[GOAL] Re: Some Quaint Elsevier Tergiversation on "Rights Retention"

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com> wrote:

> *Preamble:* If you wish to sample some of the most absurd, incoherent,
> pseudo-legal gibberish on the subject of "rights" retention,
> "systematicity" and free will, please have a look at what follows under "*Elsevier
> Article Posting Policies*<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/postingpolicy>"
> below. (And bear in mind that an institution only provides a tiny fraction
> of any journal's content.)
>

I completely agree. Elsevier reuse "terms and conditions"  on websites are
also self-contradictory and often uninterpretable.

Just as seriously the process of converting an author's manuscript to the
"final version of record" often destroys scientific information and is
seriously un-accessible (e.g. to unsighted humans and certainly machines).
http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/11/23/ami2-opencontentmining-ami-reports-progress-on-pdf2svg-and-svgplus-the-standard-of-stm-publishing/.
The idea that publishers "improve" quality by typsetting, formatting,
etc. is a myth - information is usually destroyed. I would suggest that the
author version should be regarded as the  end product, not the publishers.

Kaveh Bazargan, who runs a STM typesetting company, has (bravely)
castigated the STM publishers' typesetting process ("It’s madness really.
I’m here to say I shouldn’t be in business. " see
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/11/19/yet-another-solo12-recap-part2/ ). I
shall provide additional technical justification shortly.

In short STM publishers do not add technical value in scientific production
- they destroy it.

P.

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20121123/b56c77e0/attachment.html