Important real world example of the current limitations of publishing... - Egon Willighagen

Henry Rzepa left a very interesting comment on the blog: The post raises many interesting issues. One of which is whether deposition of any result into a (DSpace) digital repository prior to attempted publication in an ACS journal might render it ineligible for publication there. In practice, this does not (has not hitherto) happen. We have now published about 14 ACS articles containing what they call a data WEO. These all contain explicit references to the original Dspace entries, every one of which obviously predates the article itself. This represents 100s of previously "published" calculations. I presume some 30 or so referees, and around 6-7 journal editors at the ACS have seen this. Not a single one even hinted that the article might be invalidated as a result, and in each case, publication has gone ahead unhindered. This attitude has also been taken by Science, Nature, and the RSC. I would now suggest that "prior precedent" would make it very difficult for these publishers to change their policy at this stage. On the other hand, lawyers are a strange form of iife, and one can never tell! - Jean-Claude Bradley

Following up on what Henry said - using DSpace (and presumably Nature Precedings) as references in ACS articles does not seem to be a problem. What I have described in my post is perhaps a rare instance, which only occurred because the author made the request (and the editor agreed) to exclude my report in the reference section. But I think it is the case that posting an article as a pre-print on DSpace, Precedings, etc.does invalidate that article for consideration for publication in all ACS journals. - Jean-Claude Bradley

I think that integrating Science2.0 documents with traditional peer-reviewed literature is a logical way to accelerate science going forward - letting each do what it does best. (see for example http://usefulchem.blogspot.com/2008... ). This post is just a cautionary tale about the roadblocks that one may encounter on the way. - Jean-Claude Bradley

you need to check online at the SHERPA/RoMEO site (http://www.sherpa.ac.uk) to see if a publisher will allow you to post a pre-print of your work on a IR or other pre-print server. They use the language: author cannot archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing) so I would interpret this to mean the experimental postings as well. Langmuir does not allow this, as does most of the ACS journals. ACS is very strict regarding posting pre-prints or any pre-pub materials, whereas Science, Nature and other publishers are less so. - Elizabeth Brown

Elizabeth - thanks for the link to SHERPA - very useful for this type of thing. It is very clear that ACS considers pre-prints as already published works. That is why it was so surprising that our document was not considered "published" enough to be used as a reference. From everything I've seen this seems to be an unusual case. But we'll see. - Jean-Claude Bradley

I agree that is strange. Who knows? It's a good example though of making sure your work is still accessible after posting to an "archived" location. Another variable is the editor's interpretation of policies, as you mentioned in the blog post. SHERPA gives general policy info but policies can change over time and not be accurate at the time of publication. - Elizabeth Brown

Elizabeth - interestingly there generally are no policies about what can be used as a reference. I have found that common sense is followed usually - cite the best possible information source to make a point. The overall message of the post though is that even when the best possible source is readily available it may not be used at the discretion of the author/editor. - Jean-Claude Bradley

I disagree somewhat that it is a matter of policy. I think there is a principle that when someone says something is new or novel (or not previously published) that specifically leaving out a reference to a previous publication of any form - that has been pointed out - is pretty shocking. The statement as I read it in the paper is not true - which both the editor and author knew. As JC points out a statement "has not appeared in the peer reviewed literature" would be fine. - Cameron Neylon

I think the issue is what one means by "publication" - some researchers do not consider a pre-print a publication, others do, and the publisher (and/or the editor) has their own policies and exclusions. If you include data as part of the publication environment there are even more divergent opinions on what is a "proper" publication. I think that's what happened here - I don't think the author considered it a publication, and as such made decisions and wrote their paper accordingly. I agree they should have been more inclusive. - Elizabeth Brown

I received some interesting feedback from the editor: "if an author feels that a claim of novelty is blocked by results that have not been through the peer-review system but rather posted independently on a website, I am sympathetic to that too. For example, I would never consider a claim made in a patent as blocking an author's claim of novelty." That is somewhat surprising to me - a patent does not count as prior art for a paper? Certainly a paper (peer-reviewed or not) is considered prior art for a patent application. - Jean-Claude Bradley

More from the editor: "The bottom line is that a system has evolved in which credibility is bestowed based on the peer review system; the ACS believes in that system, as do I. Those who wish to work outside the peer-review system are welcome to do so, but they must expect that their work will not have the same weight as if it had been put through peer review." That isn't consistent with the many examples of "unpublished results" used as references in Langmuir. But it also highlights a problem with the existing system - the document I made public didn't have a peer-reviewed vehicle available - it is the result of a single experiment. Although all conventional supporting data were provided to substantiate the claim, journals are just not in the business of publishing single experiments. So it remains in a kind of limbo. - Jean-Claude Bradley

Our publication might not be recognized by Langmuir but it shows up on SciFinder too :) - Jean-Claude Bradley

I agree Dorthea - tho my personal opinion is ACS is more concerned with distribution through IRs, etc. rather than something being "previously published." - Elizabeth Brown

I agree, and would add "any distribution model that might result in loss of revenue from subscriptions and/or licenses." The ACS has so much $ and it is so tied to revenue from their journals - any practice that threatens this system will be seen as taking $ away from the society. - Elizabeth Brown