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