RE: Darnton on the Google settlement

[Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>]

The point is that the Harvard and other such initiatives are 
fostering a culture of relying for most uses on the worse 
versions of articles when better versions exist. That only 
reinforces the flattening effect of Internet availability on 
quality in scholarship: whatever is most readily, and most 
cheaply, available will be preferred for all but perhaps archival 
purposes. Is this another application of Gresham's law, viz., the 
bad driving out the good?

Sandy Thatcher
Penn State University Press

>I 'm not really sure what we are debating now.  Your original
>point, of objection I thought, was that some materials being made
>open access were not copyedited.  Now, you are agreeing with me
>that there can be is value in having access to un-copyedited
>material.
>
>Is the point just that good copyediting is better than either bad
>copyediting or no copyediting at all?  Isn't that trivially
>obvious?
>
>David
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sandy Thatcher
>Sent: 04 February 2009 23:15
>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.
>
>I never claimed uncopyedited documents were valueless, and there
>are undoubtedly some authors who need little or no copyediting
>because they are very careful and good writers. Nor does
>copyediting provide any guarantee that errors are not still
>present. It is just that, on balance, well-copyedited documents
>are likely to be more more valuable, especially for long-term
>archiving, than ones where no copyediting has been done at all.
>
>>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?
>
>Not at all. I was a member of the ETD committee at Penn State
>because I saw great advantages in having these materials more
>widely distributed. At the same time, in my job I read many, many
>revised dissertations as well as some unrevised ones, and I can
>tell you that there are very few indeed that cannot benefit
>greatly from good copyediting.
>
>>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?
>
>My suspicions are aroused when OA journals do not charge any fees
>to authors and are not subsidized by any foundations because I do
>not know of many universities these days that will spend money to
>purchase copyediting services. Perhaps the journal editors do
>some copyediting themselves. A few may be good at it; most very
>likely are not. But it would be interesting to find out how many
>OA journals include copyediting in the services they provide.
>This information is not apparent anywhere on the web sites of OA
>journals I have visited. We know that hybrid OA journals, like
>those Oxford provides, do.
>
>>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.
>
>I stand corrected. But I suspect that far more publishers permit
>posting of post-prints than of the final versions of articles. Do
>you know of any list of publishers that insist on the posting
>only of final versions?
>
>Sandy Thatcher
>Penn State University Press