Re: Paragraph-Based Quotation in Place of PDF/Page-Based

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:00:10 +0000

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:

> I agree with Stevan that paragraph numbering is a very good idea. It
> has an interesting consequence: if paragraph numbering becomes accepted
> usage, one has to rely only on the version found in a repository. This
> means that the repository version begins to acquire a status equal to
> that of the published version, especially if the institution behind its
> repository makes explicit statements regarding the quality of the
> documents placed in its repository. This is a consequence Stevan may
> not like, but it looks very good to me.

Jean-Claude again seems to forget that the repository version we
are talking about in OA self-archiving is the repository version of a
*published* article, i.e., it has been peer-reviewed by and published in
a journal. It is not a raw preprint, waiting for some sort of validation,
institutional or otherwise.

    Harnad, S. (2005) Fast-Forward on the Green Road to Open
    Access: The Case Against Mixing Up Green and Gold. Ariadne 43.

I am more than happy with the (intended) consequences of the autonomous,
internal-structure-based section/paragraph/sentence citation system
for pinpointing quotations and specific passages, a system I have
been advocating for over a decade. But among those consequences, the
replacement of independent, answerable, 3rd-party-certified peer review
(i.e., not vanity review conducted by the author or his own institution),
is conspicuously absent. The other name for "independent, answerable,
3rd-party-certified peer review" is (and continues, in the online era
to be) a *journal*.

The "status" of an article comes from its own quality; and its quality is
determined by its success in meeting the established quality standards of
a peer-reviewed journal, with a known, public track-record. Jean-Claude
keeps thinking there is another way, but quality control is quality
control, and the quality-controllers have to be (1) qualified experts
(peers), (2) answerable (to an editor or editorial board, to which the
author is likewise answerable), and (3) autonomous. This autonomous
entity is called a "journal," irrespective of the medium in which it
is implemented, and irrespective of whether access to its outcome is
toll-gated or free. The journal is in turn answerable to the research
community, based on its track record for quality and hence the rigour
of its peer review standards.

Optimizing the way in which passages are specified when quoted makes no
difference to any of this, one way or the other.

Stevan Harnad
Received on Sun Oct 29 2006 - 18:41:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:34 GMT