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>