Re Reinhard Wentz's challenge [copied below]: Fallacies abound in this forum. We should all be able to identify many of them, asserted and implied, without needing to read the New Scientist.
The following come to mind: FALLACY 1. Scientists give away their reports and copyrights. Any economist that I have discussed this with disagrees. Scientists (and scholars) exchange their reports for effective dissemination services and the unique recognition provided by publishers who organize new knowledge with authority. Obviously the exchange has value to both parties. Authors struggle to be accepted by the publishers of their choice. Publishers compete for authors but may reject work and require revisions. FALLACY 2. Authors can legally leave the preprint version of an article up by adding "corrigenda" after transferring copyright to the publisher. No copyright attorney that I know would agree with this. It is a clear case of wilfull infringment. Having transferred copyright, the author is obligated to delete the preprint or be a party to Napster-like infringment. Moreover, the preprint server is probably also liable. FALLACY 3. Use of the word "archive" to describe unreviewed preprints. "Archive" has long been associated with peer-reviewed journals such as Archives of Internal Medicine and with research libraries that are selective about what they keep. This usage is a pathetic plea for status, much like sewage processors claiming to be "water recovery plants." Speaking of sewage, the problem with the usage is that mixing unreviewed preprints with published papers will confuse readers. You wouldn't offer sewer water side by side with 7-up and Coke and offer it to your trusting children, would you? The misleading usage is an open invitation for fraudulent promotion of unsafe and ineffective products presented as "research." Freedom of speech issues do not excuse the reckless and uncaring mixing of dangerous material with original research. Another problem is that the word "archive" is being used to market the displacement of libraries, librarians, editors, and publishers with the notion that a computer can replace them all, and very cheaply. FALLACY 4. Peer review is certification of quality. But not of results. Most peer review of published articles is done in a few hours and without examining the authors' original data. Because of the impoverishment of their libraries and the slowness of interlibrary loan, referees are unable to check unfamiliar works cited in a paper under review. Yes, referees are not likely to be experts on the topic they review according to one study published recently. FALLACY 5. "Do-it-yourself" Self-archiving by authors will solve scientists' communication problems. Even Paul Ginsparg has noted that an intellectual non-automated approach is needed. The literature is too massive and chaotic, the scientific community is too broad and unruly, and the ability of any individual (no matter how large the ego) to keep on top is doubtful. Like the responsibility for workers' safety, the burden of intelligence must be supported from the top. Like the issue of safety, the people at the top would just rather save money. Sputnik, like the Shirtwaist factory fire, shook them out of this groove for a while. FALLACY 6. Authors' income results from the impact of their findings. While publication helps substantiate a scientists capcity for research, there is no provable relationship between authorship and income. The most prolific authors achieve tenure early on. Most gainfully employed authors produce only 1 or 2 papers in their lifetime. Many scientists and engineers publish nothing at all. Well-paid industrial technical consulting is more likely to involve trade secrets rather than open communications. I recall that the Association of Research Libraries Serials Prices Project also stepped in this hold, accusing researchers of excessive publishing! FALLACY 7. Universities are too poor to maintain self-sufficient collections. In the United States, at any rate, it is clear that higher education institutions have increased their profitability at the expense of their libraries for over 30 years. FALLACY 8. Science budgets cannot afford dissemination. Science budgets seem to aim for high employment and a high rate of grant renewals. Why? Dwight Eisenhower (former president of Columbia University) pointed out that the government contract has replaced curiosity as a motive. Newt Gingrich once noted that science bureaucrats don't care about results. A science policy that cares about results cannot afford not to support libraries as the core of a private enterprise market that responds -- far better than any bureaucrat -- to wants, needs, and demands. The 1960s were a golden age of science in the US partly because the growth of spending on science was matched by spending on libraries. Is 8 enough for now? Albert Henderson <[email protected]> -------------Forwarded Message----------------- List-Post: [email protected] List-Post: [email protected] Date: 5/24/2001 7:04 AM RE: e-Archiving Challenge Dear Colleagues, This week's New Scientist (26.05.01), apart from being substantially about complementary medicine, contains a boxed article (p.53) by Stevan Harnad on e-archiving copyrighted, peer-reviewed research findings on the Web to make them more widely available for free to all fellow researchers. I think the article suggests that this will improve researchers' chances to achieve higher impact factors and better success in getting research grants and (eventually) tenured academic posts. I believe the reasoning behind these conclusions contains at least one major fallacy and several sub-fallacies. Can you spot them? I offer a book-token of £20.00 for the best suggestion. As the article is, I believe, written with the tongue slightly in the cheek, I don't want to appear too serious with this offer, but would like to have the fallacies brought into the open nevertheless ... Best wishes, Reinhard Reinhard Wentz, Dipl. Bibl. Imperial College Library Service Medical Library Chelsea & Westminster Hospital 369, Fulham Road London SW10 9NH tel.: 0044 (0)20 8746 8109 fax.: 0044 (0)20 8746 8215 e-mail: [email protected] P.S. Stevan Harnad knows about this challenge and has already claimed the prize money. So I may have to double it (£20.00 to him, £20.00 to AN Other) if I am satisfied with his explanations. If there are many contributions I may have to appoint un-biased assessors and anonymise the entries. Oh dear!
