Hi,
2 topics : > (1) For some odd reason, Jean-Claude is accusing me of censorship: I I did not follow this specific case, but I have personally been censored rather often (compared to the number of times I tried to contribute). I do not have a reputation of being off topic in the other forums where I usually speak. for what this is worth : Of course, no one here can assess whether what I am saying is right, since my words did not get through. ------ BTW, since I am talking. Is there an interest in orphan works on this list. I am asking because many scientific publications have a potential to become orphan works : since the author does not get royalties, he has no incentive to leave personal information to be tracked after he ceases to be an active professional. I am asking because, though the proposed legislation on orphan works seems rather well designed in the USA, there are very different proposals in Europe that may reveal dangerous. In a nutshell, orphan works would be managed by collective management organizations mostly controled by publishers. Where that would lead us is anyone's guess. Bernard Lang * Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> note le 02-10-08 : > Summary: > > (1) For some odd reason, Jean-Claude is accusing me of censorship: I > wonder why? since every single one of his postings to the AmSci Forum > has appeared, in full, as he can confirm by consulting the archive: > http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html > > (2) Everyone, including the moderator, has the right to post replies > to the AmSci Forum, just as Jean-Claude does. The moderator's replies > have no special status, one way or the other, other than what status > they may earn through their substance. > > (3) My own frequent strategy in these exchanges with Jean-Claude (as > anyone who looks over those sad sections of the AmSci Archive can > confirm) has been to cease replying once Jean-Claude lapses into > flaming, as he alas almost invariably does, at least in his exchanges > with me. (I was on the verge of prepending that caveat to my own first > reply in this latest series, to the effect that I would reply for the > moment, but if and when Jean-Claude started flaming again, the floor > was his alone. Well, I hereby postpend that now. The Forum is all > yours, Jean-Claude.) > > Imprimi potest! > > Stephanus Primus > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I find this form of behaviour unacceptable. It borders on unacknowledged > > censorship. > > > > Let me give a quick example: I never conflated citability and branding, but > > Stevan does in his "summary". So beware of Stevan's "summaries". They read > > more like polemical devices or editorials. > > > > It also and clearly illustrates how he often misreads what people write. > > > > I call on Stevan simply to post the whole message I sent last night. It is > > not very long and it points out how Stevan does not dialogue well. > > > > It is not for him, as moderator, to judge what is tedious or not, > > monumentally trivial or not. A moderator should address the issue of > > relevance, not tediousness. He or she should also carefully distinguish > > between his (her) role as moderator and as party in a discussion. > > > > Perhaps Stevan should give up the moderation of this list and thus enjoy > > greater polemical freedom. > > > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > > > Le mercredi 01 octobre 2008 à 09:19 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > > > > I think AmSci Forum readers may be finding this exchange rather > > tedious. I will summarize, and then let Jean-Claude have the last word. > > > > (1) Jean-Claude thinks there is a problem for specifying the locus of > > quoted passages when citing a work if the pagination of the OA > > postprint one has accessed differs from the pagination of the > > publisher's PDF. > > > > (2) He does not like the solution of citing the published work, as > > usual, linking the postprint's URL, for quote-checking, and specifying > > the locus of the quote by paragraph number instead of page number. > > > > (3) He prefers to upgrade the status of the postprint in some way, so > > as to "brand" it as "citable," and then citing the postprint instead > > of citing the published work. > > > > Judicat Emptor. This strikes me as a monumentally trivial non-problem > > and an unnecessary and incoherent proposed solution. > > > > Stevan Harnad > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sigh... I will respond below > >> > >> Le mardi 30 septembre 2008 à 17:48 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > >> > >> Jean-Claude Guedon thinks that because an article published by Joe > >> Bloggs in Nature (2008, volume X, Number Y, pp NN-MM) is not OA, and > >> Joe Bloggs's OA postprint of the final, refereed draft of his Nature > >> article, self-archived in his Institional Repository (IR), is > >> unpaginated, hence one cannot specify the location of a quoted passage > >> in the Nature version except by paragraph number, one should not cite > >> the Nature version, but the self-archived postprint. > >> > >> 1. I am not going to introduce a new way of locating quotations by using > >> paragraph numbers. I do not even feel like counting paragraphs. > >> > >> 2. I never said that the archived article was unpaginated; I said it may > >> be > >> paginated differently from the journal pagination. > >> > >> 3. It is not that one should not cite the Nature version; it is that one > >> cannot cite the Nature version completely. > >> > >> What I ask is: What does it mean to "cite" the postprint of a > >> published Nature article? I would think you cite the publication, the > >> Nature article, and give the URL of the postprint for access purposes. > >> > >> So I have a quote and I refer to the journal article and its general > >> citation, and then I send the reader to the archived version and explain > >> how > >> to find the exact passage in the archived version? This is quite > >> complicated, it seems to me. > >> > >> Jean-Claude seems to think the postprint itself should be upgraded > >> into a "publication" in its own right: How? And what does that mean? > >> > >> It is not upgraded into a publication. It is de facto a publication. The > >> article has been peer reviewed and it is publicly accessible. > >> > >> That instead of proudly listing his paper in his CV as having been > >> published by Nature, a peer-reviewed journal of some repute, Joe > >> Bloggs should list it as having been published by his own > >> Institutional Repository? > >> > >> That again is stretching my words in strange directions. I am pointing to > >> something lacking in referring precisely to a quotation. This does not > >> prevent me from putting the journal reference (and the repository > >> reference) > >> in my cv. I dom not even begin to understand how that issue ever arose. > >> > >> And what does "published" mean under these > >> circumstances? With Nature, it means Nature conducted a peer review, > >> to determine whether the article met Nature's quality standards. > >> > >> the self-archived article is the same as the peer reviewed article in the > >> journal. The archived article will also mention the general citation from > >> the journal. It may even link to that journal. This still does not allow > >> me > >> to clarify completely a specific quotation from the journal. But the > >> article > >> in the repository has clearly been perr reviewed. No problem there. > >> > >> Is > >> the author's institution to conduct yet another "peer review" on the > >> same peer-reviewed article, to determine whether it has met that > >> institution's quality standards? Why? > >> > >> I never said that. > >> > >> And would this mean that all > >> postprints in that IR meet the same quality standards (Nature's)? > >> > >> I never even began to come close to this issue. Please read what I write > >> carefully. > >> > >> Sounds closer to in-house vanity publishing to me, except that it's > >> more like in-house vanity RE-publishing. > >> > >> I suppose so, but it does not concern me. I never said that. This is > >> science-fiction. > >> > >> I think this line of thinking is not only unrealistic but incoherent > >> -- and, most of all, unnecessary, since it is trying to "solve" a > >> non-existent problem: What work to cite when you have access only to > >> the OA postprint of a published article? The answer is obvious: You > >> cite the *published article*, and add the OA postprint's URL to the > >> citation for those who cannot afford access to the publisher's > >> proprietary version. (And quote passages by paragraph number.) > >> > >> The proposed solution is not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory because, > >> when I give a reference to a precise quote, I must add the page number. > >> Now, > >> this page number may mean nothing to citation calculators, but it means a > >> whole lot to the reader and to the conventions carefully taught in class > >> about ways to cite a quotation in a scholarly piece of work. Adding a URL > >> is > >> not enough. For example, if someone wants to quote my quotation, that > >> person > >> should be able to quote an original source, not a derivative. If that > >> person > >> does not have access to the journal either, the problem I initially > >> encountered recurs for that second author. > >> > >> Jean-Claude Guédon > >> > >> Stevan Harnad > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Quoting means extracting a passage from a text and inserting it within > >>> another text one is writing. It is often placed within quotation marks, > >>> but > >>> not always as quoting conventions obey complex and variable rules. Citing > >>> means giving a reference for a quoted text, or for some facts or opinions > >>> found in another article, book, etc. This distinction has been dealt with > >>> repeatedly in the past. > >>> > >>> Even if I follow Stevan's distinction, I need both to quote and cite (in > >>> Stevan's sense of the words) when I work and I cannot be satisfied with > >>> only > >>> citing. I am not the only to have this need. Consequently, not having > >>> access > >>> to the citable version prevents me from doing all of my work because the > >>> precise location of what I need remains unknown to me. However, if an IR > >>> declares that an article under its stewardship is also citable, then, I > >>> can > >>> do all my work, including giving a precise location for a quotation, or a > >>> fact, or an opinion, etc. This simply means that I recognize the IR as a > >>> publication instrument, i.e. it makes documents public and not simply as > >>> a > >>> collection of texts open to reading and nothing else. In fact, limiting > >>> IR > >>> texts only to reading would contravene the requirements for something to > >>> be > >>> truly in open access. > >>> > >>> At this junction, the question of which version(s) is (are) reference > >>> versions emerges. I submit that articles archived in IR's can become > >>> references as much as the version appearing in a journal. > >>> > >>> There is a well-known precedent for this. Articles are sometimes > >>> reprinted > >>> in a different journal or an anthology. Once this is done, either version > >>> can be cited and is cited. Sometimes, it is the reprinted version that > >>> becomes the better known citation. > >>> > >>> Stevan may not like this line of reasoning because it blurs the > >>> distinction > >>> he tries so hard to maintain between journals and IR's. His thesis is > >>> that > >>> IR's and journals can coexist simply because they do not fulfil at all > >>> the > >>> same functions. However, this is Stevan's thesis, not a universally > >>> accepted situation and it cannot be mistaken for a fact. A more sensible > >>> representation of reality is to state that the functions of journals and > >>> IR's, although not identical, overlap. We can then discuss the amount of > >>> overlap. > >>> > >>> To say this amounts to claim a publishing role for IR's and for > >>> self-archiving. I claim that role. The fact that IR's can be harvested by > >>> powerful search engines supports the thesis that depositing an article in > >>> an > >>> IR is a form of publishing. Only if IR's worked like the drawer of my > >>> desk > >>> (which I gladly leave in open access to anyone wanting to access it), > >>> could > >>> we say that it is not a form of publishing. IR's are not shy silos of > >>> knowledge that just sit there, in open access, but with no way to attract > >>> attentiuon to themselves. on the contrary, they can be found and used > >>> thanks > >>> to some Google scholar or OAIster. > >>> > >>> The relationship between an article published in a journal and another > >>> version residing in a repository is quite different from that between an > >>> original piece of art and a copy. I believe Walter Benjamin has meditated > >>> significantly on this topic (The Work of Art in the Age of its > >>> Technological > >>> Reproducibility). The article in the repository is not a copy of an > >>> original > >>> article; it is a version of an article. The journal article is also a > >>> version, another version, and nothing more. The article is identified by > >>> its > >>> title XXXX and its author(s) YYYYY and its content. This is how copyright > >>> law would identify it. The ways in which a given version is branded > >>> depends > >>> on a number of variables (authors' names, authors' institutions, journal > >>> titles, etc. ). For the moment, IR's do not yet know very well how to > >>> brand, but nothing prevents thinking about ways to achieve this result. > >>> Personally, I believe we should be thinking hard about this precise > >>> issue. > >> > >> Jean-Claude Guédon > >> Université de Montréal > > > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > Université de Montréal -- Le brevet logiciel menace votre entreprise Software patents threaten your company Soutenez la Majorité Économique - Support the Economic Majority http://www.economic-majority.com/ [email protected] ,_ /\o \o/ Tel +33 1 3963 5644 http://bat8.inria.fr/~lang/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Fax +33 1 3963 5469 INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
