http://blog.amamanualofstyle.com/2011/04/14/duplicity-or-the-dangers-of-duplicate-e-publication/ Official blog of the AMA Manual of Style Tue, 09 Apr 2013 06:05:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ http://blog.amamanualofstyle.com/2011/04/14/duplicity-or-the-dangers-of-duplicate-e-publication/#comment-5 Fri, 29 Apr 2011 20:19:50 +0000 http://blog.amamanualofstyle.com/?p=96#comment-5 [...] of the posts is particularly important for INANE members — “Duplicity, or the Dangers of Duplicate e-Publication.”  This particular post refers to and relies on the particular policies and viewpoints of [...]

]]> http://blog.amamanualofstyle.com/2011/04/14/duplicity-or-the-dangers-of-duplicate-e-publication/#comment-4 Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:36:14 +0000 http://blog.amamanualofstyle.com/?p=96#comment-4 Sorry, after being preoccupied about this while doing other work, I read more and realized that some of what I was calling gold OA is actually “delayed OA” or “hybrid OA”. But all of my themes are still worth asking about.

]]> http://blog.amamanualofstyle.com/2011/04/14/duplicity-or-the-dangers-of-duplicate-e-publication/#comment-3 Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:14:21 +0000 http://blog.amamanualofstyle.com/?p=96#comment-3 This post makes it sounds like *all* self-archiving of preprints is an evil, unethical practice. Yet what caused the problem was the (unethical) nondisclosure of it and the ignoring of journal policy on it, not the fact that it’s inherently evil. Yet the post talks about it without ever mentioning “self-archiving” or “preprints” by name. It does mention approved schemes of *postprint* self-archiving, without ever making the preprint/postprint distinction or using those terms, and without broaching the difference between green open access and gold open access. My questions include (1) doesn’t the acceptability of preprint self-archiving simply depend on each journal’s policy about preprints (not the Law of God) and (2) who says *all* preprint self-archiving is inherently evil—even fully disclosed and agreed, on an embargo schedule? For example, say a dataset appendix from the preprint was cut by the journal’s editors (thus is absent from the postprint) but is still a quite-valuable download to peers? As long as the preprint is self-archived in accordance with journal policy on such (eg, embargoed 12 months), there’s nothing wrong with the fact that, 12 months later and forever after, the article is effectively published twice, in different places, *and* in different versions. In fact, US NLM and Wellcome are pushing gold open access to happen with their requirements on supplying preprints to PubMed immediately upon publishing for all work supported by their grants (although the preprints are usually embargoed for 12 months or so before gaining downloadability, which is what turns the green to gold). Regarding “The new wrinkle is the ease (and speed) with which researchers can post information online”, I do need to point out that, with ArXiv being about 20 years old now, and earlier iterations of self-archiving having existed before that, I’d say that the “new wrinkle” sentence was true 15 and even 10 years ago—but not anymore. I totally understand a publishing company needing to put limits on self-archiving, such as embargo periods. I really do. But this post, while (rightly) chastising the author for undisclosed preprint self-archiving with no consideration of journal policy, makes it sound like there can never be ANY room in the ethical universe for negotiated preprint allowances (via journal policy) and multiple versions (pre- and post-) discoverable online. Meanwhile, the author who self-archived without telling the publisher most likely did it out of complete ignorance that there was anything wrong with it. Bet he’d say, “What? ArXiv does it all the time!” The difference is disclosure and journal-specific policy; it’s green vs gold; but I bet he seriously just didn’t even know that. I’m not saying that’s a legal excuse; I’m just saying that if publishers expect STM authors to understand the difference between green open access and gold open access, then publishers bear a burden of broadcasting to the author population continual explanations and reminders of the difference. But this post doesn’t even acknowledge the green-vs-gold conversation that has been going on “out there” hot and heavy for at least 5 years if not 10.

]]>