Re: OA as provision against salami and double publishing

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

Bernie points out a nuanced distinction when it comes to salami 
and double publishing.  The Nature article assumes that it is 
caused solely by authors who are trying to game the system.  I 
pointed out the case of a publisher who decided to take advantage 
of the system, and especially the trust relationship between 
publisher and library.  My main point was that the additional 
transparency afforded by a Utopian OA future does not put an end 
to salami and double-publishing.  The CrossRef initiative, 
described in an earlier post by Joachim Engelland, assumes that 
all publishers share the same social norms and standards for what 
is acceptable practice, and effectively take action to prevent 
violations from taking place in their journals.  Preventing 
salami and double publishing is not an accessibility issue, and 
there is nothing inherent in OA publishing to suggest that this 
form of publishing, by its design, abides by a higher standard of 
practice.

--Phil Davis

Philip M. Davis
PhD Student
Department of Communication
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
email: pmd8@cornell.edu
https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/~pmd8/resume


B.G. Sloan wrote:
> From: Bernie Sloan [snip]
>
> [E]arlier posts regarding the recent item in Nature, etc., seem to imply that
> authors sometimes do this to inflate their publication records for their vitae.
> ***
>
> References:
> [1] Davis, P. M. (2005). The Ethics of Republishing: A Case Study of
> Emerald/MCB University Press Journals. Library Resources & Technical
> Services, 49(2), 72-78. http://hdl.handle.net/1813/2572
>
> [2] Davis, P. M. (2005). Article duplication in Emerald/MCB journals is
> more extensive than first reported: Possible conflicts of financial and
> functional interests are uncovered. Library Resources & Technical
> Services, 49(3), 138-150. http://hdl.handle.net/1813/2574