Re: Withdrawal from Open Access

From: Sally Morris (Morris Associates) <"Sally>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:07:18 -0000

I think the 'correct' procedure, according to the guidelines I have seen
(sorry, can't track these down - perhaps others can remind me?), is to post
a correction, linked to the original article wherever possible, and only
actually to withdraw it for legal, safety or similar overriding reasons, and
in that case to replace it with an explanation for the withdrawal


Sally Morris
Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
South House, The Street
Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Tel: +44(0)1903 871286
Fax: +44(0)8701 202806
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
Behalf Of Arthur Smith
Sent: 28 October 2008 13:24
Subject: Re: Withdrawal from Open Access

Surely the most common case is that the article contained or was based
on a mistake that the authors now find embarrassing. Such things often
are revealed in peer review, so if these proceedings were subject to
only skimpy or no review there could easily be such problems. Do these
OA proceedings have any mechanism for authors to add corrections to
their articles after they have been posted?

       Arthur Smith

Arthur Sale wrote:
> I have recently come across two cases of an author asking for
> their paper to be withdrawn from the proceedings (online, OA) of a
> conference.
> I am pursing these cases as I can to find out why. I assume that
> the conferences did not have an appropriate license agreement
> allowing them to make the paper OA, though few authors would pay
> much attention to that anyway.
> There are a variety of possible reasons; perhaps reader of this
> list can suggest others:
> 1. The authors want to publish their paper in a journal as
> well to get double counted value in their cv from their research.
> 2. Conferences don't count for anything in their field, but
> journal articles do.
> 3. As above in 1 and 2, and the authors have been scared by
> publisher's words about 'prior publication' invalidating submission.
> 4. The work is plagiarized, fraudulent, or is a case of
> multiple papers spread over one research nugget, and the authors
> do not want to be found out.
> 5. The authors do not believe the Internet is suitable for
> scientific publication and discovery.
> 6. The authors are in their 60s or 70s and set in their ways
> (not Internet-savvy).
> ...
> It is worthwhile trying to understand these counter-intuitive
> actions. There may be lessons to be learnt.
> Arthur Sale
> University of Tasmania
Received on Tue Oct 28 2008 - 16:31:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:34 GMT