RE: Certification and Dissemination

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-llists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-
> llists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 25 April 2008 14:44
> To: liblicense-llists.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