From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 15:14:41 -0500

Why the word "necessarily"? Of course the brands confer a sense of quality
or we would not use them.  But the quality for an individual article is not
*necessarily* there; it is *most likely* to be there. This is a matter of
statistics, not absolute certainty. For my part I am befuddled that people
would not want to read--and put at the top of their reading lists--articles
that established experts in their field seem meritorious. I don't expect
every recommendation to be a good one, any more than I expect every
restaurant recommended by a friend to be one I will like. But I still ask
my friend. Journal brands are far better guides than swimming through the
sewer of the open Internet.

Joe Esposito

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 3:05 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Toby Green <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:41:21 +0100
>
> Joe,
>
> Yup. (Although I might quibble that things like journal brand and JIF
> confer signals of quality . . . Just because something is in a prestige
> journal, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s of higher quality (to me) than
> something I just found in a repository.)
>
> Toby
>
> Toby Green
> Coherent Digital
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: +33 6 07 76 80 86
> Skype: tobyabgreen
> Twitter: @tobyabgreen
>
> On 14 Nov 2019, at 01:20, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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>
>>
>>