PLoS Contents-新的未评议论文开放获取机构仓储
PLoS Contents-新的未评议论文开放获取机构仓储用于优先储存生物医药研究成果。
New Open Access Repository for Unrefereed Preprints: PLoS Contents
A new open-access repository for
preprints on biomedical research findings prior to peer review -- "PLoS Currents:
Influenza" -- is a welcome development, as are all services that
provide free online access to research findings, before and after
refereeing, in all fields. As long as the unrefereed/refereed
distinction is prominently tagged, as it will be, it is always good to
encourage researchers in all fields to make their drafts available for
peer and public scrutiny as soon as they feel ready to do so.
It would, however, make more sense for central repositories like PLoS Currents to harvest their contents from the researchers' own institutional repositories, rather than to try to serve only as yet another locus for direct central deposit. Researchers' institutions are the universal providers of all research output, in all fields, and central repositories should be facilitating universal self-archiving and self-archiving mandates, rather than competing with them. That said, self-archiving mandates [i.e., institutional and funder policies requiring OA deposit] can and should be applied only to refereed postprints, not to unrefereed preprints, whose self-archiving must be left a matter of author choice.
I'm not sure, though, that is it quite accurate to describe me, in 1999, as having been "[o]ne of the fiercest critics of the proposal"!
I greeted the e-biomed proposal as an "extremely welcome and important initiative... deserving of the strongest support" and went on [as is my wont] to make some "recommendations... in the interests of strengthening the proposal by clarifying some crucial central aspects and modifying or eliminating some minor, weaker aspects."
Among those recommendations was that of making and retaining a clear distinction between between (1) peer-reviewed journal publishing (now called "Gold OA") and author self-archiving (now called "Green OA"), as well as a distinction between (2) unrefereed drafts ("preprints") and refereed, published articles ("postprints"). Each of these crucial distinctions was conflated in the original 1999 e-biomed proposal, and it is good to see them de-conflated 10 years later.
The fundamental dichotomy between unrefereed drafts and refereed articles predates Open Access, PLoS, e-biomed, Arxiv, the Web and the Net.
What has changed is that it can now all be done at a global scale, far more rapidly, far more interactively, and by a means that is freely accessible to everyone.
American Scientist Open Access Forum
It would, however, make more sense for central repositories like PLoS Currents to harvest their contents from the researchers' own institutional repositories, rather than to try to serve only as yet another locus for direct central deposit. Researchers' institutions are the universal providers of all research output, in all fields, and central repositories should be facilitating universal self-archiving and self-archiving mandates, rather than competing with them. That said, self-archiving mandates [i.e., institutional and funder policies requiring OA deposit] can and should be applied only to refereed postprints, not to unrefereed preprints, whose self-archiving must be left a matter of author choice.
I'm not sure, though, that is it quite accurate to describe me, in 1999, as having been "[o]ne of the fiercest critics of the proposal"!
I greeted the e-biomed proposal as an "extremely welcome and important initiative... deserving of the strongest support" and went on [as is my wont] to make some "recommendations... in the interests of strengthening the proposal by clarifying some crucial central aspects and modifying or eliminating some minor, weaker aspects."
Among those recommendations was that of making and retaining a clear distinction between between (1) peer-reviewed journal publishing (now called "Gold OA") and author self-archiving (now called "Green OA"), as well as a distinction between (2) unrefereed drafts ("preprints") and refereed, published articles ("postprints"). Each of these crucial distinctions was conflated in the original 1999 e-biomed proposal, and it is good to see them de-conflated 10 years later.
The fundamental dichotomy between unrefereed drafts and refereed articles predates Open Access, PLoS, e-biomed, Arxiv, the Web and the Net.
What has changed is that it can now all be done at a global scale, far more rapidly, far more interactively, and by a means that is freely accessible to everyone.
Harnad, S. (1990) Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum of Scientific Inquiry. Psychological Science 1: 342 - 343 (reprinted in Current Contents 45: 9-13, November 11 1991). ABSTRACT: Scientific publication is a continuum, from unrefereed preprints to refereed reprints, to revisions, commentaries, and replies. All this is optimally done electronically, as "Scholarly Skywriting."Stevan Harnad
___ (1992) Interactive Publication: Extending American Physical Society's Discipline-Specific Model for Electronic Publishing. Serials Review, Special Issue on Economics Models for Electronic Publishing, pp. 58 - 61.
___ (1995) Interactive Cognition: Exploring the Potential of Electronic Quote/Commenting. In: B. Gorayska & J.L. Mey (Eds.) Cognitive Technology: In Search of a Humane Interface. Elsevier. Pp. 397-414.
___ (1996) Implementing Peer Review on the Net: Scientific Quality Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals. In: Peek, R. & Newby, G. (Eds.) Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Pp 103-118.
___ (1997) Learned Inquiry and the Net: The Role of Peer Review, Peer Commentary and Copyright. Learned Publishing 11(4) 283-292.
___ (1998/2000/2004) The invisible hand of peer review. Nature [online] (5 Nov. 1998), Exploit Interactive 5 (2000): and in Shatz, B. (2004) (ed.) Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Rowland & Littlefield. Pp. 235-242.
___ (2003/2004) Back to the Oral Tradition Through Skywriting at the Speed of Thought. Interdisciplines. Retour a la tradition orale: écrire dans le ciel a la vitesse de la pensée. Dans: Salaün, Jean-Michel & Vendendorpe, Christian (dir). Le défis de la publication sur le web: hyperlectures, cybertextes et méta-éditions. Presses de l'enssib.
___ (2002) BBS Valedictory Editorial.
Shadbolt, N., Brody, T., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2006) The Open Research Web: A Preview of the Optimal and the Inevitable, in Jacobs, N., Eds. Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects. Chandos.
American Scientist Open Access Forum
原文出处：http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/621-guid.html
