The Dual Function of Open Access Scholarly Communication

An arXiv Case Study

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37467/gkarevtechno.v10.3196

Keywords:

arXiv, Open access, Research, Preprints, Repositories, Scholarly communication, Scholarly publishing

Abstract

This paper proposes that the system of scholarly communication and publishing must be tailored to the new technological (Internet) and social (Open Access) realities. It addresses, in particular, the need to revise and adapt the mission of academic journals so that they meet the new needs of science and society. The paper distinguishes between their research function and their institutional function and, using an example from arXiv, illustrates how these two functions may be fulfilled by subject-based repositories and scholarly journals, respectively.

References

Aberg, J., & G. Mitchison (2009). Cumulants and the moment algebra: Tools for analyzing weak measurements. arXiv:0812.3359v1. [Deposited on December 17, 2008]

[Updated on July 12, 2009, arXiv:0812.3359v2]. Published in Journal of Mathematical Physics, 50(4), 042103.

Biagioli, M. (2002). From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review. Emergences, 12(1), 11-45.

Delfanti, A. (2016). Beams of particles and papers: How digital preprint archives shape authorship and credit. Social Studies of Science, 46(4), 1-17, https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716659373.

Delfanti, A. (2021). The financial market of ideas: A theory of academic social media. Social Studies of Science, 51(2), 259–276, https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312720966649.

Elitzur, A., & L. Vaidman (1993). Quantum Mechanical Interaction-Free Measurements. arXiv:hep-th/9305002v1. [Deposited on May 3, 1993]

[Updated on May 5, 1993, arXiv:hep-th/9305002v2] Published in Foundations of Physics 23 (7), 987-997.

European Commission (2016a). Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World¬—a vision for Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, https://www.doi.org/10.2777/061652.

European Commission (2016b). Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research & Innovation. Published on July 28, 2016. (Accessible online at

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf. Last access: August 19, 2021)

Eve, M. P. (2014). Open Access and the Humanities. Contexts, Controversies and the Future. Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316161012.

Garfield, E. (1955). Citation Indexes for Science: a New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas. Science, 122(3159), July 15, 103-111, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108.

Ginsparg, P. (1996). Winners and losers in the global research village. In R. Elliot and D. Shaw (eds.), Electronic Publishing in Science I, proceedings of joint ICSU Press/UNESCO conference, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1300/J123v30n03_13.

Ginsparg, P. (2007). Next-Generation Implications of Open Access. CTWatch Quarterly, 3(3), August 2007. (Available online at https://icl.utk.edu/ctwatch/quarterly/articles/2007/08/next-generation-implications-of-open-access/5/index.html. Last access: August 19, 2021)

Guédon, J.-C. (2001). In Oldenburg's Long Shadow: Librarians, Research Scientists, Publishers, and the Control of Scientific Publishing. Washington D.C.: Association of Research Libraries. (Available at http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/in-oldenburgs-long-shadow.pdf. Last access: August 19, 2021)

Guédon, J.-C. (2004). The ‘Green’ and ‘Gold’ Roads to Open Access: The Case for Mixing and Matching. Serials Review, 30(4), 315-328, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2004.09.005.

Harnad, S. (2001). The self-archiving initiative. Nature 410, pp. 1024-1025, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature28061.

Harnad, S. (2003). Electronic Preprints and Postprints. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. Marcel Dekker, Inc. (Available at https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/257721/. Last access: August 19, 2021)

Hosten, O., & P.G. Kwiat. (2006). Weak Measurements and Counterfactual Computation. arXiv:quant-ph/0612159v1. [Deposited on December 19, 2006]

Hosten, O., & P.G. Kwiat. (2008). Observation of the spin Hall effect of light via weak measurements. Science, 319(5864), 787-790, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152697.

Hosten, O., M. T. Rakher, J.T. Barreiro, N.A. Peters & P.G. Kwiat. (2006a). Counterfactual quantum computation through quantum interrogation. Nature 439, 949-952, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04523. [Published on February 23, 2006]

Hosten, O., M. T. Rakher, J.T. Barreiro, N.A. Peters & P.G. Kwiat. (2006b). Counterfactual computation revisited. arXiv:quant-ph/0607101v1. [Deposited on July 14, 2006]

[Updated 6 August 2006, arXiv:quant-ph/0607101v2]

Hoy, M. B. (2020). Rise of the Rxivs: How Preprint Servers are Changing the Publishing Process. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 39(1), 84-89, https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2020.1704597.

Jozsa, R. (1998). Quantum effects in algorithms. arXiv:quant-ph/9805086v1. [Deposited on May 29, 1998]

Jozsa, R. (1999). Quantum effects in algorithms. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 10(10), 1657-1664. [Published on September 1999]

Jozsa, R. (2007). Complex weak values in quantum measurement. arXiv:0706.4207v1. [Deposited on June 28, 2007]

Published in Physical Review A, 76(4), 044103. [Published on October 11, 2007]

Kaiser, J. (2015). NSF unveils plan to make scientific papers free. Science, March 18, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab0341.

Koonin, E., L. Landweber, D. Lipman & R. Dignon (2006). Reviving a culture of scientific debate: Can ‘open peer review’ work for biologists? Biology Direct is hopeful. Nature, http://doi.org/10.1038/nature05005.

Kuperberg, G. (2002). Scholarly mathematical communication at a crossroads. http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0210144. [Deposited on October 9, 2002]

Published in Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde, 5(3), 2002, No. 3, 262-264.

Kwiat, P.G., H. Weinfurter, T. Herzog, A. Zeilinger, & M.A. Kasevich (1995). ‘Interaction free’ measurement. Physical Review Letters, 74, 4763-4766. [Published on June 12, 1995]

Kwiat, P.G., A.G. White, J.R. Mitchell, O. Nairz, G. Weihs, H. Weinfurter, & A. Zeilinger (1999). High-Efficiency Quantum Interrogation Measurements via the Quantum Zeno Effect. arXiv:quant-ph/9909083v1. [Deposited on September 27, 1999]

Published in Physical Review Letters, 83(23), 4725-4728. [Published on December 6, 1999]

Larivière, V., C.R. Sugimoto, B. Macaluso, S. Milojevic, B. Cronin, & M. Thelwall (2014). arXiv E-Prints and the Journal of Record: An Analysis of Roles and Relationships. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1157–1169, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23044.

Mitchison, G. (2008). Weak measurement takes a simple form for cumulants. Physical Review A, 77(5), 052102. [Published on May 2, 2008]

Mitchison, G., & R. Jozsa. (1999). Counterfactual Computation. arXiv:quant-ph/9907007v1. [Deposited on July 2, 1999]

[Updated on October 25, 2000, arXiv:quant-ph/9907007v2]

Mitchison, G., & R. Jozsa. (2001). Counterfactual Computation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 457, 1175-1193. [Published on May 8, 2001]

Mitchison, G., & R. Jozsa. (2006). The limits of counterfactual computation. arXiv:quant-ph/0606092v1. [Deposited on June 10, 2006]

[Updated on July 27, 2006, arXiv:quant-ph/0606092v2]

[Updated on January 3, 2007, arXiv:quant-ph/0606092v3]

Mitchison, G., R. Jozsa, & S. Popescu (2007). Sequential weak measurement, arXiv:0706.1508v1. [Deposited on June 11, 2007]

[Updated on August 3, 2007, arXiv:0706.1508v2]

Published in Physical Review A 76 (6), 062105. [Published on December 10, 2007]

Moore, J. (2006). Does peer review mean the same to the public as it does to scientists? Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05009.

Nature. (2001). Bad peer reviewers. Nature 413, September 13 (Editorial), 93.

Nature. (2006). Nature's peer review trial: Despite enthusiasm for the concept, open peer review was not widely popular, either among authors or by scientists invited to comment. Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05535.

Nielsen, M. A. (2011). Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton University Press.

NSF (2015). Today’s Data, Tomorrow’s Discoveries. Increasing Access to the Results of Research Funded by the National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation, USA. Published on March 18, 2015. (Accessible online at http://nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf15052. Last access: August 19, 2021)

RCUK. (2013). RCUK Policy on Open Access and Supporting Guidance. Research Councils UK, United Kingdom. Published on April 8, 2013. (Accessible online at https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/UKRI-020920-OpenAccessPolicy.pdf. Last access: August 19, 2021)

RCUK. (2015). Review of the implementation of the RCUK Policy on Open Access. Research Councils UK, United Kingdom. Published on March 2015. (Accessible online at https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2014/response-2014-review-implementation-rcuk-open-access-policy-12092014.pdf. Last access: August 19, 2021)

Roosendaal, H. & P. Geurts (1997). Forces and functions in scientific communication: an analysis of their interplay. Cooperative Research Information Systems in Physics, 31 August—4 September. Oldenburg, Germany. (Accessible online at https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/forces-and-functions-in-scientific-communication-an-analysis-of-t. Last access: August 19, 2021)

Sandewall, E. (2004). New and Changing Scientific Publication Practices Due to Open-Access Publication Initiatives. In J.M. Esanu and P.F. Uhlir (eds.), Open Access and the Public Domain in Digital Data and Information for Science, pp. 110-113. The National Academies Press.

Sismondo, S. (2016). Sorting on arXiv: Introduction to an ad hoc section. Social Studies of Science, 46(4), 583-585, https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716661429.

Solla Price, D. J. de (1963). Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press.

Suber, P. (2012). Open Access. The MIT Press.

Till, J.E. (2001). Predecessors of preprint servers. Learned Publishing, 14, 7-13.

Vaidman, L. (2006). Impossibility of the Counterfactual Computation for All Possible Outcomes. arXiv:quant-ph/0610174v1. [Deposited on October 20, 2006]

[Updated on December 21, 2006, arXiv:quant-ph/0610174v2]

[Updated on January 2, 2007, arXiv:quant-ph/0610174v3]

Vaidman, L. (2007). Impossibility of the Counterfactual Computation for All Possible Outcomes. Physical Review Letters 98, 160403. [Published on April 18, 2007]

Van Noorden, R. (2014). Chinese agencies announce open-access policies. Nature, May 19, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2014.15255.

Willinsky, J. (2006). The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship. MIT Press.

Downloads

Published

2021-12-30

How to Cite

Gherab Martín, K. J. (2021). The Dual Function of Open Access Scholarly Communication: An arXiv Case Study. TECHNO REVIEW. International Technology, Science and Society Review Revista Internacional De Tecnología, Ciencia Y Sociedad, 10(2), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.37467/gkarevtechno.v10.3196

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 2 (2021)

Section

Research articles

License

Those authors who publish in this journal accept the following terms:

  1. Authors will keep the moral right of the work and they will transfer the commercial rights.
  2. After 1 year from publication, the work shall thereafter be open access online on our website, but will retain copyright.
  3. In the event that the authors wish to assign an Creative Commons (CC) license, they may request it by writing to publishing@eagora.org