborative, not less.
>
>David
>
>David Prosser
>Director, SPARC Europe