This line of reasoning is new to me, and it definitely needs to be aired. The argument here is that the value publishers provide is not the content or even the peer reviewing, but rather, a set of assertions that come with every article. What are these? "Assertions are explicit or implicit authoritative statements of fact about a document... some examples: "Who created the document", "Where was the work done", "When was it released", "Who funded the work", (etc)... Think of it this way: the value is not in the content, it is in the assertions — scholarly publishers don't publish content, they publish assertions." Now all this is what I would call 'metadata', and I have to wonder, is it true that the value is in the metadata? Well, Richard Wynne has a reason for arguing this way, promoting "Rescognito as an Open Access platform where organizations and individuals can make assertions about research outputs and activities." Well it's a great idea, but it will take a lot of cvooperation from authors, publishers and reviewers.
Today: 0 Total: 1111 [Direct link] [Share]
