From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 20:53:40 -0500

I submit that the biggest issue is not access or affordability but
discovery. The amount of material continues to grow and the signals of
quality (journal brands, JIF, etc.) are being stripped away. The answer to
every problem lies at the bottom of the ocean, and we lack even a skiff.

-- 
Joseph J. Esposito
[log in to unmask]
@josephjesposito
+Joseph Esposito


On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 8:49 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Toby Green <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:24:28 +0100
>
> Interesting that preprints were moving up the agenda at Charleston and I’m
> sorry I wasn’t there to hear the discussion. As I argued in a paper
> https://link.growkudos.com/1sqo13wi3uo published last year, I see
> preprints as a key part of the solution to the key challenge facing
> scholcom. To my mind the key challenge isn’t open access, it’s
> affordability - fix the latter and you probably ease the path to the
> former. My paper agrees with the ‘better strategy than Plan S’ which Brian
> lays out at the end of this post.
>
> Toby
>
> Toby Green
> Coherent Digital
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: +33 6 07 76 80 86
> Skype: tobyabgreen
> Twitter: @tobyabgreen
>
> On 12 Nov 2019, at 01:05, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Brian Simboli <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:46:08 -0500
>
> Some more comments about the Charleston Conference.
>
> 1.  I just noticed that there is now a discussion forum upcoming shortly
> about preprints in Washington, so thought I'd mention a few things related
> to discussions about them at Charleston last week.
>
> There are no panaceas to scholarly publishing dysfunctionalities, nor does
> one size fit all, but I beg to disagree with many (not all) of the worries
> expressed at Charleston about public misuse of information disclosed in
> preprints. It is indeed a concern when preprints concern issues with real
> world implications, esp. for health and well-being. There is however a way
> to deflect that concern using plain language that warns the public about
> misuse of information.
>
> See my combox posting at:
> https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/10/16/the-second-wave-of-preprint-servers-how-can-publishers-keep-afloat/#comments
> (which references something I broached with NLM's head.)
>
> Much of the public does not know what peer review is, or what a journal
> is, so there is a need for plain language that informs the public (and
> benighted journalists, who should know better) of the perils of taking what
> they read in preprints without the requisite grain of salt. Caveat lector!,
> as always. It's a balancing act. We should assume that readers are adults
> responsible for the use and misuse of information, and not assail a format
> of information distribution just because it can be abused. But yes, medical
> research as disclosed in preprints is its own special case. Medarxiv
> apparently has some vetting in place of a kind that may be proportioned to
> the dangers. Whether it's enough, I don't know. We need a balanced
> approach. Non-medical areas are a different matter but should also have
> 'warning' language that educates the public about the need to
> critically approach anything they see in preprints.
>
> Any format of information distribution can be abused.   Journalists will
> continue to abuse preprints, of course, but they routinely misuse
> information anyhow (and that is not a politically partisan comment.). Those
> that misuse information should be shunted to the ranks of the
> Paparazzi/tabloid type of journalism that one finds in supermarkets. That
> ilk of journalists will, alas, always be with us. But the logical and
> practical implications of debunking the value of preprints, which is merely
> one more (in this case emergent) type of knowledge distribution, is
> problematic in my view.
>
> Yes, preprints are currently more clearly suitable for some areas of
> knowledge than others, and may remain that way. It's hard to tell. They
> certainly are appropriate for physics. They are very slowly taking hold in
> other areas, notably biology, and have been used for a good while in
> economics.
>
> 2. The Charleston conference definitely helped refine the thinking in my
> preprint about preprints, which focuses a lot on physics, at:
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332144796_arXiv_and_the_Symbiosis_of_Physics_Preprints_and_Journal_Review_Articles
>
> Version 3, in the offing, will now need to underscore the following:
>
> a. The "model" discussed there, calling for a symbiosis of preprints and
> the traditional journal article, runs the risk of sounding exclusively like
> the  old "overlay" model in which a journal article "overlays", that is
> cites, articles disclosed in preprints. The next version of the preprint
> will have to go to some length to debunk that. Certainly journal articles
> *should* do that, but also cite  conference proceedings or poster sessions
> or whatever--*and* as usual *other* journal articles--as long as all this
> is done very critically. (A side note: why not a lot more citations to
> reference works, as well, to provide background information for persons new
> to a field?) I see no problem with expanding citations to preprint in
> peer-reviewed articles.
>
> b. As my last posting to this listserv suggested, I have all sorts of
> concerns about the Plan S scheme now hitting the U.S. shores. :
> http://listserv.crl.edu/wa.exe?A2=LIBLICENSE-L;f7bffbe1.1911
>
> A better strategy imo accords with two distinct and centuries-long needs
> in science publishing, disclosure of results as opposed to* ex post*
> critical review of the results of research agendas. (I'm thinking of STEM
> and also social sciences.)  Preprints can accomplish the former, journal
> publishing the latter.
>
> On this model there would be a gradually contracted journal space
> supplemented gradually by an expanded preprint space (which afford
> "immediate OA"). Fewer journals, but not replaced by preprints.
>
> If the history of science publishing shows anything, it is that the type
> of rapid disclosure provided by preprints can comfortably co-exist with
> peer-reviewed journal publishing. The latter should again focus more on
> providing review and integration of knowledge.
>
> This model  addresses the demand side of the scholarly publishing
> malaise.  One could see a very gradual expansion of the preprint space and
> a diminishment of the number of journals. Peer-reviewed journals would
> however go away, by any means. It's not an either-or proposition. The
> points above are neutral as to whether journal articles (as opposed to
> preprints) should be OA.
>
>
> --
>
> Brian Simboli
> Science, Mathematics, and Psychology Librarian
> Library and Technology Services
> E.W. Fairchild Martindale
> Lehigh University
> 8A East Packer Avenue
> Bethlehem, PA 18015-3170
> (610) 758-5003; [log in to unmask]
> Profile & Research guides <http://libraryguides.lehigh.edu/prf.php?account_id=13461>
>
>