'Published' means different things to different people. Normally, a common feature is that the work has to have been disseminated or made public. A conference presentation may have been delivered to a gathering of 2000 people, but perhaps 500 hear an oral presentation and only a handful may actually engage with a poster. Opportunities for copying, taking notes etc - lots of countries definitions have different requirements for a work to be considered 'published'.
In the following examples, how do you apply a legal definition of 'published' ?
If you have references to your legal definition, so much the better !
I'd say none of your examples are "published" though they have been "disseminated" in various ways. Arguable cases are [4] and [5], which while they might count in a legal definition of "published" don't count in a scholarly definition of "published" -- since an abstract on its own is worthless (though there might well be disciplinary variations in this).
Not being a lawyer, I would not know what a legal definition of "published" constitutes; but -- as a guess -- I'd say the presence of an ISBN or ISSN number (or some other such identifier, e.g., an DOI) would be fairly uncontroversial, as would the backing of a major publishing house: Springer, Palgrave, Oxford, MIT, or whatever. This would rule all your examples out, with exception of [4] and [5] which would have these numbers, yet be worthless from a scholarly point of view. Note that the same would go for "vanity" publications, or self-publications, which -- while having an ISBN number (if a book) would also be worthless. So the presence of an ISBN/ISSN number is necessary *but not sufficient* for scholarly publishing.
A more interesting question is this: why do academics publish conference papers in proceedings when they would better off placing their papers -- if their piece is worthwhile -- in a scholarly journal? I've never understood why scholars "waste" a good paper in a conference proceedings. It's much less prestigious, and -- given that one can't republish a paper published elsewhere -- it seems a lost opportunity.
Hi Nicholas,
Indeed - published means different things to different people. Good to see that you link it with dissemination of findings in various forums. It's probably 'tricky' to apply the 'legal viewed' context to reporting research findings - mainly because that tends to relate to intellectual property and copyright issues which are 'muddy and murky waters' indeed. For conferences, many will judge the proceedings as 'official' depending on if it is an 'international' conference and if it has some sort of ISI ranking or registration - but, in my mind, that's not that robust.
I personally think that the whole issue is 'loose and grey' - but that there is some sort sort of universal official publication ranking order - ranging from established international journal publications - down to informal forums for presenting findings. For me, conferences tend to 'cluster' towards the lower end of the spectrum - which often means that they are not that closely scrutinised or policed - particularly from legal precedent.
I'd say none of your examples are "published" though they have been "disseminated" in various ways. Arguable cases are [4] and [5], which while they might count in a legal definition of "published" don't count in a scholarly definition of "published" -- since an abstract on its own is worthless (though there might well be disciplinary variations in this).
Not being a lawyer, I would not know what a legal definition of "published" constitutes; but -- as a guess -- I'd say the presence of an ISBN or ISSN number (or some other such identifier, e.g., an DOI) would be fairly uncontroversial, as would the backing of a major publishing house: Springer, Palgrave, Oxford, MIT, or whatever. This would rule all your examples out, with exception of [4] and [5] which would have these numbers, yet be worthless from a scholarly point of view. Note that the same would go for "vanity" publications, or self-publications, which -- while having an ISBN number (if a book) would also be worthless. So the presence of an ISBN/ISSN number is necessary *but not sufficient* for scholarly publishing.
A more interesting question is this: why do academics publish conference papers in proceedings when they would better off placing their papers -- if their piece is worthwhile -- in a scholarly journal? I've never understood why scholars "waste" a good paper in a conference proceedings. It's much less prestigious, and -- given that one can't republish a paper published elsewhere -- it seems a lost opportunity.
Good to see this has already stirred some debate!
I raise the question because most legal definitions require 'adequate dissemination to allow someone to foster an idea of what is being described'. The only legal decision I can find relating to conference material (posters) is attached. It covers a chap who wanted to file a patent on something he had previously displayed on a conference poster - for this purpose, his poster was judged as being published.
Martin: you take a view that is held by many and which depends on personal opinion (not that this is held to be incorrect). Differentiations between the impact of being a major or minor publishing house are subject to interpretation (how many people do you have to have potentially reached & how does the status of the publisher represent this better than the publication metric). A 'vanity' publication may also reach a wide audience & meet the above requirement, as may a blog or 'lesser' journal. A website that hosted presentations, supporting materials etc. may gain a far greater access than a peer-reviewed journal, & non-ranked (IF) national/professional journals may also have a very wide readership, so the potential for dissemination is there.
The bit about 'publishing' in conference proceedings is also interesting: how do we judge that a 300 word abstract has the potential to foster an adequate understanding of a topic? I have always instructed students to read the full article before citing or using information, simply because you cannot rely on an abstract alone to reveal the detail you need to evaluate or understand what the author is saying. There is also work that indicates that @ 30% of conference 'authors' have no intent to write a full paper (they submit their abstracts & present a poster simply to gain funding to attend the conference). A similar number of abstracts go on to become full papers, but the idea that we present an 'oral paper' or a 'poster paper' is false - we give a 20 minute talk or stand by a pictorial summary of our work, hoping for passing trade for 1.5 hours.
These are worthy activities in the sense of engaging with our colleagues, CPE/D etc, but if we consider the intent behind the activity, there is no attempt to 'publish' beyond the conference audience, so I think we are right in judging 1-4 & 6 as non-published. As for 5: if a journal wants to 'publish' work from conferences beyond a simple listing, then I think they should look to provide enough material to foster cognition. It would also bolster the funding-motivated abstracts (which are understandable) to provide a return for the money invested in them. based on my earlier student argument, I do not regard an abstract in a journal as 'published' - it may have distribution, but it cannot be relied upon to have a robust level of detail.
Prestige is a prevalent influence, but scholarship is changing. I would value an on-line journal (regardless of IF) that hosted podcast talks, posters & short papers etc. as it would open up the conference setting to others. It would also prevent what you (& many others) rightly describe as 'waste'. Lots of people can't understand why we even 'waste' our time with conferences, but there is a lot of unseen benefit to be derived from them. Perhaps we just have to make it more visible for it to be appreciated ;-)
Just to throw a spanner in my reasoning: I just put a poster presentation on my profile page. I cited the journal where the abstract is published ... & the RG system duly gives 4.something impact points. Personally, I don't regard it as published (the citation is just to allow people to verify it), but I don't imagine I will get much joy from RG in splitting hairs over publication type !
Yes, In my opinion the best place for the best publications and papers is not conferences . in conferences not only you will lost much more time to present but also the new ideas will expire very soon and may be some body abuse.
I prefer An oral presentation or poster with a 300 word abstract printed in an academic journal.
This may help http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Publish.
I believe we need to look at the purpose of why it is important that we publish our papers and whether paper presentations viewed as legally published level up to this importance. And in this regard, I think that Martin's comment that " the presence of an ISBN or ISSN number (or some other such identifier, e.g., an DOI) would be fairly uncontroversial, as would the backing of a major publishing house" is close to this level.
Eddie - I agree that we conceptualise 'publish' as something that appears in e/printed form with ISSN etc, but the only legal case to have tried this in the poster context (US law) found this requirement to be superseded by the literal definition of publish: to make public. The distribution of copies is also a traditional condition, but we now have a situation where anyone (with or without consent) can photograph an unattended poster in a matter of seconds. We also distribute an abstract, that aside from outlining the main points of the work (in concept), also acts as an 'advertisement' of the work & where to find it. Whether or not a doi etc. has been assigned, to intentionally display a work in front of thousands of people (let alone distribute an abstract in an international journal), to me heads towards an intent & capacity to freely disseminate (publish) knowledge. I think the importance we (understandably) place on paper/book publication has drawn our attention away from the actual definition of 'publish'. Perhaps we need to look at the various forms by which we disseminate knowledge & re-evaluate if we actually want to make the information public or not. If we don't want to acknowledge certain media as published, then we need to think how our actions/approach can ensure that they are in-line with legal definitions. Scholarly practices, media platforms etc. are changing, but we seem happy to think that just because we interpret something differently in our fields, then it does not have to be in-line with the legal interpretation .... (or can these different interpretations exist beside each other) ?
Dear My Friends,
I have attached a file here.
I hope this would help with your success.
This paper describe how to be visible in google and get more citation rate and increase h-index.
All the best!
:-)
Lotfipanah.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publications