<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca" target="_blank">jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<br>Excellent points - and I will simply amplify some.<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
With due respect to Eric, I will disagree with at least the devolution of the first two tasks<br>
<br></div></blockquote><div>This is critical. If 100% of the scholarly record were archived in 1500 Inst. Repos it would be largely undiscoverable and of relatively small value. I know others disagree with me on this, but I cite the example of chemistry theses in the UK. It is impossible to find them systematically. Yes if I know that X has written a thesis and what university they were at I have a chance. But there are >> 100,000 theses a year (I have no idea of the real figure and I doubt anyone has). The same is true of self-archived material - without a search engine it's undisoverable in bulk - and bulk is essential to many of us, if only to filter it for others.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
The quest for "alternative comprehensive systems" is exactly what Elsevier attempts to build with Scopus. In so doing, Elsevier picks up on the vision of Robert Maxwell when the latter did everything he could, from cajoling to suing, to get the Science Citation Index away from Garfield's hands. Is this really what we want? If it were open, and open access, Eric's idea would make sense; otherwise, it becomes a formidable source of economic power that will do much harm to scientific communication. In effect, with a universal indexing index and more than 2,000 titles in its stable, Elsevier could become judge and party of scientific value.<br>
<br></div></blockquote><div>It is almost trivial to build an Open index of the current electronic scholarly literature. We have developed a tool - PubCrawler - which has crawled the web for crystallography. It scales to any article in any journal of any known publisher. The ONLY barrier are publishers who might report that publishing it violated the sui generis database. Is #scholpub the only thing on the web we are not allowed to index?<br>
<br>P.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="im">
<br>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
<pre>--
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
</pre>
<br>
<br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table></div><br>
Le lundi 14 mai 2012 à 11:38 -0700, Eric F. Van de Velde a écrit :<div><div class="h5"><br>
<blockquote type="CITE">
To Alicia:
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
Here are what I consider the positive contributions by commercial publishers. For any of the positive qualities I mention, it is easy find counterexamples. What matters is that, on the average, the major publishers have done a good job on the following:
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
- Select good editorial boards of leading scholars.
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
- Develop effective systems for organizing peer review.
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
- Produce articles/journals that look professional commensurate with the importance of the scholarship.
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
- Produce an archivable historical record of scholarship.
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
Publishers only receive a marginally passing grade for producing searchable databases of the scholarly record and journals. In the age of iTunes, Netflix, etc., it is inexcusable that to search through scholarship one must buy separate products like the Web of Knowledge in addition to the journal subscriptions. Publishers need to work together to produce alternative comprehensive systems.
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
Most commercial publishers and some society publishers (like ACS) receive failing grades on cost containment. Because of their importance to academia, scholarly publishers have been blessed with the opportunity to reinvent themselves for the future without the devastating disruption other kinds of publishers faced (newspapers, magazines, etc.). However, instead of taking advantage of this opportunity, scholarly publishers are squandering it for temporary financial gain. Every price increase brings severe disruption closer. On the current path, your CEOs are betting the existence of the company every year.
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
About the only company who understands the current information market is Amazon, and everything they do is geared towards driving down costs of the infrastructure. Your competition will not come from Amazon directly, but from every single academic who will be able to produce a high-quality electronic journal from his/her office. There may be only one success for every hundred failed journals in this system, but suppose it is so easy 100,000 try... Your brand/prestige/etc. will carry you only so far. (Amazon is focusing on e-books production now, but it is only a matter of time when they come out with a journal system.)
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
To Jean-Claude:
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
Blaming commercial enterprises for making too much money is like blaming scholars for having too many good ideas. Making money is their purpose. They will stop raising prices if doing so is in their self-interest.
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
The real question is why the scholarly information market is so screwed up that publishers are in a position to keep raising prices. I am blaming site licenses (<a href="http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-if-libraries-were-problem.html" target="_blank">http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-if-libraries-were-problem.html</a> and <a href="http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2011/09/publishers-dilemma.html" target="_blank">http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2011/09/publishers-dilemma.html</a>), but I am open to alternative explanations.
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
--Eric.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<a href="http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com</a>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
Google Voice: <a href="tel:%28626%29%20898-5415" value="+16268985415" target="_blank">(626) 898-5415</a>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
Telephone: <a href="tel:%28626%29%20376-5415" value="+16263765415" target="_blank">(626) 376-5415</a><br>
Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde<br>
E-mail: <a href="mailto:eric.f.vandevelde@gmail.com" target="_blank">eric.f.vandevelde@gmail.com</a>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <<a href="mailto:pm286@cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">pm286@cam.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote>
Jean-Claude,<br>
This is a great analysis and says almost exactly some of what I was planning to say.<br>
<br>
We cannot de facto trust the publishers to work in our interests. There was a time when this was posssible - but no longer.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Peter Murray-Rust<br>
Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>
University of Cambridge<br>
CB2 1EW, UK<br>
<a href="tel:%2B44-1223-763069" target="_blank">+44-1223-763069</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" target="_blank">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<pre>_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" target="_blank">GOAL@eprints.org</a>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069<br>