[GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform
In the Open Knowledge Foundation we have a mailing list for exactly that purpose and everyone will be very welcome there: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access We take the view that open access as defined in BBB - declarations is the appropriate use of the term: BOAI 2002: By open access to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself This definition is clear and consistent with many other Open definitions such as OSI (software) and the Open Knowledge Definition ( http://opendefinition.org/ ) “A piece of data or content is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike.” Many of us feel that the lax use of Open in scholarly publishing causes great confusion, substandard products, widely differing practices and even deception and it greatly impoverishes society. Please join us - you will be welcome to express a wide range of views without being preached at to change them. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:30 PM, BAUIN Serge serge.ba...@cnrs-dir.frwrote: Jeroen, Which list? Already existing or starting a new one, let us know, I’m quite interested, and probably not the only one. Cheers Serge *De :* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *De la part de* Bosman, J.M. *Envoyé :* mardi 10 décembre 2013 21:50 *À :* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Objet :* [GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform Stevan, I think it is perfectly possible to discuss and promote experiments with more effective and useful review whilst keeping full force in switching to 100% OA. They are not prerequisites for one another. We cannot stop thinking and hypothesizing about innovation in scholarly communication, but maybe we should take that discussion to another list. Best, Jeroen Op 10 dec. 2013 om 18:46 heeft Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote: Same inkling as Jan Laurent. The way fwd for OAP would be some form of accreditation by repository publisher. One would need to show what review quality assurance mechanism is used, e.g. Pre- Post- Open peer review and demonstrate annually to the accreditation agency that this is what you are doing. The rest can be left to authors, readers and reviewers... Ah me! Are we going to go yet another round of this irrelevant loop? http://j.mp/OAnotPReform The purpose of OA (it's not OAP, it's OA) is to make peer-reviewed research freely accessible online to all of its potential users, webwide, not just to subscribers -- by freeing peer-reviewed research from access tolls, not by freeing it from peer review (nor by first reforming and reassigning peer review). Haven't we already waited long enough? Stevan Harnad Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Laurent Romary Datum:10.12.2013 17:31 (GMT+01:00) An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Pre-publication peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List) Each further day of thinking makes me feel closer and closer to this view. As an author, I just like when colleagues are happy with one of my texts online. As a reviewer I am fed up with unreadable junk. Let us burn together, Jan. Laurent Le 10 déc. 2013 à 15:36, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com a écrit : Sally, May I join you in the ranks of those who risk being pilloried or branded heretics? I think the solution is clear. We should get rid of pre-publication peer review (PPPR) and publish results in open repositories. PPPR is the one thing that keeps the whole publishing system standing, and expensive – in monetary terms, but also in terms of effort expended. It may have some benefits, but we pay very dearly for those. Where are the non-peer-reviewed articles that have caused damage? They may have to public understanding, of course (there's a lot of rubbish on the internet), but to scientific understanding? On the other hand, I can point to peer-reviewed articles that clearly have done damage, particularly to public understanding. Take the Wakefield MMR paper. Had it just been published without peer-review, the damage would likely have been no greater than that of any other drivel on the internet. Its peer-reviewed status, however, gave it far more credibility than it deserved. There are more examples. My assertion: pre-publication peer review is dangerous since it is too easily used
[GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform
Hi Serge The open science list at the Open Knowledge Foundation is always happy to host discussions on innovation in scholarly publishing https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science (600+ members) Post-publication peer review and open peer review are well within our interests. The Force11 community also has a discussion forum for the future of research communication (120+ members) http://www.force11.org/discussions Jenny Jenny Molloy Coordinator, Open Science Working Group Open Knowledge Foundation On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:30 PM, BAUIN Serge serge.ba...@cnrs-dir.frwrote: Jeroen, Which list? Already existing or starting a new one, let us know, I’m quite interested, and probably not the only one. Cheers Serge *De :* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *De la part de* Bosman, J.M. *Envoyé :* mardi 10 décembre 2013 21:50 *À :* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Objet :* [GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform Stevan, I think it is perfectly possible to discuss and promote experiments with more effective and useful review whilst keeping full force in switching to 100% OA. They are not prerequisites for one another. We cannot stop thinking and hypothesizing about innovation in scholarly communication, but maybe we should take that discussion to another list. Best, Jeroen Op 10 dec. 2013 om 18:46 heeft Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote: Same inkling as Jan Laurent. The way fwd for OAP would be some form of accreditation by repository publisher. One would need to show what review quality assurance mechanism is used, e.g. Pre- Post- Open peer review and demonstrate annually to the accreditation agency that this is what you are doing. The rest can be left to authors, readers and reviewers... Ah me! Are we going to go yet another round of this irrelevant loop? http://j.mp/OAnotPReform The purpose of OA (it's not OAP, it's OA) is to make peer-reviewed research freely accessible online to all of its potential users, webwide, not just to subscribers -- by freeing peer-reviewed research from access tolls, not by freeing it from peer review (nor by first reforming and reassigning peer review). Haven't we already waited long enough? Stevan Harnad Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Laurent Romary Datum:10.12.2013 17:31 (GMT+01:00) An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Pre-publication peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List) Each further day of thinking makes me feel closer and closer to this view. As an author, I just like when colleagues are happy with one of my texts online. As a reviewer I am fed up with unreadable junk. Let us burn together, Jan. Laurent Le 10 déc. 2013 à 15:36, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com a écrit : Sally, May I join you in the ranks of those who risk being pilloried or branded heretics? I think the solution is clear. We should get rid of pre-publication peer review (PPPR) and publish results in open repositories. PPPR is the one thing that keeps the whole publishing system standing, and expensive – in monetary terms, but also in terms of effort expended. It may have some benefits, but we pay very dearly for those. Where are the non-peer-reviewed articles that have caused damage? They may have to public understanding, of course (there's a lot of rubbish on the internet), but to scientific understanding? On the other hand, I can point to peer-reviewed articles that clearly have done damage, particularly to public understanding. Take the Wakefield MMR paper. Had it just been published without peer-review, the damage would likely have been no greater than that of any other drivel on the internet. Its peer-reviewed status, however, gave it far more credibility than it deserved. There are more examples. My assertion: pre-publication peer review is dangerous since it is too easily used as an excuse to absolve scientists – and science journalists – from applying sufficient professional skepticism and critical appraisal. Doing away with PPPR will do little damage – if any at all – to science, but removes most barriers to open access and saves the scientific community a hell of a lot of money. The 'heavy lifting is that of cultural change' (crediting William Gunn for that phrase), so I won't hold my breath. Jan Velterop On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:36, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by OA conformists, let me say that – whatever ithe failings of his article – I thank Jeffrey Beall for raising some fundamental questions which are rarely, if ever, addressed. I would put them under two general headings: 1
[GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform
Stevan, I think it is perfectly possible to discuss and promote experiments with more effective and useful review whilst keeping full force in switching to 100% OA. They are not prerequisites for one another. We cannot stop thinking and hypothesizing about innovation in scholarly communication, but maybe we should take that discussion to another list. Best, Jeroen Op 10 dec. 2013 om 18:46 heeft Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.commailto:amscifo...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eumailto:chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote: Same inkling as Jan Laurent. The way fwd for OAP would be some form of accreditation by repository publisher. One would need to show what review quality assurance mechanism is used, e.g. Pre- Post- Open peer review and demonstrate annually to the accreditation agency that this is what you are doing. The rest can be left to authors, readers and reviewers... Ah me! Are we going to go yet another round of this irrelevant loop? http://j.mp/OAnotPReform The purpose of OA (it's not OAP, it's OA) is to make peer-reviewed research freely accessible online to all of its potential users, webwide, not just to subscribers -- by freeing peer-reviewed research from access tolls, not by freeing it from peer review (nor by first reforming and reassigning peer review). Haven't we already waited long enough? Stevan Harnad Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Laurent Romary Datum:10.12.2013 17:31 (GMT+01:00) An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Pre-publication peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List) Each further day of thinking makes me feel closer and closer to this view. As an author, I just like when colleagues are happy with one of my texts online. As a reviewer I am fed up with unreadable junk. Let us burn together, Jan. Laurent Le 10 déc. 2013 à 15:36, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.commailto:velte...@gmail.com a écrit : Sally, May I join you in the ranks of those who risk being pilloried or branded heretics? I think the solution is clear. We should get rid of pre-publication peer review (PPPR) and publish results in open repositories. PPPR is the one thing that keeps the whole publishing system standing, and expensive – in monetary terms, but also in terms of effort expended. It may have some benefits, but we pay very dearly for those. Where are the non-peer-reviewed articles that have caused damage? They may have to public understanding, of course (there's a lot of rubbish on the internet), but to scientific understanding? On the other hand, I can point to peer-reviewed articles that clearly have done damage, particularly to public understanding. Take the Wakefield MMR paper. Had it just been published without peer-review, the damage would likely have been no greater than that of any other drivel on the internet. Its peer-reviewed status, however, gave it far more credibility than it deserved. There are more examples. My assertion: pre-publication peer review is dangerous since it is too easily used as an excuse to absolve scientists – and science journalists – from applying sufficient professional skepticism and critical appraisal. Doing away with PPPR will do little damage – if any at all – to science, but removes most barriers to open access and saves the scientific community a hell of a lot of money. The 'heavy lifting is that of cultural change' (crediting William Gunn for that phrase), so I won't hold my breath. Jan Velterop On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:36, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukmailto:sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by OA conformists, let me say that – whatever ithe failings of his article – I thank Jeffrey Beall for raising some fundamental questions which are rarely, if ever, addressed. I would put them under two general headings: 1) What is the objective of OA? I originally understood the objective to be to make scholarly research articles, in some form, accessible to all those who needed to read them. Subsequent refinements such as 'immediately', 'published version' and 'free to reuse' may have acquired quasi-religious status, but are surely secondary to this main objective. However, two other, financial, objectives (linked to each other, but not to the above) have gained increasing prominence. The first is the alleged cost saving (or at least cost shifting). The second - more malicious, and originally (but no longer) denied by OA's main proponents - is the undermining of publishers' businesses. If this were to work, we may be sure the effects would not be choosy about 'nice' or 'nasty' publishers. 2) Why hasn't OA been widely adopted by now? If – as we have been repetitively assured over many years – OA is self-evidently the right thing for scholars to do, why
[GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform
Jeroen, Which list? Already existing or starting a new one, let us know, I'm quite interested, and probably not the only one. Cheers Serge De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de Bosman, J.M. Envoyé : mardi 10 décembre 2013 21:50 À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Objet : [GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform Stevan, I think it is perfectly possible to discuss and promote experiments with more effective and useful review whilst keeping full force in switching to 100% OA. They are not prerequisites for one another. We cannot stop thinking and hypothesizing about innovation in scholarly communication, but maybe we should take that discussion to another list. Best, Jeroen Op 10 dec. 2013 om 18:46 heeft Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.commailto:amscifo...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eumailto:chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote: Same inkling as Jan Laurent. The way fwd for OAP would be some form of accreditation by repository publisher. One would need to show what review quality assurance mechanism is used, e.g. Pre- Post- Open peer review and demonstrate annually to the accreditation agency that this is what you are doing. The rest can be left to authors, readers and reviewers... Ah me! Are we going to go yet another round of this irrelevant loop? http://j.mp/OAnotPReform The purpose of OA (it's not OAP, it's OA) is to make peer-reviewed research freely accessible online to all of its potential users, webwide, not just to subscribers -- by freeing peer-reviewed research from access tolls, not by freeing it from peer review (nor by first reforming and reassigning peer review). Haven't we already waited long enough? Stevan Harnad Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Laurent Romary Datum:10.12.2013 17:31 (GMT+01:00) An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Pre-publication peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List) Each further day of thinking makes me feel closer and closer to this view. As an author, I just like when colleagues are happy with one of my texts online. As a reviewer I am fed up with unreadable junk. Let us burn together, Jan. Laurent Le 10 déc. 2013 à 15:36, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.commailto:velte...@gmail.com a écrit : Sally, May I join you in the ranks of those who risk being pilloried or branded heretics? I think the solution is clear. We should get rid of pre-publication peer review (PPPR) and publish results in open repositories. PPPR is the one thing that keeps the whole publishing system standing, and expensive - in monetary terms, but also in terms of effort expended. It may have some benefits, but we pay very dearly for those. Where are the non-peer-reviewed articles that have caused damage? They may have to public understanding, of course (there's a lot of rubbish on the internet), but to scientific understanding? On the other hand, I can point to peer-reviewed articles that clearly have done damage, particularly to public understanding. Take the Wakefield MMR paper. Had it just been published without peer-review, the damage would likely have been no greater than that of any other drivel on the internet. Its peer-reviewed status, however, gave it far more credibility than it deserved. There are more examples. My assertion: pre-publication peer review is dangerous since it is too easily used as an excuse to absolve scientists - and science journalists - from applying sufficient professional skepticism and critical appraisal. Doing away with PPPR will do little damage - if any at all - to science, but removes most barriers to open access and saves the scientific community a hell of a lot of money. The 'heavy lifting is that of cultural change' (crediting William Gunn for that phrase), so I won't hold my breath. Jan Velterop On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:36, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukmailto:sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by OA conformists, let me say that - whatever ithe failings of his article - I thank Jeffrey Beall for raising some fundamental questions which are rarely, if ever, addressed. I would put them under two general headings: 1) What is the objective of OA? I originally understood the objective to be to make scholarly research articles, in some form, accessible to all those who needed to read them. Subsequent refinements such as 'immediately', 'published version' and 'free to reuse' may have acquired quasi-religious status, but are surely secondary to this main objective. However, two other, financial, objectives (linked to each other, but not to the above) have gained increasing prominence. The first is the alleged cost saving (or at least cost shifting). The second - more malicious
