Hi,
2 topics :
> (1) For some odd reason, Jean-Claude is accusing me of censorship: I
I did not follow this specific case, but I have personally been
censored rather often (compared to the number of times I tried to
contribute).
I do not have a reputation of being off topic in the other forums
where I usually speak.
for what this is worth :
Of course, no one here can assess whether what I am saying is right,
since my words did not get through.
------
BTW, since I am talking. Is there an interest in orphan works on this
list. I am asking because many scientific publications have a
potential to become orphan works : since the author does not get
royalties, he has no incentive to leave personal information to be
tracked after he ceases to be an active professional.
I am asking because, though the proposed legislation on orphan works
seems rather well designed in the USA, there are very different
proposals in Europe that may reveal dangerous. In a nutshell, orphan
works would be managed by collective management organizations mostly
controled by publishers. Where that would lead us is anyone's guess.
Bernard Lang
* Stevan Harnad <amsciforum_at_GMAIL.COM> note le 02-10-08 :
> Summary:
>
> (1) For some odd reason, Jean-Claude is accusing me of censorship: I
> wonder why? since every single one of his postings to the AmSci Forum
> has appeared, in full, as he can confirm by consulting the archive:
> http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
>
> (2) Everyone, including the moderator, has the right to post replies
> to the AmSci Forum, just as Jean-Claude does. The moderator's replies
> have no special status, one way or the other, other than what status
> they may earn through their substance.
>
> (3) My own frequent strategy in these exchanges with Jean-Claude (as
> anyone who looks over those sad sections of the AmSci Archive can
> confirm) has been to cease replying once Jean-Claude lapses into
> flaming, as he alas almost invariably does, at least in his exchanges
> with me. (I was on the verge of prepending that caveat to my own first
> reply in this latest series, to the effect that I would reply for the
> moment, but if and when Jean-Claude started flaming again, the floor
> was his alone. Well, I hereby postpend that now. The Forum is all
> yours, Jean-Claude.)
>
> Imprimi potest!
>
> Stephanus Primus
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon
> <jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca> wrote:
> > I find this form of behaviour unacceptable. It borders on unacknowledged
> > censorship.
> >
> > Let me give a quick example: I never conflated citability and branding, but
> > Stevan does in his "summary". So beware of Stevan's "summaries". They read
> > more like polemical devices or editorials.
> >
> > It also and clearly illustrates how he often misreads what people write.
> >
> > I call on Stevan simply to post the whole message I sent last night. It is
> > not very long and it points out how Stevan does not dialogue well.
> >
> > It is not for him, as moderator, to judge what is tedious or not,
> > monumentally trivial or not. A moderator should address the issue of
> > relevance, not tediousness. He or she should also carefully distinguish
> > between his (her) role as moderator and as party in a discussion.
> >
> > Perhaps Stevan should give up the moderation of this list and thus enjoy
> > greater polemical freedom.
> >
> > Jean-Claude Guédon
> >
> > Le mercredi 01 octobre 2008 à 09:19 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> >
> > I think AmSci Forum readers may be finding this exchange rather
> > tedious. I will summarize, and then let Jean-Claude have the last word.
> >
> > (1) Jean-Claude thinks there is a problem for specifying the locus of
> > quoted passages when citing a work if the pagination of the OA
> > postprint one has accessed differs from the pagination of the
> > publisher's PDF.
> >
> > (2) He does not like the solution of citing the published work, as
> > usual, linking the postprint's URL, for quote-checking, and specifying
> > the locus of the quote by paragraph number instead of page number.
> >
> > (3) He prefers to upgrade the status of the postprint in some way, so
> > as to "brand" it as "citable," and then citing the postprint instead
> > of citing the published work.
> >
> > Judicat Emptor. This strikes me as a monumentally trivial non-problem
> > and an unnecessary and incoherent proposed solution.
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon
> > <jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca> wrote:
> >> Sigh... I will respond below
> >>
> >> Le mardi 30 septembre 2008 à 17:48 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> >>
> >> Jean-Claude Guedon thinks that because an article published by Joe
> >> Bloggs in Nature (2008, volume X, Number Y, pp NN-MM) is not OA, and
> >> Joe Bloggs's OA postprint of the final, refereed draft of his Nature
> >> article, self-archived in his Institional Repository (IR), is
> >> unpaginated, hence one cannot specify the location of a quoted passage
> >> in the Nature version except by paragraph number, one should not cite
> >> the Nature version, but the self-archived postprint.
> >>
> >> 1. I am not going to introduce a new way of locating quotations by using
> >> paragraph numbers. I do not even feel like counting paragraphs.
> >>
> >> 2. I never said that the archived article was unpaginated; I said it may
> >> be
> >> paginated differently from the journal pagination.
> >>
> >> 3. It is not that one should not cite the Nature version; it is that one
> >> cannot cite the Nature version completely.
> >>
> >> What I ask is: What does it mean to "cite" the postprint of a
> >> published Nature article? I would think you cite the publication, the
> >> Nature article, and give the URL of the postprint for access purposes.
> >>
> >> So I have a quote and I refer to the journal article and its general
> >> citation, and then I send the reader to the archived version and explain
> >> how
> >> to find the exact passage in the archived version? This is quite
> >> complicated, it seems to me.
> >>
> >> Jean-Claude seems to think the postprint itself should be upgraded
> >> into a "publication" in its own right: How? And what does that mean?
> >>
> >> It is not upgraded into a publication. It is de facto a publication. The
> >> article has been peer reviewed and it is publicly accessible.
> >>
> >> That instead of proudly listing his paper in his CV as having been
> >> published by Nature, a peer-reviewed journal of some repute, Joe
> >> Bloggs should list it as having been published by his own
> >> Institutional Repository?
> >>
> >> That again is stretching my words in strange directions. I am pointing to
> >> something lacking in referring precisely to a quotation. This does not
> >> prevent me from putting the journal reference (and the repository
> >> reference)
> >> in my cv. I dom not even begin to understand how that issue ever arose.
> >>
> >> And what does "published" mean under these
> >> circumstances? With Nature, it means Nature conducted a peer review,
> >> to determine whether the article met Nature's quality standards.
> >>
> >> the self-archived article is the same as the peer reviewed article in the
> >> journal. The archived article will also mention the general citation from
> >> the journal. It may even link to that journal. This still does not allow
> >> me
> >> to clarify completely a specific quotation from the journal. But the
> >> article
> >> in the repository has clearly been perr reviewed. No problem there.
> >>
> >> Is
> >> the author's institution to conduct yet another "peer review" on the
> >> same peer-reviewed article, to determine whether it has met that
> >> institution's quality standards? Why?
> >>
> >> I never said that.
> >>
> >> And would this mean that all
> >> postprints in that IR meet the same quality standards (Nature's)?
> >>
> >> I never even began to come close to this issue. Please read what I write
> >> carefully.
> >>
> >> Sounds closer to in-house vanity publishing to me, except that it's
> >> more like in-house vanity RE-publishing.
> >>
> >> I suppose so, but it does not concern me. I never said that. This is
> >> science-fiction.
> >>
> >> I think this line of thinking is not only unrealistic but incoherent
> >> -- and, most of all, unnecessary, since it is trying to "solve" a
> >> non-existent problem: What work to cite when you have access only to
> >> the OA postprint of a published article? The answer is obvious: You
> >> cite the *published article*, and add the OA postprint's URL to the
> >> citation for those who cannot afford access to the publisher's
> >> proprietary version. (And quote passages by paragraph number.)
> >>
> >> The proposed solution is not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory because,
> >> when I give a reference to a precise quote, I must add the page number.
> >> Now,
> >> this page number may mean nothing to citation calculators, but it means a
> >> whole lot to the reader and to the conventions carefully taught in class
> >> about ways to cite a quotation in a scholarly piece of work. Adding a URL
> >> is
> >> not enough. For example, if someone wants to quote my quotation, that
> >> person
> >> should be able to quote an original source, not a derivative. If that
> >> person
> >> does not have access to the journal either, the problem I initially
> >> encountered recurs for that second author.
> >>
> >> Jean-Claude Guédon
> >>
> >> Stevan Harnad
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon
> >> <jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Quoting means extracting a passage from a text and inserting it within
> >>> another text one is writing. It is often placed within quotation marks,
> >>> but
> >>> not always as quoting conventions obey complex and variable rules. Citing
> >>> means giving a reference for a quoted text, or for some facts or opinions
> >>> found in another article, book, etc. This distinction has been dealt with
> >>> repeatedly in the past.
> >>>
> >>> Even if I follow Stevan's distinction, I need both to quote and cite (in
> >>> Stevan's sense of the words) when I work and I cannot be satisfied with
> >>> only
> >>> citing. I am not the only to have this need. Consequently, not having
> >>> access
> >>> to the citable version prevents me from doing all of my work because the
> >>> precise location of what I need remains unknown to me. However, if an IR
> >>> declares that an article under its stewardship is also citable, then, I
> >>> can
> >>> do all my work, including giving a precise location for a quotation, or a
> >>> fact, or an opinion, etc. This simply means that I recognize the IR as a
> >>> publication instrument, i.e. it makes documents public and not simply as
> >>> a
> >>> collection of texts open to reading and nothing else. In fact, limiting
> >>> IR
> >>> texts only to reading would contravene the requirements for something to
> >>> be
> >>> truly in open access.
> >>>
> >>> At this junction, the question of which version(s) is (are) reference
> >>> versions emerges. I submit that articles archived in IR's can become
> >>> references as much as the version appearing in a journal.
> >>>
> >>> There is a well-known precedent for this. Articles are sometimes
> >>> reprinted
> >>> in a different journal or an anthology. Once this is done, either version
> >>> can be cited and is cited. Sometimes, it is the reprinted version that
> >>> becomes the better known citation.
> >>>
> >>> Stevan may not like this line of reasoning because it blurs the
> >>> distinction
> >>> he tries so hard to maintain between journals and IR's. His thesis is
> >>> that
> >>> IR's and journals can coexist simply because they do not fulfil at all
> >>> the
> >>> same functions. However, this is Stevan's thesis, not a universally
> >>> accepted situation and it cannot be mistaken for a fact. A more sensible
> >>> representation of reality is to state that the functions of journals and
> >>> IR's, although not identical, overlap. We can then discuss the amount of
> >>> overlap.
> >>>
> >>> To say this amounts to claim a publishing role for IR's and for
> >>> self-archiving. I claim that role. The fact that IR's can be harvested by
> >>> powerful search engines supports the thesis that depositing an article in
> >>> an
> >>> IR is a form of publishing. Only if IR's worked like the drawer of my
> >>> desk
> >>> (which I gladly leave in open access to anyone wanting to access it),
> >>> could
> >>> we say that it is not a form of publishing. IR's are not shy silos of
> >>> knowledge that just sit there, in open access, but with no way to attract
> >>> attentiuon to themselves. on the contrary, they can be found and used
> >>> thanks
> >>> to some Google scholar or OAIster.
> >>>
> >>> The relationship between an article published in a journal and another
> >>> version residing in a repository is quite different from that between an
> >>> original piece of art and a copy. I believe Walter Benjamin has meditated
> >>> significantly on this topic (The Work of Art in the Age of its
> >>> Technological
> >>> Reproducibility). The article in the repository is not a copy of an
> >>> original
> >>> article; it is a version of an article. The journal article is also a
> >>> version, another version, and nothing more. The article is identified by
> >>> its
> >>> title XXXX and its author(s) YYYYY and its content. This is how copyright
> >>> law would identify it. The ways in which a given version is branded
> >>> depends
> >>> on a number of variables (authors' names, authors' institutions, journal
> >>> titles, etc. ). For the moment, IR's do not yet know very well how to
> >>> brand, but nothing prevents thinking about ways to achieve this result.
> >>> Personally, I believe we should be thinking hard about this precise
> >>> issue.
> >>
> >> Jean-Claude Guédon
> >> Université de Montréal
> >
> > Jean-Claude Guédon
> > Université de Montréal
--
Le brevet logiciel menace votre entreprise
Software patents threaten your company
Soutenez la Majorité Économique - Support the Economic Majority
http://www.economic-majority.com/
Bernard.Lang_at_inria.fr ,_ /\o \o/ Tel +33 1 3963 5644
http://bat8.inria.fr/~lang/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Fax +33 1 3963 5469
INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
Received on Fri Oct 03 2008 - 12:08:44 BST