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> >> >>