Dear All, I should have known better and not challenged a contributor to 'New Scientist'! How was I to know that Stevan Harnad had not only compiled a list of 22 fallacies about the barriers / negative consequences of e-archiving but supplied comprehensive refutations, as he sees it, for each of them?
My main fallacy is not included in the list, but Stevan conjectured it correctly nevertheless: My wording of fallacy 1: Let us assume for a moment that the total amount of research money and number of tenured posts is stable. If more researchers improve their impact ratings (let us further assume that these are based on the total number of citations all their (major) publications received) by making their output more accessible on the Web, the baseline for successful research application will be lifted from, say, 50 cites to 100 cites for all. The number of grant applicants may increase, but not the success rate. The composition of the group of successful research applicants may change, not the total number. The number of disappointed applicants may increase and the sum total of happiness in the research community may decrease. Stevan's much more elegant phrasing: If everyone self-archives, thereby freeing access to every refereed paper, then everyone's ABSOLUTE impact may increase (more readers, more citations all round), but their RELATIVE impact may not. (So there will be no added help with getting grants and tenure.) He had a refutation of this fallacy ready, implying amongst other things that the scientific community as a whole will be better off if the e-archiving projects became reality. That may be so, but then again, it may not. We are not talking real fallacies here, e.g. the gamblers fallacy which is demonstrably wrong, but presumed events in the future. They are particularly difficult to predict when they involve technical innovations without parallel social change, and improved human intercation. I do therefore not accept his refutation and can only award him half the internal prize money. However, as Stevan alerted me to a number of points and splendid discussion-lists about e-archiving, widened the discussion, and even helped me to improve the wording of my challenge, a book token of PS 20.00 goes to Stevan Harnad. Nobody else guessed this main fallacy or another three I had in mind correctly, and I could if I wanted hold on to the original external prize money of £20.00. Albert Henderson supplied a list of 8 fallacies about e-archiving, not including any I had in mind. During the debate about this challenge, however, imputations were made about his motives (as I understand it, he has in the past associated with librarians or even publishers (now, really!)). Therefore: Three crisp US 5.00 bills to Albert Henderson out of solidarity. As far as I can see, the original New Scientist's article which prompted me to issue this challenge is not available freely on the Web. For spotting this irony in the first place a book token of PS 10.00 goes to Valerie Hamilton. Since issuing the challenge I have thought of a definite limitation of e-archiving: The list of references in e-archived articles will never look as beautiful as the ones produced by publishers' professional proof readers, copy editors and other valuable members of a publishing team. I can send a sample (in colour!) of such a list to anybody doubting that statement and also some pictures of what professional copy editors (what a splendid body of people!) are up to in their spare time. This challenge is now closed: I have no more money to spare: I want to go to Tennessee in the fall. But let the discussion continue, Best wishes and thanks to all contributors, Reinhard Wentz Declaration of interest: I am a librarian, my partner is a professional editor and translator Reinhard Wentz, Dipl. gepr. Bibl. (Han.) 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]
