[open-science] Publication of In-Depth Content

Peter Murray-Rust pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Tue Jan 20 12:49:20 UTC 2015

Important question, thanks. I have strong, possibly arbitrary views.

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Florian Meier <florian.meier at koalo.de>

> Hi everyone,
> it seems to me that it is quite challenging to publish in-depth
> material. I came across this problem while trying to publish
> mathematical content in an applied context (an analytical model for
> wireless networks). Most conferences and journals (open or not) have
> strict page limits

Yes, unfortunately,

> for good reasons (e.g. concise presentation of the
> content and preventing long gibberish).

There are very few good reasons and many bad ones. If the material is being
printed, *and* if any human actually reads the paper version, then this is
a reason. But there are good reasons for trying to scrap it.

> Though, this often leads to quite imprecise presentation of the
> mathematical content, so that if you want to reproduce the results, it
> might take weeks or months to work out the details, especially if you
> are interested in proving the results. In my opinion this time is
> superfluous, because this work was already done by someone, but not
> published because of page limits.

Bad publication means that 85% of science is wasted (The Lancet).
Condensing the account is now an act of destroying science.

> What are your ideas? How should content be published so that it does not
> bore readers in the first place, but allows for easy reproduction for
> interested researches?
> Some thoughts from my side:
> Often you can find some conference paper and an extended version at
> arXiv or elsewhere, but many of these are more initial versions of a
> paper with a few pages more than the final conference paper. So, though
> they provide some more details, they are already written to be suitable
> for submission (i.e. they leave out details and long proofs).

There are differences between conferences and other publications, because
conferences sometimes create actual paper. IMO there is no valid reason why
the full account should not be available.

> Secondly, publishing an extended version of the same paper is difficult
> with regard to copyrights, self-plagiarism

I don't understand this "self-plagiarism" unless it is deliberately meant
to increase your metrics.

> and last but not least
> confusing the reader who reads nearly the same paper twice.

If it's clearly signposted it shouldn't confuse anyone.

> An alternative might be to publish a (short) paper with the ideas, a
> brief summary of the mathematical content, related work and evaluation
> at a conference and publishing the actual groundwork (and only the
> groundwork) including all details elsewhere, preferably as open as
> possible. What would be most suitable for this? arXiv?


> ResearchGate?

Absolutely not - it's a walled garden without any Openness.

> Technical report at the library of the own university?


Is this already a widespread approach?


> Should it be used more widely?


The main problem is that the rules are arbitrary and increasingly driven by
publisher agendas and marketing, not scientists. We have to change this.

> Greetings,
> Florian

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20150120/ec014016/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list