[Humanist] 26.930 open access

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Tue Apr 2 08:24:46 CEST 2013


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 26, No. 930.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    Rice Curt <curt.rice at uit.no>                             (151)
        Subject: Re:  26.929 open access

  [2]   From:    "Holly C. Shulman" <hcs8n at virginia.edu>                  (177)
        Subject: Re:  26.929 open access


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 10:12:57 +0000
        From: Rice Curt <curt.rice at uit.no>
        Subject: Re:  26.929 open access
        In-Reply-To: <20130401082332.4EFA52CD0 at digitalhumanities.org>

I read with interest the postings on open access, as it's a topic and think and write about quite a bit myself. There is one sense in which open access is relevant for the discussion of plagiarism, namely with the issue of self-plagiarism. When we publish in toll access journals and sign over the copyright to our articles, we give up ownership to what we've written. In the natural sciences, where multiple publications might emerge from one set of experiments, it's easy to imagine a "methods" section that is relevant for multiple publications and that one would like to re-cycle. But when the researcher no longer owns the material, that kind of recycling also becomes plagiarism. If the publications were in OA journals, this particular kind of plagiarism would be technically not plagiarism, i.e. it would disappear.

Of course, we've seen cases of this closer to the humanities, too. I elaborate on my thoughts on this topic in "Whaddaya mean plagiarism? I wrote it myself! How open access can eliminate self-plagiarism" at http://bit.ly/QGKmad

Curt Rice
University of Tromsø



--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 09:37:26 -0400
        From: "Holly C. Shulman" <hcs8n at virginia.edu>
        Subject: Re:  26.929 open access
        In-Reply-To: <20130401082332.4EFA52CD0 at digitalhumanities.org>


With thanks for such wonderful and detailed explanations.  My next question
is the financial structure of OA.  Were a history journal to shift to OA,
for example, from where would the money to pay staff etc, readers, and on
and on come from?  What models are already out there for financial
recuperation?  In addition, if there is, for example, contemporary
institutional or foundation support, should we consider this a potentially
permanent arrangement, or not, as institutional funding waxes and wanes and
priorities change both in universities and among foundations.

Holly Shulman

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Humanist Discussion Group <
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:

>                  Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 26, No. 929.
>             Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
>                        www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>                 Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
>
>
>
>         Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:39:33 -0400
>         From: Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca>
>         Subject: Re:  26.924 open access
>
>
> Let me clarify a few things about open access.
>
> OUP is classified as a "yellow" publisher by the Sherpa/Romeo database
> (http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/). This means that an author can
> self-archive a pre-print (i.e. pre-refereed) version of his/her text)
> immediately.
>
> Opening up access after two years is not real open access; it is a
> moving wall limiting access to protect (so the publishers say, although
> the evidence is not clear, to say the least) the financial viability of
> journals.
>
> Not only is open access compatible with peer review; it relies on it,
> just as toll access. Changing the mode of access to publications has
> nothing to do with peer review. Incidentally, the more than 8,800
> journals listed in the Directory of open access journals
> (http://www.doaj.org) can be listed there only if they practise peer
> review.
>
> In the natural sciences, journals are evaluated through their impact
> factor, not by their OA or non-OA status. In passing, this is not a very
> smart approach (the IF is not a reliable index of journal quality), and,
> furthermore, it has nothing to do with Open Access. Quite a few OA
> journals benefit from a high IF, for example the Public Library of
> Science publications.
>
> In HSS journals, reputation is constructed in a more impressionistic
> manner, and OA journals, alas, suffer from being young: it is hard to
> establish a strong reputation rapidly. But judging article quality by
> the journals they go into is unreliable at best, lazy at worst. Quality
> of articles should be established at the article, not journal, level.
> Otherwise, we fall into a logo game and marketing strategies, neither of
> which have much to do with scholarship quality.
>
> The issue of derivatives is very different from Open Access except
> insofar as it intersects the issue of reuse in further research. Open
> access advocates carefully distinguish gratis OA from libre OA. The
> former only provides ocular contact with the documents; it does not
> allow for reuse (for example in the classroom). Libre OA, on the other
> hand, allows (legitimate) reuse of documents. If I want to send an
> article I like to several colleagues, libre OA allows me to do so. I f I
> want my students to read an article, I can distribute the libre OA
> article without restrictions. Etc. This is the reason why most OA
> advocates recommend a CC-by licence (attribution only under Creative
> Commons licence) as scholars do not care whether their articles are sold
> or not by others; they only want maximum exposure to the world.
>
> Plagiarism is yet another thing that does not have anything to do with
> Open Access. Digital documents are patently easier to cut and paste than
> printed ones, but the result is also patently easier to identify, as
> Peter Suber and myself have pointed out on many occasions. Plagiarism
> has to be revisited because of digitization, not because of Open Access,
> and digitization is probably making plagiarism riskier than print. A Ph.
> D. thesis sitting in paper on an obscure shelf in one library is a lot
> easier to plagiarize than a digitized thesis, especially if the
> plagiarized text is not itself digitized.
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
>
>
> --
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
> Professeur titulaire
> Littérature comparée
> Université de Montréal

-- 
Holly C. Shulman
Editor, Dolley Madison Digital Edition
Founding Director, Documents Compass
Research Professor, Department of History
University of Virginia
434-243-8881
hcs8n at virginia.edu





More information about the Humanist mailing list