Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
Dear Jim, My apologies for the delay replying to your message. As I announced recently in a separate message (http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind01L=september98-forumF=lS= P=67394) I am very pleased to inform participants of this forum that the CPS is now fully compliant with the Open Archives Initiative protocol. Registration details may be viewed at http://www.openarchives.org/Register/BrowseSites.pl. Thank you for your other questions and comments. I have responded to these below. In the previous message you wrote: [jw] For the sign-posting criterion, I agree that it is important to [jw] provide authors with the ability to link to the published version. [snip] [jw] After the first version of the preprint has been submitted, the [jw] author (and only the author) is presented with three hyperlinks when [jw] they access their article page: 1) Add more supplementary files; [jw] 2) Revise the full text of the preprint; 3) Redirect to the [jw] published article. This redirection is achieved using the LitLink [jw] technology of MDL Information Systems. If I understand correctly, these options are not mutually-exclusive? The author may add more supplementary files or revise the full text of the preprint at any time during the research process. These options are indeed not mutually exclusive. However, once access to the final version has been redirected, authors are no longer able to revise the full-text of the article further, or add more supplementary files. You then commented (re the 3rd option): [jw] When users then view the article page, they are presented with a [jw] Published full text link. When this link is accessed, LitLink [jw] resolves the citation and finds from where the article may be [jw] downloaded. Clearly, if this is from a publisher's website, users [jw] would typically have to pay for access. However, all of the other [jw] information - including the preprint meta-data and any other files [jw] uploaded to the server - do of course remain completely free to [jw] access on the CPS. So, if authors choose the 3rd option, a link to the published version is added to the preprint that's posted at the CPS. Am I correct to conclude that, when the 3rd option is chosen by an author, the original full text of the preprint (plus any supplementary files) can still be accessed on the CPS? Yes, the original version and all supplementary files remain fully-accessible after access to the final version has been redirected. Some authors have also uploaded versions of the full-text article into the supplementary files section. This could include, for example, an HTML version of the full-text which is created in PDF format as standard. Can you easily measure what proportion of authors have (so far) chosen the 3rd option? Of those authors whose preprints that have subsequently been published in the peer-reviewed literature, I wonder what proportion have chosen the 3rd option, what proportion have added the relevant hyperlink into the discussion thread for their own preprint, and what proportion have done nothing about providing a link to the published version? I have looked through the preprints posted to date and 11 of the 333 articles have had the access redirected. It is more difficult to judge how many more have gone on to be published. However, I have seen a number of author comments such as This paper has been submitted to... and This paper has now been published in... and you may also access the published version at It would certainly be very interesting to investigate this further. I hope that these comments have helped to answer your questions. I would of course welcome more questions, comments or opinions on the Chemistry Preprint Server from any participant of this forum. Best regards, James James Weeks Chemistry Preprint Server Coordinator, ChemWeb Inc. 84 Theobald's Road London WC1X 8RR United Kingdom Tel:+44 (0) 20 7611 4480 Fax:+44 (0) 20 7611 4301 Email: james.we...@chemweb.com Web:http://www.chemweb.com, http://preprint.chemweb.com ___
Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
I am very pleased to announce that the Chemistry Preprint Server (CPS) - http://preprint.chemweb.com - is now compliant with version 1.1 of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) protocol. Registration details may be viewed on the OAI site - http://www.openarchives.org/Register/BrowseSites.pl. It has been a high priority to achieve compliance with the OAI because ChemWeb has continually developed the CPS as a service for the worldwide chemical community. We would of course welcome any feedback or comments on the service. Best regards, James Weeks [Questions and comments regarding the CPS have been posted to various lists. For this reason please forgive any cross-posting.] __ James Weeks Chemistry Preprint Server Coordinator ChemWeb Inc. 84 Theobald's Road London WC1X 8RR United Kingdom Tel:+44 (0) 20 7611 4480 Fax:+44 (0) 20 7611 4301 Email: james.we...@chemweb.com http://preprint.chemweb.com http://www.chemweb.com _
Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
Dear Jim,
Thank you very much for your questions and interest in the CPS.
The CPS should indeed satisfy the inter-operability criterion when we
achieve compliance with the Open Archives Initiative. It is our intention
that the CPS will be compliant at the start of October.
I also agree that the views and ranking statistics could provide
indicators for the impact of a particular preprint. By a citation data
indicator, I understand that the impact would be ascertained by examining
the number of other papers (both inside and outside the server) which cite
that preprint. This is an interesting idea and I would certainly like to
like to learn more about how this could be achieved.
For the sign-posting criterion, I agree that it is important to provide
authors with the ability to link to the published version. As you mention,
this is currently possible by adding the relevant hyperlink into the
discussion group of a particular preprint.
I would like to add that authors of preprints submitted to the CPS also have
the option to redirect the final version of the preprint to the final
version on the publisher's website, if and when the preprint is published.
After the first version of the preprint has been submitted, the author (and
only the author) is presented with three hyperlinks when they access their
article page: 1) Add more supplementary files; 2) Revise the full text of
the preprint; 3) Redirect to the published article. This redirection is
achieved using the LitLink technology of MDL Information Systems. The author
would submit the ISSN of the journal, the year, volume and starting page
number. When users then view the article page, they are presented with a
Published full text link. When this link is accessed, LitLink resolves
the citation and finds from where the article may be downloaded. Clearly, if
this is from a publisher's website, users would typically have to pay for
access. However, all of the other information - including the preprint
meta-data and any other files uploaded to the server - do of course remain
completely free to access on the CPS.
In terms of this sign-posting, I do think that it is equally important
that other authors link back to references which appear on preprint servers.
Every article that is uploaded to the CPS is given its own citation
reference in the form CPS: category/YYMMNNN where 'category' is the
chemistry classification to which the preprint was submitted, 'YY' is the
year, 'MM' the month, and 'NNN' represents the number of preprints submitted
to that category in the month. In a similar manner, the article is also
given a friendly URL - http://preprint.chemweb.com/category/YYMMNNN. If a
user accesses this URL they are taken directly to the article, without
having to first browse through the server. In this way, it is easy for
authors to reference the CPS preprints.
I hope that this helps to clarify. Any suggestions or comments would of
course be very welcome.
Kind regards,
James
James Weeks
Chemistry Preprint Server Coordinator
ChemWeb Inc.
84 Theobald's Road
London WC1X 8RR
United Kingdom
Tel:+44 (0) 20 7611 4480
Fax:+44 (0) 20 7611 4301
Email: james.we...@chemweb.com
http://preprint.chemweb.com
http://www.chemweb.com
___
-Original Message-
From: Jim Till [mailto:t...@uhnres.utoronto.ca]
Sent: 24 August 2001 19:10
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
A comment in response to previous messages from James Weeks:
In a message that I posted to this forum on 24 May 2001, on the subject
Re: ClinMed NetPrints, I tried to outline three criteria (or, 'design
usability guidelines'?) for an eprint archive:
1) an 'inter-operability' criterion;
2) an 'impact-ranking' criterion;
3) a 'sign-posting' criterion.
James, in the message that you posted to this forum on August 17, you
indicated that there are plans for the Chemistry Preprint Server (CPS) to
be OAI-compliant with the next two months. If that goal is accomplished,
the first ('inter-operability') criterion will (I assume) have been met.
Perhaps one way to begin the meet the second ('impact-ranking') criterion
is to provide the kind of views and ranking indicators that are
commented upon in the message that you posted on August 23.
Better, though, might be the suitability of the eprint server for yielding
citation data? As Tim Brody pointed out (as part of a previous thread, in
a message posted on May 24, on the subject: Re: ClinMed NetPrints):
[tb] Which, from my technical point of view, is the reference lists for
[tb] the articles. As far as I'm aware no archives currently do this (I
[tb] know cogprints provides the facility for authors to give this
[tb] information, but does not re-export yet). Watch developments from
[tb] OpCit!
Re
Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
My thanks to James Weeks for taking the time required to reply to my previous request for comments. On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, James wrote: [jw] The CPS should indeed satisfy the inter-operability criterion when [jw] we achieve compliance with the Open Archives Initiative. It is our [jw] intention that the CPS will be compliant at the start of October. You had mentioned this plan in a previous message. Good news that this goal might be accomplished within about a month. [jw] I also agree that the views and ranking statistics could provide [jw] indicators for the impact of a particular preprint. By a citation [jw] data indicator, I understand that the impact would be ascertained [jw] by examining the number of other papers (both inside and outside the [jw] server) which cite that preprint. This is an interesting idea and I [jw] would certainly like to like to learn more about how this could be [jw] achieved. I hope that other participants in this forum (who are much better-informed than I am about how best to pursue this approach to an assessment of impact) will provide some comments. [jw] For the sign-posting criterion, I agree that it is important to [jw] provide authors with the ability to link to the published version. [snip] [jw] After the first version of the preprint has been submitted, the [jw] author (and only the author) is presented with three hyperlinks when [jw] they access their article page: 1) Add more supplementary files; [jw] 2) Revise the full text of the preprint; 3) Redirect to the [jw] published article. This redirection is achieved using the LitLink [jw] technology of MDL Information Systems. If I understand correctly, these options are not mutually-exclusive? You then commented (re the 3rd option): [jw] When users then view the article page, they are presented with a [jw] Published full text link. When this link is accessed, LitLink [jw] resolves the citation and finds from where the article may be [jw] downloaded. Clearly, if this is from a publisher's website, users [jw] would typically have to pay for access. However, all of the other [jw] information - including the preprint meta-data and any other files [jw] uploaded to the server - do of course remain completely free to [jw] access on the CPS. So, if authors choose the 3rd option, a link to the published version is added to the preprint that's posted at the CPS. Am I correct to conclude that, when the 3rd option is chosen by an author, the original full text of the preprint (plus any supplementary files) can still be accessed on the CPS? Can you easily measure what proportion of authors have (so far) chosen the 3rd option? Of those authors whose preprints that have subsequently been published in the peer-reviewed literature, I wonder what proportion have chosen the 3rd option, what proportion have added the relevant hyperlink into the discussion thread for their own preprint, and what proportion have done nothing about providing a link to the published version? [jw] In terms of this sign-posting, I do think that it is equally [jw] important that other authors link back to references which appear on [jw] preprint servers. [snip] [jw] ...the article is also given a friendly URL - [jw] http://preprint.chemweb.com/category/YYMMNNN. If a user accesses [jw] this URL they are taken directly to the article, without having to [jw] first browse through the server. In this way, it is easy for [jw] authors to reference the CPS preprints. I like the shortness of such a URL; it is, indeed, friendly! James, thanks again for your very interesting comments. As you can see, about all that I've contributed in this response is some more questions! Jim Till University of Toronto
Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
A comment in response to previous messages from James Weeks:
In a message that I posted to this forum on 24 May 2001, on the subject
Re: ClinMed NetPrints, I tried to outline three criteria (or, 'design
usability guidelines'?) for an eprint archive:
1) an 'inter-operability' criterion;
2) an 'impact-ranking' criterion;
3) a 'sign-posting' criterion.
James, in the message that you posted to this forum on August 17, you
indicated that there are plans for the Chemistry Preprint Server (CPS) to
be OAI-compliant with the next two months. If that goal is accomplished,
the first ('inter-operability') criterion will (I assume) have been met.
Perhaps one way to begin the meet the second ('impact-ranking') criterion
is to provide the kind of views and ranking indicators that are
commented upon in the message that you posted on August 23.
Better, though, might be the suitability of the eprint server for yielding
citation data? As Tim Brody pointed out (as part of a previous thread, in
a message posted on May 24, on the subject: Re: ClinMed NetPrints):
[tb] Which, from my technical point of view, is the reference lists for
[tb] the articles. As far as I'm aware no archives currently do this (I
[tb] know cogprints provides the facility for authors to give this
[tb] information, but does not re-export yet). Watch developments from
[tb] OpCit!
Re the third ('sign-posting') criterion, it's possible for the author of a
preprint posted at the CPS website to add, as part of a discussion thread,
a citation to the published version of the preprint. (There will, of
course, usually be a time delay between the posting of the preprint and
the appearance of the published version, unless the 'preprint' is, in
fact, a post-print).
The arXiv server, in contrast, provides (what seems to be) a quite
convenient means for authors to add, to their previously-posted preprint,
a citation (and a link) to the published version.
James, might you be willing to comment on these three proposed criteria
(or, guidelines) for eprint servers, and on their relevance to the CPS?
Jim Till
University of Toronto
Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
Dear Jim, Thank you very much for your response. To date, I haven't noticed any particular effort to increase the number of discussion threads. In fact, I think more noticeable inaccuracies could occur from test threads and reproduced threads. I suppose these effects might become less significant as the discussions grow but in this sense I agree that the other indicators might be more reliable. In my opinion, the most robust indicators of subsequent publication would indeed be views and ranking. In fact, the articles with the most discussion could be those which are still works-in-progress or which are more controversial. We monitor the views on the number of unique users who have viewed the article. Therefore, it really should not be possible to manipulate this data. Similarly, authors are not permitted to rank their own article and users can only rank an article once. I hope that this helps to clarify. Best regards, James James Weeks Chemistry Preprint Server Coordinator ChemWeb Inc. 84 Theobald's Road London WC1X 8RR United Kingdom Tel:+44 (0) 20 7611 4480 Fax:+44 (0) 20 7611 4301 Email: james.we...@chemweb.com http://preprint.chemweb.com http://www.chemweb.com ___ -Original Message- From: Jim Till [mailto:t...@uhnres.utoronto.ca] Sent: 19 August 2001 12:29 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, James Weeks wrote [in part]: [jw] each article that is submitted to the CPS has its own discussion [jw] group where users can comment on the content of the article. It [jw] is encouraging that there has been sustained use of these [jw] discussion groups. For example, 45 of the 282 preprints submitted [jw] now have more than 3 threads in their discussions. I think it will [jw] also be interesting to monitor how this feature is used. Of the three indicators now available via CPS (views per preprint, score on a 1-5 scale, and number of discussion threads), it's not clear to me which indicator might be the least susceptible to manipulation. All seem quite vulnerable to such manipulation. If any of these three indicators is found to be a reasonably reliable and valid predictor of subsequent publication in a brand name journal, then its vulnerability to attempts at manipulation (e.g. via deliberate attempts to initiate more discussion threads) might become a major concern. I'd be very interested in any comments that you may have about this manipulation issue. [jw] It is our intention that the CPS will be [OAI] compliant within the [jw] next two months. Good news! Jim Till University of Toronto
Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
Questions and comments regarding the CPS have been cross-posted by list
owners to various other relevant lists. For this reason please forgive this
similar cross-posting in response.
This message is posted to:
{american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org, chem...@ic.ac.uk,
oai-gene...@oaisrv.nsdl.cornell.edu}
Firstly, I would like to thank everybody for their comments regarding the
evolution of the Chemistry Preprint Server (CPS). I would like to briefly
address some of the points that have been raised.
Jim Till has provided some very revealing analysis of the submissions to the
CPS
(http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind01L=september98-forumF
=lP=29519). It will certainly be interesting to repeat this analysis when
more preprints have been submitted.
To this, I would like to add that each article that is submitted to the CPS
has its own discussion group where users can comment on the content of the
article. It is encouraging that there has been sustained use of these
discussion groups. For example, 45 of the 282 preprints submitted now have
more than 3 threads in their discussions. I think it will also be
interesting to monitor how this feature is used.
Regarding the issue of compliance with the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) I
would like to confirm that we have constantly referred to the initiative
when developing the CPS. This is certainly a high priority because
ChemWeb.com has developed the CPS as a service for the worldwide chemistry
community.
It is our intention that the CPS will be compliant within the next two
months.
I hope that this has helped to address some of the issues raised. We would
of course welcome any feedback or comments on the service.
Please do not hesitate to contact me personally if you have any queries or
comments.
Best regards,
James Weeks
__
James Weeks
Chemistry Preprint Server Coordinator
ChemWeb Inc.
84 Theobald's Road
London WC1X 8RR
United Kingdom
Tel:+44 (0) 20 7611 4480
Fax:+44 (0) 20 7611 4301
Email: james.we...@chemweb.com
http://preprint.chemweb.com
http://www.chemweb.com
Meet us at the ACS National Meeting - Chicago - August 27-29 - Booth 337
__
Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
Jim, You are right, all statements to date on this seem to be vague, professing support for OAi but not implementation yet. The key point perhaps, especially as this is a preprint rather than an eprint archive, is whether the journals, say those that accept papers from the CPS, are willing to make data available through OAi. There is no reason why they shouldn't, since for the last year OAi has explicitly had a digital library scope rather than an eprint scope. Except they will have noted there appears to be value in the metadata, currently being realised by CrossRef. The only publisher, as far as I am aware, that is planning to make journals data available through OAi is BioMed Central. Are there others? Steve At 14:42 15/08/01 -0400, Jim Till wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2001, I posted message to this Forum which included this criticism of the Chemistry Preprint Server (CPS): [jt]Another flaw [is that the CPS isn't] on the list of Open Archives [jt](at: http://oaisrv.nsdl.cornell.edu/Register/BrowseSites.pl). [jt]So, the CPS archive doesn't meet an inter-operability criterion. I've just received a copy of Volume 4, Issue 33 of the ChemWeb.com News Bulletin (distributed to subscribers via email on August 15, 2001). It's a special issue in recognition of the establishment of the CPS, a year ago (on August 21, 2000 - the CPS is at: http://preprint.chemweb.com). An excerpt from this newsletter: The CPS was developed by closely following the Los Alamos archives (http://arxiv.org), which cover physics and related disciplines. In setting up the service ChemWeb.com has constantly referred to the Open Archive Initiative (http://www.openarchives.org) for e-print archives. In this excerpt, it's emphasized that the design of the CPS server has been guided by the Open Archives Initiative. But, it seems to me that a crucial element, inter-operability of OAI-compliant eprint archives, probably still isn't being met by the CPS server. I've just visited the current list of registered OAI-conforming repositories (see: http://oaisrv.nsdl.cornell.edu/Register/BrowseSites.pl). The CPS isn't listed. So, either it's registered but doesn't appear yet on the list, it isn't registered, or it isn't fully OAI-conforming. I suspect that it isn't fully OAI-conforming. Have I missed something? Jim Till University of Toronto
Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
On Tue, 29 May 2001, I posted message to this Forum which included this criticism of the Chemistry Preprint Server (CPS): [jt]Another flaw [is that the CPS isn't] on the list of Open Archives [jt](at: http://oaisrv.nsdl.cornell.edu/Register/BrowseSites.pl). [jt]So, the CPS archive doesn't meet an inter-operability criterion. I've just received a copy of Volume 4, Issue 33 of the ChemWeb.com News Bulletin (distributed to subscribers via email on August 15, 2001). It's a special issue in recognition of the establishment of the CPS, a year ago (on August 21, 2000 - the CPS is at: http://preprint.chemweb.com). An excerpt from this newsletter: The CPS was developed by closely following the Los Alamos archives (http://arxiv.org), which cover physics and related disciplines. In setting up the service ChemWeb.com has constantly referred to the Open Archive Initiative (http://www.openarchives.org) for e-print archives. In this excerpt, it's emphasized that the design of the CPS server has been guided by the Open Archives Initiative. But, it seems to me that a crucial element, inter-operability of OAI-compliant eprint archives, probably still isn't being met by the CPS server. I've just visited the current list of registered OAI-conforming repositories (see: http://oaisrv.nsdl.cornell.edu/Register/BrowseSites.pl). The CPS isn't listed. So, either it's registered but doesn't appear yet on the list, it isn't registered, or it isn't fully OAI-conforming. I suspect that it isn't fully OAI-conforming. Have I missed something? Jim Till University of Toronto
Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
As noted in a few previous messages of mine, I'm interested in some of the features of the Chemistry Preprint Server (CPS, see: http://preprint.chemweb.com/). (But, I have no connection with CPS, and I'm not a chemist). Yesterday (on May 28) I browsed through the CPS archive. Of the earliest-posted preprints (a total of 32, posted in July or August 2000, i.e. 9-10 months ago), I could identify 14/32 = 44% that have subsequently been published (or, according to the authors, been accepted for publication, or been published in part) in a brand-name journal. Of these, 10/32 = 31% could already be found in the ISI Citation Databases. Because of the relatively short interval (9-10 months) between the time when these preprints were posted, and the time when I sought evidence of subsequent publication, these percentages are very likely to be underestimates. I also checked, via the ISI Citation Databases, for one or more publications by any of the authors or co-authors of the 32 preprints. I could identify publications for 28/32 = 87.5%. So (like BMJ's ClinMed NetPrints archive) the CPS preprint archive appears to have been used (at least, initially) mainly by authors who have some previous track record of publication in journals that are included in the ISI Citation Databases. The CPS archive includes a feature that permits visitors to rate the individual preprints on a 1-5 scale. Of the 32 preprints posted 9-10 months ago, 10 have been rated highly (a 4-star rating; no 5-star ratings were noted). Of these 10, 6 have already been published, or accepted for publication. This publication rate (60%, so far) is higher than the rate (8/22 = 36%) for the 22 longest-posted preprints that have been rated less highly. But, because the sample size is small, this difference in publication rates isn't statistically significant at the P = 0.05 level (Fisher's Exact Test). At a later time, it will be of some interest to test again the hypothesis that the rating scale may serve a somewhat useful impact-rating function (in that the ratings may help readers to find articles that may be more likely to be published in brand-name journals). The CPS archive also provides data about the number of views of each individual preprint. Of the 32 longest-posted preprints, 17 received more than 300 views. Of these 17, 9 can be identified as published, or accepted for publication - a publication rate of 53%. Although the publication rate for those that received less than 300 views is 5/15 = 33%, this difference in publication rates is, again, not statistically significant (because of the small sample size). So, again, one may only conclude that the number of views might also serve a useful impact-rating function - one that merits further attention at a later date, when a larger sample size of early-posted preprints is available (and especially, preprints that were posted at least a year previously). Of course, it's possible that the 32 longest-posted preprints represent a somewhat biased sample of the entire number of preprints that had been posted to CPS before May 28, 2001 (a total of 226 preprints). Please note that I'm not suggesting that the CPS preprint archive has no flaws. One flaw is (IMHO) that it's a preprint archive (not a true eprint archive), in that it appears to be intended for preprints only, not for both preprints and postprints (where, for the postprints, the authors have retained copyright). Although authors can, in the response section of the CPS webpage that provides access to their preprints, post information about the citation for the published version (a sign-post function), this sign-post capability isn't integrated into the archive as well as it is (for example) at the arXiv archive. Another flaw (again, IMHO) is that it's not on the list of Open Archives (at: http://oaisrv.nsdl.cornell.edu/Register/BrowseSites.pl). So, the CPS archive doesn't meet an inter-operability criterion. In summary, the CPS archive seems to provide an interesting approach to an impact-rating function. It does provide authors with at least some possibility of a sign-post function. But, it isn't inter-operable. (So, it can't easily become part of an (envisioned) universal eprint archive?). Jim Till University of Toronto
Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
Jim Till writes It may be noteworthy that the largest number of preprints has been in the subfield of physical chemistry. Might this be another example (along with the arXiv server) of physics-oriented scientists choosing to be early adopters of preprint servers? My theory is that it is because Physical Chemistry is at the border with physics and physics is a preprint discipline. Similar things happen around econonomics which is another area of preprint tradition. You will find preprints in finance at the border between economics and business much more than say in marketing, which is as area that is further away from economics. Thus it has more to do with established behaviour rather than flexibility towards a new behaviour. Cheers, Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
Dear Stevan, Thank you for your comments. You have raised some very interesting issues which we too have been thinking about for the Chemistry Preprint Server (CPS). First of all, I think it is important to note that we also believe that the preprint server should act as a permanent archive of submitted articles. Chemists often communicate in different ways to many other scientists and to achieve our goals we are slowly having to change the mindset of chemists. Many chemistry publishers, however, are a potential barrier to the concept of preprints in chemistry. Many will not accept papers for submission which have already been preprinted elsewhere, and others will not accept the paper if it remains available in any other form. What we had initially planned to do, and in fact what we are doing, is only allowing the author to remove the full text of his/her paper if they provide details for us to create a hyperlink to an online version of the published article. This is done via software created by our sister company, MDL, called LitLink. All of the other details concerning the original submission to CPS, including the author name, affiliation, article title, abstract, and also the discussion about that article remain accessible on the CPS. Furthermore, the original articles are never erased from the server and can be used to contest issues of prior art. There is also nothing to stop an author posting an article on the CPS which has been submitted, refereed, accepted or even rejected by a journal publisher. The CPS policy is simply not to accept an article where the copyright has already been transferred to a publisher, unless that publisher supports the CPS. I hope these comments help to explain our policies. We would of course be most happy for you to comment further on the CPS, and maybe discuss it with you further. Bryan Vickery, Community Development Manager of ChemWeb.com will be attending the International Chemical Information Conference in Annecy this month, where I believe you are speaking. Best wishes, James
Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
Dear James, Some comments: as I've taken some time with these, I'd like you permission to post them to some of the relevant lists on this topic (such as my AmSci Forum). On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Weeks, James (ELSLON) wrote: First of all, I think it is important to note that we also believe that the preprint server should act as a permanent archive of submitted articles. Yes, but my point was that it should be (1) a permanently (and freely) ACCESSIBLE archive, (2) containing not just submitted articles (unrefereed preprints) but also accepted articles (refereed postprints). Your reason (below) for not going this far makes reference to (i) embargo policies (the Ingelfinger Rule) plus (ii) copyright restrictions. But there is a simple (and legal) way to get around both of these (see later): Chemists often communicate in different ways to many other scientists and to achieve our goals we are slowly having to change the mindset of chemists. There is only one pertinent aspect of the relevant mindset, and chemists do not differ in any way from all other scholars/scientists in this sole relevant respect: ALL authors of refereed research papers give them away (to the publisher), none receive or wish to receive fees/royalties, and none benefit from or wish to have access barriers to this give-away refereed research, because access-barriers are impact-barriers, and no one benefits from those. So don't look for preprint-related peculiarities among disciplines: focus on the only relevant variable: Is there any discipline that would NOT benefit from the elimination of all access-barriers to its refereed papers on-line? Many chemistry publishers, however, are a potential barrier to the concept of preprints in chemistry. Many will not accept papers for submission which have already been preprinted elsewhere, and others will not accept the paper if it remains available in any other form. You are referring here not to copyright policy, which is a legal matter, but to embargo policy -- which is just that. A journal can have all kinds of arbitrary policies about what papers it announces that it will and won't referee. (It could decree that it will not referee a paper by an author who as ever collaborated with any author who has ever submitted a paper to any other journal.) Such arbitrary policies fall into two categories, (1) the justifiable ones (such as declining to referee a paper that has already been published elsewhere, or is in the wrong area)) and the unjustifiable ones (such as declining to referee a paper that has been previously circulated to peers in any form, whether on-paper or on-line). I will not discuss the justifiability of the Ingelfinger Rule here. I have written on it before, e.g.: Harnad, S. (2000) E-Knowledge: Freeing the Refereed Journal Corpus Online. Computer Law Security Report 16(2) 78-87. [Rebuttal to Bloom Editorial in Science and Relman Editorial in New England Journal of Medicine] http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad00.scinejm.htm Harnad, S. (2000) Ingelfinger Over-Ruled: The Role of the Web in the Future of Refereed Medical Journal Publishing. Lancet (in press) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad00.lancet.htm There is no need to spend time on the justifiability of the rule (it is not justifiable, and when examined, it is obvious that it has only one purpose, to protect the vendor's current revenue-streams). It has nothing to do with the interests of science, with which it is directly at odds, being an impact-barrier. But the relevant variable is not justifiability: It is enforceability. The Ingelfinger Rule is not only not a legal matter, but it cannot be enforced even as a matter of (unjustified and unnecessary) policy. Authors have only to self-archive their preprints with some cosmetic changes that prevent them from matching the submitted draft; this could only draw journal editors into a slippery slope of defining how much of a difference is difference enough! Moreover, journal editors would have to consent to becoming 24-hour-a-day Web-sleuths, trawling for look-alikes for every submission (and, being scientists, like the rest of us, I doubt they would allow themselves to be drawn into that). And even that could be foiled by encrypting the archived version and revealing the key elsewhere, until the refereeing is underway. The needle in the haystack would be impossibly small. So this is all nonsense. The Ingelfinger Rule is just a Wizard-of-Oz phenomenon: It can only make authors refrain from self-archiving their preprints if they are foolish enough to take it at face value, and believe it is justified and enforceable. (Physicists -- who I believe were faster off the mark than the other disciplines only because they are smarter and more serious than the rest of us -- were not deterred for one microsecond by such absurd policies -- even though some of their journals, e.g., Science, have them.) What we
Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
Dear Stevan, Thank you very much for your detailed comments. We would be happy for you to use them in a discussion. However, I would first like to clarify a few points regarding our policies, which we hope you would also add into the discussion. In general, we do agree with your comments. But this is not an ideal world. The reason we give authors the option to use LitLink is to encourage submissions in the early phases of the project. Also, the ability to redirect to the published article is indeed optional. We hope that after a year or so, chemistry publishers will follow suit with those in physics and not restrict the post-publication of preprints in their journals. This is the mindset that we are hoping to change. In doing so, we would very much like to see preprints that have been published remain accessible on the server. Hopefully, chemistry authors, like those in physics, will soon change their mentality too. It should be noted that we are also working towards a permanently (and freely) accessible archive. The CPS has applied to be recognised as a compliant data provider by the Open Archives Initiative by complying with the Sante Fe Convention. We hope that our archive will soon be indexed and harvestable by other preprint servers. We were indeed interested to learn about the Harnad/Oppenheim strategy. This may need some thought on our behalf! Once again, thank you for your comments and Bryan sends his best wishes. Best regards, James James Weeks Chemistry Preprint Server Coordinator ChemWeb, Inc. 84 Theobald's Road London, WC1X 8RR United Kingdom Email: james.we...@chemweb.com Direct Tel: +44 (0) 20 7611 4480 Main Tel: +44 (0) 20 7611 4300 Fax:+44 (0) 20 7611 4301 Internet: http://www.ChemWeb.com
Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
The ChemWeb chemistry preprint server can be reached via: http://preprint.chemweb.com Can I raise a different thread? One of the very first articles on the Chemweb forum was one which had previously been rejected by two referees after having been submitted to a conventional forum. The authors clearly felt frustrated that their science had not reached a wider audience through this route, and decided that the pre print (noprint?) forum might achieve this Presumably the H/O Strategy could lead to a more or less permanent presence somewhere for such articles. Without implying anything about the specific article noted above, I wonder whether there is a risk that with precedents established, such chemistry preprint servers might simply become a refuge for unpublishable science. -- Henry Rzepa. Imperial College, Chemistry Dept. +44 020 7594 5774 (Office) +44 020 7594 5804 (Fax)
Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Rzepa, Henry wrote: http://preprint.chemweb.com One of the very first articles on the Chemweb forum was one which had previously been rejected by two referees after having been submitted to a conventional forum. Presumably the H/O Strategy could lead to a more or less permanent presence somewhere for such articles. Without implying anything about the specific article noted above, I wonder whether there is a risk that with precedents established, such chemistry preprint servers might simply become a refuge for unpublishable science. I worried about this too, until it became clear that: (1) As a matter of empirical fact, the proportion of crackpot papers in, for example, the Ginsparg Archive, is extremely low; the vast majority are merely the preprints of papers submitted to a conventional forum (= a refereed journal), and eventually they are superseded by the refereed draft, or at least a citation to the refereed draft. Harnad, S. Carr, L. (2000) Integrating, Navigating and Analyzing Eprint Archives Through Open Citation Linking (the OpCit Project). Current Science (special issue honour of Eugene Garfield) (in press) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad00.citation.htm (2) With the new interoperable self-archiving software http://www.eprints.org there is are explicit metadata fields for refereed/unrefereed and for journal-name. So the users can safely restrict their reading and searching to the conventional journal literature if they wish. (3) It is not at all a bad idea that there should be a vanity-press level in the Open Archives, one that can serve as a repository for papers rejected at higher levels yet (given the imperfections of peer review) possibly not without value, to be discovered eventually. (There is plenty of room in cyberspace; and navigability by suitable signposting via metadata tagging.) But please note that the H/O Strategy pertains only to refereed, accepted papers. It is irrelevant to papers that never get past the embryological stage of preprints (nonprints). Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk Professor of Cognitive Sciencehar...@princeton.edu Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582 Computer Science fax: +44 23-80 592-865 University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/ Highfield, Southamptonhttp://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/ SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM NOTE: A complete archive of this ongoing discussion of providing free access to the refereed journal literature is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 99 00): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html You may join the list at the site above. Discussion can be posted to: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org
