RE: In the news (Georgia State)

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-llists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-
> llists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph J. Esposito
> Sent: 25 April 2008 00:41
> To: liblicense-llists.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.russellcytherean.co.uk>
> To: <liblicense-llists.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