Andy is correct. RAE panels don't give a toss whether the paper has been
peer reviewed or whether it has appeared in a traditional refereed journal
or not. Thus, Stevan's comment that " the RAE ....[do not] regard.....
unpublished papers as published papers." is incorrect, as the panels take no
view on this matter at all. RAE panels evaluate the output on its merits as
a research document. But it would be a very high risk strategy to submit
non-refereed material as part of one's RAE submission.
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Department of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU
Tel 01509-223065
Fax 01509-223053
e mail [log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Powell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: Publication? was: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for
University Open Access Mandate
As far as I can tell (though I confess that I haven't read it thru
thoroughly), the RAE "Guidance on submissions" document at
http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2005/03/rae0305.pdf
(June 2005) tends to talk in terms of 'outputs' (rather than publications).
It doesn't use the word 'unpublished' anywhere. It does use the words
'published' and 'publication' but these appear to be meant in the looser
sense that John indicates below (i.e. made available), e.g. as used in
"internet publication"?
Oddly(?) the document also doesn't seem to talk explicitly about 'peer
review' except in the context of calculating research income.
So it's not clear to me that it is safe to assume that the RAE uses
'published' (and 'publication') to mean 'peer reviewed' and 'unpublished' to
mean 'non-peer reviwed'?
Andy
--
Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
[log in to unmask]
+44 (0)1225 474319
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 15 March 2006 15:12
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Publication? was: Re: Generic Rationale and
> Model for University Open Access Mandate
>
> I don't disagree with anything John writes below:
>
> (1) Yes, web-posted, unpublished papers are being read, used, cited
> -- and sometimes they are even good!
>
> (2) They can and should and are being deposited in IRs too,
> in addition to the primary OA target: refereed journal articles.
>
> (3) No, neither the RAE nor tenure/promotion committees nor
> journals regard this unpublished papers as published papers.
> They can and should be and are being listed in CVs and cited
> as unpublished papers.
>
> Where's the point of disagreement?
>
> If unrefereed, unpublished papers deposited in IRs are to be
> called some sort of publication at all, then that sort of
> publication already has a name: Vanity Press (or
> Self-Publication). (I prefer "preprint" or "ms. in prep",
> because it has a more hopeful ring to it, heralding things to
> come, like, maybe, publication!)
>
> Chrs, Stevan
>
> On 15-Mar-06, at 9:46 AM, J.W.T.Smith wrote:
>
> > Stevan, et al,
> >
> > No amount of pontificating or dogmatic definition tweaking
> is going to
> > put this genie back in the bottle. Any document made publicly
> > available is 'published' by any reasonable definition of
> the word. To
> > insist that it is not really published until it has been through a
> > refereeing stage and appeared in an acknowledged journal is
> > rearranging the deckchairs after the Titanic has sunk. Many
> > respectable research papers are appearing (ie, being
> published), being
> > read and cited (and the citations are being tracked by search
> > services) before any peer review or even if no peer review
> is planned.
> > IRs are part of a new publishing system whether their original
> > proponents want them to be or not.
> >
> > How many IRs contain only the type of material specified by
> Stevan?
> > We are
> > in the planning stage for our IR and it will be limited to research
> > outputs but it will certainly not be limited to only
> refereed material
> > which has been (or is to be) published in a recognised journal.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John Smith,
> > University of Kent.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Wolfgang Greller wrote:
> >>
> >>> Can anyone tell me whether articles published in an institutional
> >>> e-print repository count as publication in UK RAE terms?
> >>
> >> Absolutely not! "Publication" in the UK RAE and in every other
> >> sensible venue, means (in the case of research articles)
> publication
> >> in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, not vanity self-publication.
> >>
> >> Nor is OA self-archiving self-publication. It is
> access-provision --
> >> providing supplementary access to an already-published article, in
> >> order to maximise its usage and impact, not in order to generate a
> >> spurious entry under "Publications" in one's CV. The place
> in one's
> >> CV for unpublished papers is, as always, "Unpublished Papers."
> >>
> >> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/8705/01/resolution.htm#1.4
> >>
> >> Stevan Harnad
> >> American Scientist Open Access Forum
> >> http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-
> >> Access-Forum.html
> >>
> >> Chaire de recherche du Canada Professor of Cognitive
> >> Science
> >> Ctr. de neuroscience de la cognition Dpt. Electronics &
> >> Computer Science
> >> Université du Québec à Montréal University of Southampton
> >> Montréal, Québec Highfield, Southampton
> >> Canada H3C 3P8 SO17 1BJ United Kingdom
> >> http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
> >> ~harnad/
> >>
>
|