HESPERIA 76 (2OO7) TOWARD ges 22g?242 N ANCIENT STUDIES

The Princeton-Stanford Working Papers in Classics

ABSTRACT

The authors' with and an experience founding managing open-access Internet site for scholarly , the Princeton-Stanford Working Papers in Classics, raises issues about the status of publication in classical studies. offer in terms of and dated Open-access e-prints unique advantages availability of but raise concerns about and registration work, certification permanent are archiving. E-prints and traditional publications currently complementary. Yet the worlds of scholarly publication and academic evaluation of scholar are ship changing in important ways; closer cooperation between publishers, scholars, and university administrators could help to maximize benefits and limit costs to disciplines, institutions, and individuals.

venues The relationship between traditional research publication and new types of communication is amatter of sometimes-heated debate and seri ous discussion within the disciplines of classics and classical archaeology as well as across the academic world.1 Classical studies have been in the

forefront of exploring the utility of electronic technologies for the human ities. The Perseus Project (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu) and the Bryn Mawr are Classical Review (BMCR; http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/) just two ventures now early that have become standard points of reference in area humanities research. In the of research publication, traditional print run journals have added Web-based versions of their issues that in parallel access with the print versions, although often with "moving walls" of that 1.We would like to thank the editor block online consultation of current issues. Meanwhile, launched o? for us to contribute recently Hesperia inviting e-based such as Histos an on this to journals (http://www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/histos/) topic the journal's are and Ancient Narrative have fulfilled 75th-anniversary volume. We also (http://www.ancientnarrative.com/) to the individuals who all the normal functions of re grateful many traditional print journals, including peer information and for view and more provided insights careful editing. Each year witnesses the development of of this two article, including anonymous sources: these scholarly electronic the Frankfurter elektronische Rundschau referees. Shaw notes his Hesperia special zur Altertumskunde for was to (FeRA; http://www.fera-journal.eu), example, thanks Adriana Popescu, librarian initiated at the Frank for the Plasma Physics Center and the recently Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universit?t, at with substantial EU as an dedicated to Friend Center for Engineering furt, support, e-journal primarily Princeton new University. publications by graduate students in ancient studies. Internet-based

? The American School of Classical Studies at Athens 23O JOSIAH OBER ET AL.

context "working-papers" (WP) sites have emerged within this broader as more acces another means of making academic research immediately on a sible?and global scale. or Yet the practice of circulating and archiving working papers, pre prints, antedates the advent of the Internet.2 The idea of systematically to at collecting preprints of academic research appears have begun Stan ford University in 1962 among theHigh Energy Physics (HEP) com ar munity when the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) began chiving preprints in physics. The accessibility of these working papers was greatly improved in 1968-1969 with the establishment of the Stan ford Physics (later, Public) Information Retrieval System (SPIRES). soon were Others adopted the idea, and working-papers series initiated by leading academic departments in various fields of the social sciences, economics. notably was It only in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, however, that the practice of making prepublication research quickly and readily available once expanded dramatically, again within the HEP community, with the efforts of Paul Ginsparg and others at the Los Alamos National Labora to or on sites that 2. term is tory (LANL) post preprints working papers computer Although the "" and accessible via the Internet.3 The of used with would be freely openly archiving interchangeably "working was now as a in this there is much preprint papers envisaged purely distribution system, set paper" article, variance in Uterature up so that research in progress could be made immediately available to terminological about to define all interested in the With the model set the success pubUshing. Attempts parties discipline. by terms as such "preprint" and "postprint" of this Internet-based sites have in more can at project, working-papers proliferated clearly be found http:// the few This brief traces the and of past years. essay origins development www..ac.uk/romeoinfo.html one recent our own and such experiment in field?the Princeton-Stanford http://www.niso.org/committees/ on Working Papers in Classics?in order both to comment the benefits Journal_versioning/Recommendations_ March new to TechnicalWG.pdf (accessed 10, of this mode of publishing research and raise questions about the 2007). of sites to more traditional modes of relationship working-papers scholarly 3. Gunnarsd?ttir 2005, pp. 551-554; publication. Manuel 2001, pp. 60, 63-64. The Princeton-Stanford Working Papers in Classics (henceforth 4. For the relevance of open-access a sites to this see Tananbaum PSWPC; http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/) is Web-based open-access discussion, 2004,2005. The author is the past pres preprint collection, featuring work in progress of members of the Prince ident of the Electronic Press. ton and Stanford ancient studies communities. The term access" Berkeley "open 5. See Andrew 2003. Contributors indicates that with an Internet connection and browser has ac anyone to PSWPC are individuaUy responsible cess to the site and can download its contents.4 The site is a stan managed for basic formatting: attaching two are dard cover an by the Classics departments of the universities and the papers page, providing on a server are of the contents and the author's mounted maintained by Princetons department. Papers paper's e-mail address, converting their sub not peer reviewed. Instead, quality is monitored by limiting the number mission to a PDF file, and of scholars who are to research on the site to the of submitting permitted post faculty the file to the local PSWPC coordi the two and as well as nator one universities, postdoctoral fellows, visiting scholars, (there is faculty-member was cur graduate students with faculty approval. The site designed and is coordinator at each institution). The a coordinator checks to see that the for rently operated by Donna Sanclemente, who holds full-time Information correct use matting is and then sends the Technology (IT) position in Princetons Department of Classics. The file on to the IT who serves of the server to host this site follows what to be the specialist department appears as site administrator. The new or specialist normal in sites in many mounts practice hosting preprint working-papers the file, ensuring that it is science and a that is to continue in the engineering fields, practice likely properly cross-Unked by author, date, near area. future.5 institution, and subject toward open access in ancient studies 231

HISTORY AND SCOPE OF THE PSWPC

a The idea of setting up Web-based Working Papers in Classics series to originally occurred Josiah Ober in the spring of 2004, when he was on on serving the Princeton Faculty Advisory Committee Appointments and Advancements. This committee reads appointment and retention dossiers from all academic departments. Many of the dossiers, notably in some the social sciences, included references to working papers; in cases, a notably in economics, section of the candidates curriculum vitae was to a one dedicated list of working pap?is. By chance, of the committee members, Gene Grossman of the Department of Economics, had been instrumental in founding and maintaining his department's WP series at a Princeton. He offered Ober detailed explanation of how this series a a operated, how it had evolved from print-based to Web-based format, costs the of its operation, and the benefits reaped by both contributors and readers of these papers. There are obvious differences in how the academic fields of econom

ics and classical studies operate; for example, promotion decisions in de are on partments of economics based primarily publications in scholarly journals, and articles often have multiple authors. Yet Ober reasoned that are since economists, who by disciplinary inclination very attentive to costs and benefits, had long found such working papers to be of substantial cost benefit?even worth the high of hard-copy distribution in the pre a Internet era?then prima facie case could be made that a similar series would benefit classicists and classical archaeologists. Moreover, with Inter net publication rather than print distribution, costs were within reason. The project seemed timely in that the Department of Classics at Princeton had an was recently hired IT specialist with Web design experience, and in the access process of acquiring to dedicated servers. at a The project took shape in the fall of 2004 luncheon meeting at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Palo Alto, California. Walter Scheidel, who had been thinking along similar lines, a suggested that there could be joint series sponsored by the classics de partments of the two universities. Scheidel pointed to the benefits that come a more would with somewhat larger series: papers would be likely to attract more more readers, and faculty involved in the design and mainte nance of the site would lower the burden on specific individuals. Ober and 6. Sanclemente estimates that the Scheidel then met with other classicists at Stanford who contributed ideas costs an a for in-house launch of such about how the site be A formal was sketched out Web site consist of the labor might organized. proposal mainly and to the of both The of an IT server costs? presented faculty departments. possibility making of professional and a a the series a from the other universi either of portion of designated larger project beginning, by inviting server or or on a ties to a was but set aside as of space time central join consortium, considered, impractical?at server. She does not this work as resources regard least for the first, experimental stage. The that Princeton made once ini particularly burdensome the server were available, including space and staff time, generous, but neces tial "launch has Main period" passed. limited. After further discussion, each endorsed the site the continued sarily department formally taining requires the and Sanclemente established the site a attention of the IT person; at present, project, using RapidWeaver, Web-site tool that eliminates much of the this amounts to a few hours a week, on powerful authoring drudgery average. of coding Web pages.6 232 JOSIAH OBER ET AL.

When the PSWPC was launched in December of 2005, itwas with a modest number of contributors?about half a dozen?drawn from the

faculties of both universities. It has since experienced modest growth with in the confines of its purview. By the late spring of 2006 there were about 15 contributors and about 50 working papers posted; and by December 2006 there were about 20 contributors and about 75 papers on theWeb on site. A number of papers have already gone to formal print publication so and have been deleted from the site. Deleted working papers are re a to venue placed by notice that directs the reader the of final publication. We discuss the complicated issue of archiving below, and in future may a consider shift toward permanent postprint self-archiving. Several papers have been replaced by updated versions. some Although papers by graduate students have been posted, the are contributors, thus far, drawn primarily from the faculties of the Prince ton and Stanford departments. We hope that graduate students in both use venue more departments will the often in the future for circulating preprints of their work in progress. Among the benefits of posting awork are ing paper is the public registration of ideas, since submissions dated to on the month of the year. Because the posting of research the PSWPC site a a means is form of publication, it is of "hallmarking,, work in progress. now or As it stands, this registration hallmarking advantage is limited to members of the Princeton and Stanford ancient studies communities, but our success it is hope that the of the PSWPC experiment will lead to the creation of other WP sites in classics and classical archaeology, and in closely related disciplines. users over a The PSWPC site is frequently accessed by scattered wide a or geographical range. The site began with modest number of inquiries, a "hits," reflecting somewhat limited and mostly domestic interest. But it has grown rapidly, and within a rather brief span of time, to have a substan tial worldwide readership. Between September and November of 2006 alone, the average number of hits per day has increased from approximately to a are 1,100 about 1,600. Only portion of these hits actual requests for a were specific paper. In the most recently counted week there about 1,750 requests for 67 papers by 20 authors?that is, for virtually all of the authors a and for most of the active papers. Requests for given paper ranged from a seven, the lowest number of hits counted by the tracking program, to high an a of 170, for average of 26 per paper. Within each week, distinct cycle occurs: on the number of hits is highest Mondays through Wednesdays on and is noticeably lower Thursdays and Fridays, with the lowest number on of inquiries occurring weekend days.7 as A large number of requests come, might be expected, from institu tions of higher education in the United States, but many hits also come from private networks and sources within the United States, Canada, Australia, and Britain. Beyond these, however, is a further international sum component that at least equals the total of all of these domestic and interests. A random from the first two weeks "usual-suspect" sample 7. Data reported by the Princeton of November 2006 shows international queries coming from Chile, Office for Information Technology, the Netherlands, Peru, Greece, Finland, Spain, Poland, Ireland, Brazil, from 11:59 p.m., December 8,2006, to Israel, Indonesia, Russia, Turkey, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, Japan, Iran, 2:18 p.m., December 15,2006. toward open access in ancient studies 233

Singapore, Bulgaria, Thailand, Mexico, Nepal, Taiwan, Croatia, Saudi a Arabia, and Argentina?to cite only selection. The wide range of these sources seem to a would indicate large and growing international interest in the site.

RELATIONSHIP TO TRADITIONAL SCHOLARLY PUBLICATIONS

If the PSWPC site proves successful, if it is imitated, and if its imitators are also would this to successful, point the demise of established scholarly or journals, whether print Web-based? We believe not, at least in the fore seeable future, given the fundamental difference between the role of a series a a working-papers and that of scholarly publisher in field such as are classical studies. Moreover, there problematic aspects of the new media not that have yet been fully resolved to the satisfaction of all. One of these concerns involves the access to guaranteed longevity of and the archiving of sites. publications byWP Traditional houses and institutions that support research journals often seem to offer a firmer guar antee of one of the at continuity. Indeed, e-journals mentioned the begin of this ning article, Histos, ceased publication in 2000 for a number of reasons that often bedevil the e-resources long-term maintenance of by university departments and academic programs.8 As Brent Shaw reports, based on the discussion that followed his invited on the PSWPC to the presentation Society for Scholarly Publishing in it is difficult to once September 2006, limit the effects ofWP series they are initiated. Two of Shaw's interlocutors, one from the National Science Foundation and the other from the field of economics, emphasized that once WP sites are can launched and become "normalized," they become the venue for the first preferred publication of papers in certain disciplines.9 They believed that in several disciplines in the natural sciences and in WP sites are economics, already in the process of replacing traditional as the venue journals first choice of for publication.10 One to think about the way potential impact of working-papers sites 8. to A. J.Woodman According on in classical studies is to think of the traditional role of schol and Marincola comm. to publishing J. (pers. as constituted three main Shaw), Histos (based at the Univer arly publishing being by processes: making public, of and The first of these three sity Durham) might be revived. certifiying, archiving.11 processes, that of mak was difficult seems at Continuing publication ing public, first glance the heart of the matter?after all, what is to sustain given personnel moves, but our publishing other than making public? Yet, in opinion, this first process it is that a new be hoped agreement is the least to probably important the fundamental role and likely future tween its John Moles, and originator, of traditional the can series university be reached. scholarly publishing. Open-access working-papers 9. extent do have a role to in available to a To appreciate the of the certainly play making scholarship public, of on econom but in a form. The status of content as impact working papers only preliminary the "in progress" ics, see the site at or "in some not EconPapers http:// way incomplete"?and in its final state?is signaled by econpapers.repec.org/paper. term the . Indeed, any given paper be close 10. A conference is available at working might blog to or far from its final state. Authors sometimes indicate in the abstract or http://ssptmr.blogspot.com/2006_09_ footnotes that a is but the PSWPC site itself does not 01_ssptmr_archive.html. paper forthcoming, 11. Most see make claims or about how close recently, Mabe and any assumptions any given working paper Amin 2002, pp. 149-150. might be to its final form, or even whether or not there will be a final form. 234 JOSIAH OBER ET AL.

are Ifworking papers to be cited, both those who cite them and those who read the citation must be aware that it iswork in progress. seems In terms of making research public, little of this new, except for the medium of distribution. Long before the advent of the Internet, were unpublished papers circulated among friends and colleagues in the more or "prepublication release" form of less complete drafts. A WP series as an may be thought of extension of this informal practice. The major access difference is that to the preprint is open and publicly available for as as on current long the paper is posted the site. In the practice of the PSWPC site, the final and stable phase of making the paper public still remains in the hands of traditional publishers. an Registration, ancillary but (to authors, at least) very important part a of "making public," is particularly well served by WP series. Registration an venue refers to the role that authorized for publication, traditionally an or an established scholarly journal academic press, plays in dating the an s or appearance of author idea, analysis, presentation of original data. It a or as is highly advantageous for scholar to have his her work registered or as soon as originally his hers possible after it has been completed. Each successive version, including the important first one, may be immediately on a can dated by posting working-papers site. Internet e-print sites usually more venues accomplish this step quickly than traditional of publication, one reasons are which is of the thatWP sites becoming the preferred places a of first publication in scholarly fields with rapid turnover in ideas. In many ones as of the natural sciences, in particular, having idea established first in a series is critical to the researchers. assurance The idea of certification refers to the of quality. It is the a implicit message to the reader that publication has been carefully and impartially reviewed by experts in the field and thus is worthy of serious consideration. In traditional publishing, certification is achieved primarily through the process of . Consideration of the ways in which are or working-papers series unlike articles chapters published by to established scholarly publishers leads the conclusion that the certifica tion process is the central and defining feature of traditional scholarly publishing. First-rate scholarly journals and book publishers rightly pride on on themselves their copyediting and proofreading, the aesthetic value on of their products, and their effective modes of distribution and market some ing. In cases, senior editors may also offer authors substantial help a in project development. But at the heart of the reputation of scholarly or care publisher journal, and therefore of the publishers "brand," is the and rigor of its review process. Arguably, from the point of view of the scholarly consumer-reader, most a the important service that the publisher provides is professionally competent prepublication reviewing process. That process may take place are partly in-house?indeed, many acquiring editors themselves highly expert in the relevant fields?and partly externally, through the technical to a experts whom the editor persuades do the hard work of providing fair and detailed peer review. This review process is ultimately what separates traditional scholarly publications not only from WP series, but also from other forms of publication. While nonscholarly publishers may employ toward open access in ancient studies 235

an ensure fact-checkers in attempt to the accuracy of published work, it is to assume the mark of the scholarly publisher the time-consuming job of or ensuring that the overall intellectual content of the articles that a they publish has undergone rigorous process of judgment by qualified scholars with established expertise in the relevant field. If this kind of peer review is an essential part of the establishment of scholarly knowledge, an "epistemological objection"12 could be raised against working-papers or sites preprint archives?namely, that they will become filled with bad information and that the entire enterprise of academic scholarship could be thereby compromised. How serious is this objection? on Working-papers series, at least those that operate the principles of the PSWPC, do not institute editorial interventions to certify their content. As noted there is no content-review The assurance to above, process. only readers of the potential value of the contents is the reputation of the two departments. A reader may reasonably hope that members of the faculty at Princeton and Stanford would not make public?or allow their graduate or students to make public?work that is shoddy fundamentally mislead success ing. The great of the arXiv site in physics, for example, has been a explained by the natural gatekeeping function of research community that a core has high degree of internal cohesion. This group of scholars similarly assures are a the reader that posted papers of minimum requisite quality.13 Whether the research community of classical studies can boast a level to of cohesion similar that of the high-energy physics community is debat a able. Yet the extent to which certification is serious problem and peculiar can on toWP sites be exaggerated by those who focus the epistemological objection. First, traditional-publisher peer review may be relatively unde manding. Consider the related field of history. Although high-ranking more history journals have higher rates of rejection, than half of all refereed more are history journals accept for publication than half of the papers that to a submitted them.14 Next, the public availability of working paper allows it to be cited and criticized in other scholarly work; unsound information can as thus be exposed such by the ordinary processes of scholarship. a Finally, although itmight still be objected that WP series offers relatively assurance weak forms of compared to formal peer review, the provision of fully completed and fully certifiable research is not the main purpose of a WP sites.Working papers, indeed, may often be posted in deliberately unfinished state, with arguments that still need substantial work, in order to attract potentially helpful comments from readers. a The epistemological objection may actually be less troubling aspect of the emergence of e-print series than is the potential for modes of research and evaluation to In some of the natural sciences?most 12. The term is that of Gunnars diverge. notably which has led the in these of online d?ttir 2005, p. 550. physics, way changes?the presence a 13. The arXiv site can be found at WP series has already contributed to strange disjunction between the way http://arxiv.org (accessed January 16, in which academic work is carried out and the way in which it is evalu 2007). SeeManuel 2001, p. 62, on recourse now ated. The first-line of physics researchers is to the universe these "peer-respect" controls and pres as of online working papers. Yet, Kristr?n Gunnarsd?ttir has observed, sures; and Gunnarsd?ttir 2005, pp. 555, because of of evaluation for tenure and 558, 566, for the function of the core professional requirements promo "the arXiv has had little influence ... group in the success of the HEP case. tion, system very upon professional 14. Stieg 1986, pp. 15-16. certification." She goes on to say, "when acting as authors, scientists have no 236 JOSIAH OBER ET AL.

care or or choice but to greatly whether not their papers have been will be a formally published, because they must compile record of research activi a ties in widely recognized and culturally entrenched form, recognizable to an outsiders/ This is odd situation."15 It is indeed odd; the disturbing a nature of the schism ismade clear in remarks by the editor of traditional a at a physics journal: "in physics, nobody except student place where you ever a didn't really have active physicists would learn anything from physics s were so journal. That just where papers eventually published that [they] would look official and somebody would get tenure. All of the real action was ... happening first in the preprints."16 a can While it is possible that such disjunction exist in the short term, serious questions must be raised about the long-term future of academic a rea evaluation in research world dominated by e-prints. There might be sons ex why the disciplines of classics and classical archaeology would be are as empt from this process, but there surely many reasons, including the enormous comparatively costs of traditional journal production, to make one our suspect that disciplines too will eventually face the certification new problems posed by these modes of publication. su Those who think thatWeb-based self-publishing will ultimately to a persede traditional scholarly print publishing refer market analogy to argue that the certification issue will be sorted out in the e-world inways not that do require traditional forms of peer review. They suggest that it is the "invisible hand" of the market of ideas that will be the ultimate arbiter or of the value, lack thereof, of the research and scholarship published in these new electronic forms.17 The notion is that the value of a work of a scholarship, like the price of commodity, will be established by aggre gated dispersed knowledge and general response to the work in question. users a a Quality will be determined by many rather than by few editors, in manner to or similar the "citation counting" "citation assessment" prevalent inmany of the social and natural sciences. In this scenario, better work, like better will be more and cited and so will commodities, widely recognized 15. Gunnarsd?ttir 2005, p. 563. rise to the while work will sink out of top, poor simply sight.18 16. Manuel 2001, p. 61, quoting 100. Finally, the function of archiving consists of making scholarship per McGinty 1999, p. see not 17. For studies of this process, manently available. At this time, the PSWPC project is undertaking McKiernan 2003,2005; Harnad 2000. this function, it would not be difficult and we have although technically For some of the see to so problems, Kling been strongly urged do by open-access advocates. A Web site that 2004. can to posts preprints also be used self-archive postprints, that is, the final 18. For an influential statement on texts of articles after have the role of in they undergone peer review and/or have been dispersed knowledge a access see and the published by journal. Advocates of open who working papers estabUshing price, suggestion as are that dispersed knowledge is the central the future of publishing strongly in favor of postprint If, archiving. for aU social see as problem science, they argue, it is the working papers themselves that will tend to be cited Hayek 1945. to and referred with these versions is 19. to increasing frequency, deleting posted For early reactions the not an inconvenience to even if is merely readers, journal publication finally PSWPC by members of the open as see on a access discussion achieved. The problem, they it, is that the e-versions posted WP community, including or of the issue, see the onUne site will have been referred to quoted in other scholarly publications, archiving blog-interview of Ober conducted sometimes and so this new process of should rea by frequently, "publication" Richard with com access to the versions that have been cited.19 Poynder, subsequent sonably require open at ments, http://poynder.blogspot.com/ serves the interests of both the author and Postprint self-archiving 2005/12/oa-as-instrumental-good.html the public by facilitating the immediate and costless dissemination of (December 22,2005). toward open access in ancient studies 237

credentialed scholarship. Yet itmay interfere with the economic interests resources of scholarly publishers who invest in the credentialing process but are unable to recoup costs when the work circulates in the form of self-archived postprints. Therefore, at present, self-archiving of postprints or requires greater circumspection than the posting of preprints working papers. The author always holds the copyright to preprints?unless the work was or undertaken "for hire"?and he she cannot legally be constrained an s from posting existing preprints beyond the publication of article final a version unless this right has been expressly forfeited in contractual agree as a matter ment with the publisher. Of course, publishers may, of policy, an prevent authors from making the final version of article available outside the journal itself.20 a In keeping with the overall trend toward open access, however, growing number of academic journals already permit the self-archiving of a postprints. In sample of 9,861 periodicals produced by 199 publishers, or some 6,297 journals and 166 publishers, 64%, currently permit the self or archiving of final postprints free of charge time restrictions.21 While the are some are overwhelming majority of these publications from the sciences, relevant to this discussion. This group includes Johns Hopkins University Press, which publishes ?it American Journal ofPhilology and the Transactions of theAmerican Philological Association; Cambridge University Press, which publishes Archaeological Dialogues and the Cambridge Archaeological Journal; the University of California Press, which publishes Classical Antiquity; and Brill, the publisher of Mnemosyne. Several other academic publish ers impose limited embargos. For example, Oxford University Press, the publisher of Classical Quarterly and Classical Review, bans self-archiving of arts postprints within 24 months from publication in the and humanities, and Routledge within 18 months. The embargo policies of the University 20. in the field of archae Especially of Press (Classical and Blackwell Journal the of Chicago Philology) (Oxford of ology, practice using copyrighted to the the of Archaeology) vary according journal. images complicates issue preprint need to At the same time, substantial areas in our field. im self-archiving: authors explore gray persist Many from are associations without the whether explicit permission copy portant journals published by professional holders is and whether right required, intermediation of major publishers. Unlike the journals of larger organiza to separate permissions need be ob as tions, such the postprint-friendly American Anthropological Associa tained for the version working-paper tion, tend to be from and the formal they missing www..org's listings. Major players publication. such as the American Hellenic 21. to Journal Journal Studies, According http://romeo. ofArchaeology, of Roman and Phoenix in this It was .org/stats.php (accessed March Journal of Studies, belong category. only to 18,2007). very recently that Hesperia itself took the lead by deciding incorporate 22. Cullen comm.). a Tracey (pers. postprint self-archiving option into its copyright-transfer agreements.22 23. The fact that small and not-for Other most the Journal Roman are self publications, notably of Archaeology, profit publishers accept postprint come out the product of small operations, while still others of continental archiving less frequently than large and an where are to local conventions and are without read commercial publishers represents Europe, they subject additional obstacle: see Cox 2006, ily accessible pertinent policy information?or without any such policy p. 275. In practical terms, however, at all. The considerable uncertainties and attendant information costs have little publishers' policies may this intense of scholarly in classical on generated by fragmentation publishing impact self-archiving practices, are to studies bound slow the spread of open-access practices in postprint which are primarily determined by the customs are and expectations that self-archiving.23 to see It been that even in cases where specific particular disciplines; has, however, long recognized pub Antelman 2006. or are not lishers curtail postprint self-archiving their pertinent policies ET 238 JOSIAH OBER AL.

can easily discernible, authors circumvent these difficulties by making their latest preprint (i.e., the version that precedes the final peer-reviewed and as revised paper published) accessible beyond publication, and then posting a separate list of corrigenda that reflect the changes between that preprint more and the published version. This procedure, albeit cumbersome than straightforward postprint self-archiving, maintains the integrity of the users copyright-protected published version without depriving of open access. In the current publishing environment, preprint self-archiving sites as a such the PSWPC provide convenient and essentially costless forum for authors who wish to self-archive postprints of their articles published or in periodicals that do not impose restrictions merely place temporary on embargos this practice, and for those who wish to complement exist ing preprints with separate updates that re-create the content of the final

product. attract In general, work for hire and publications that royalty payments not s may be self-archived beyond publication without the publisher per mission. Although these arrangements do not normally apply to publication in academic periodicals, they severely limit the potential of open-access as a on initiatives in fields such classics that rely to significant extent books and book chapters to disseminate research and evaluate the academic stand seem ing of scholars.24While book chapters may similar to journal articles in terms of length and style, they often?though not always?result in publica tions that entail the disbursement of advances and royalties or?primarily case in the of handbooks and encyclopedias?involve up-front honoraria. as While the latter, designated work for hire, necessarily precludes self room archiving, the former may leave for postprint archiving if the author retains the copyright and the archiving process does not conflict with spe cific contractual obligations. At the end of the day, the scope for postprint self-archiving of parts of academic books will be determined by bargaining between authors and publishers, and is likely to vary greatly among differ ent publishers. For this reason, and to avoid any confusion about copyright a issues, preprint site such as the PSWPC is unlikely to embrace postprint self-archiving of most kinds of nonjournal publications.

WHAT'S NEXT?

an The future of the PSWPC site, which is still in early state of develop was as an as a ment, is uncertain. It originally planned experiment, bit of a a provocation and possible example to other Classics departments, and as a temporary location where the ongoing research work of faculty and graduate students in the departments of Classics, and allied disciplines, at to a Princeton and Stanford could be opened wider readership in advance was was 24. As noted in Suber of formal print publication. The original thought that if the site already 2005, on a at a based paper given the 135th successful, the demonstrated need might prompt and encourage large Annual of theAmerican as Meeting professional organization, such the American Philological Association Philological Association in 2004, or the Institute of America to amuch (APA) Archaeological (ALA), support available at http://www.earlham.edu/ site for the wider In the the larger working-papers discipline. meantime, ~peters/writing/apa.htm (February 2, or success, in terms of gaining readers, at least visitors to the site, that the 2004). toward open access in ancient studies 239

so to PSWPC has had far raises the question of whether and how expand its membership and scope. an as In theory, for example, e-print site such the PSWPC should be able to accommodate doctoral dissertations. A more suitable means, how s ever, has recently been created by the decision of ProQuest UMI division an to launch open-access service that complements the traditional sale of or new more dissertation printouts files. This service, although somewhat access costly to the author, promises to optimize by offering downloads of stan deposited dissertations free of charge and making them accessible via dard search engines (http://www.proquest.com/products__umi/dissertations/ new a epoa.shtml). This policy represents welcome shift from the estab as as was lished practice of double-billing authors well end users, which a necessary in time of microfilms and photocopies but has become increas ingly hard to justify for the almost costless distribution of PDF files. It also on obviates the need for the self-archiving of dissertations e-print Web sites. At the same time, itmerits attention that elements of larger theses are as were as perfectly suitable preprints: polished chapters that used writing samples for job searches maybe the most obvious examples. not to at But why expand the site include the work of scholars other as some our universities, of commentators have urged? The main tech nical problem that Sanclemente foresees with substantial expansion is as an that the existing structure of the site, designed from the beginning open-access site, was intended to support the limited number of persons were to who expected submit research in progress from the two university departments. Any significant increase in the number and volume of posted a research pieces would require significant redesign of theWeb site to cope a with proper indexing of the whole. This step would be necessary in order access to to enable the casual viewer of the expanded site to have adequate its contents. As it stands, unlike many working-papers sites, the PSWPC not as an site is formatted e-periodical, but rather gives continual and im access mediate to all its contents simultaneously through general subject and author indexing. seems at to It therefore preferable this juncture maintain the existing as a to character of the PSWPC site project of the two departments and success hope that its will provoke the development of other working-papers sites.25The development of prepublication WP sites in other disciplines has sometimes followed this pattern. One might imagine the development of a as areas single larger site, such the arXiv site for physics and ancillary in 25. It be noted that there are may mathematics and computing that ismaintained by Cornell University (see other efforts comparable cooperative above). An alternative would be the of diverse large sites, such between two universities in development disciplines as those found in the of with to discipline linguistics, distinct, fully developed, analogous classical studies (culturally in and autonomous sites atMIT, Harvard the broad definition but encompassing working-papers University, as of and the of others. specialist subfields), such the coop University Toronto, University Pennsylvania, among erative site in Latin American WP It might well be argued that classics and ancient history will be better studies maintained the of by University served by the latter model. Yet another alternative that lies between these North andDuke Carolina, Chapel Hill, two models is aWeb that would link different WP sites into The Carolina and Duke Ring system University: one large reference site where all papers could be searched. It may well be Consortium Working Paper Series; that this is the function that could be best in some the http://www.duke.edu/web/las/papers. served, fashion, by as html (accessed January 14,2007). APA or the AIA a central support organization. 240 JOSIAH OBER ET AL.

Possible future developments for the PSWPC include making the site ever more as searchable?a need that becomes pressing the site becomes larger?and better enabling e-responses by providing dialogue boxes. Dialogue boxes could be directly and immediately accessed by readers who more might respond to the author directly and rapidly than by e-mail. As a more numerous result, authors might hope for and immediate comments on so on. interpretative content, mistakes of fact, and But these develop as ments remain in the future, and, noted above, would require substantial as modification of the site it is currently designed. Meanwhile, in view of the legal and practical constraints related to we archiving, think that scholars in the humanities currendy stand to benefit most from the following initiatives:

l.The promotion of preprint and?wherever feasible?postprint on self-archiving the largest possible scale. As discussed above, a this objective requires the creation of whole network ofWP more a sites or, alternatively and perhaps efficiently, of central a ized repository that is capable of catering to much larger constituency of scholars. Recent studies consistently show a positive correlation between open-access practices and citation no rates, leaving reasonable doubt about the intrinsic benefits of self-archiving.26 as as 2. The involvement, quickly reasonably possible, of larger as professional organizations in the field, such the APA and the AIA, both in organizing and facilitating the large-scale on e-publishing of research WP and similar sites, and also in discussing, analyzing, and establishing policy about the new ways in which these forums of research publication career should be evaluated in professional development. 3. The systematic inclusion of classics, classical archaeology, and other humanities journals in existing databases that elucidate the postprint self-archiving policies of all relevant academic 26. For a substantial and relevant see publishers and associations. This project will also encourage survey, Hajjem, Harnad, and Gin not a gras 2005, based on 1.3 miUion articles those publishers who have yet formulated policy to in 10 do so. disciplines, including political science, economics, sociology, law, and 4. Contractual bargaining between authors and publishers regard education, although there has been the of books more some discussion of the ing self-archiving and, perhaps realistically, methodology; cases are et book chapters, especially in where royalty payments see, e.g., Antelman al. 2005. 27. recent absent or minimal. The Modern Language on move Association (MLA) report rethink 5. A among institutions of higher education toward greater tenure, for in which insti in what counts as in the ing example, flexibility considering "publication" tutions of education are new even higher being electronic media, for fields in the humanities. There to more urged give serious consider are some even that the differences ation to indications, now, significant understanding, evaluating, are to and researchwork between traditional publication and e-publication likely crediting published in "new is not be addressed in the near future.27 media," surely the first of such in the in 6. the results of our and to sign changes way Monitoring experiment attempting which in the humanities wiU discern trends that are to be followed within our disci disciplines likely see evaluate publication in the future; We not to from trends pline. ought extrapolate directly existing http://www.mla.org/tenure_promotion in the natural and social sciences to predict trends in the (December 7,2006). TOWARD OPEN ACCESS IN ANCIENT STUDIES 241

more electronic dissemination of research or, importantly, the modes of these transfers. Although studies of these other use disciplines have indeed shown that "the shift toward the of electronic media in scholarly communication appears to an ... are be inescapable imperative [nevertheless] the shifts uneven both with respect to field and with respect to the form of communication."28

Our relatively short experience with the PSWPC?after all, at the our time of writing, site has been around for fewer weeks than Hesperia is now us reason celebrating in years?leads to conclude that there is good for classical scholars, and other humanists, to embrace the use of the Internet and Web technology for preprint circulation and self-archiving. There are none to us to many unresolved issues with open access, but appears to diminish the value authors and readers of the widest possible dissemina tion of preprints. While the ultimate impact of the PSWPC, and of other Internet-based publishing enterprises, remains impossible to determine, we for the time being believe that working papers in the field of classical can as studies best be understood complementary to the traditional pro cesses of scholarly publishers in making public final versions of scholarly work, certifying that it has been competently peer-refereed, and archiving same that work for the benefit of future generations of scholars. At the time, the principal advantages offered by working papers?quick registra 28. King andMcKim 2000, p. 1306; immediate feedback from other and free cf. Swan and Brown 2005 for a detailed tion, scholars, access?highlight variance areas in which formal could learn from this model and enhance study of field within natural journals and social sciences. to the services that they provide the academic community.

REFERENCES

Andrew, T. 2003. "Trends in Self-Post Gunnarsd?ttir, K. 2005. "On the Role of Research Material Online ing of Electronic Preprint Exchange in by Academic Staff," http://www. the Distribution of Scientific Liter ariadne. ac.uk/issue3 7/andrew/intro. Science ature," Social Studies of 35, html (accessed January 12,2007). pp. 549-569. K. 2006. Antelman, "Self-Archiving Hajjem, C, S. Harnad, and Y. Gingras. and the Influence of Publish Policy 2005. "Ten-Year Cross-Disciplin er Policies in the Social Sciences," ary Comparison of the Growth of Learned 85-95. It Publishing 19, pp. Open Access and How Increases N. D. Good IEEE Antelman, K., Bakkalbasi, Research ," C. and S. Harnad. Data Bulletin man, Hajjem, Engineering 28:4, 2005. "Evaluation of Algorithm pp. 39-47. on Performance Identifying OA," Harnad, S. 2000. "The Invisible Hand Technical North Carolina of Peer Interactive Report, Review," Exploit 5, State North University Libraries, http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/ Carolina State University, http:// peer-review (accessed January 12, eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11689/ 2007). (accessedMarch 10,2007). Hayek, F. A. 1945. "The Use of Knowl 2006. in Cox, J. "Scholarly Publishing edge Society," American Economic Practices: A Case of plus ?a change, Review 35, pp. 519-530. c'est la m?me chose?" Learned plus King, R., and G. McKim. 2000. Publishing 19, pp. 273-276. "Not Just aMatter of Time: Field 242 JOSIAH OBER ET AL.

Differences and the of Sciences and the Social West and S. Brown. 2005. Shaping Sciences, Swan, A., Open Electronic Media in Conn. Access An Supporting port, Self-Archiving: Author Scientific 2003. Communication," Journal McKiernan, G. "InvisibleHand(s): Study, Truro, U.K. the American in of Society for Informa QuaUty Assurance the Age of Tananbaum, G. 2004. "Alternative tion Science 1306-1320. Author of 51, pp. Self-Archiving" Journal of Models Scholarly Communi R. 2004. "The Internet and Science Communication in Charleston Kling, 2, pp. 1-12, cation," Conference Unrefereed ed. K. P. Scholarly Publishing," http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/02/03 Proceedings, 2003, Strauch, Annual Review and R. of Information (accessed January 13,2007). Bazirjian, and V. H. Speck, 591-631. -. 2005. Assurance in Technology 38, pp. "Quality Westport, Conn., pp. 54-56. Mabe, M. A., and M. Amin. 2002. the Age of Author Self-Archiving," -. 2005. "Alternative Models "Dr. andDr. Author Association and Jekyll Hyde: of College Research of Scholarly Communication: The Reader Asymmetries in Scholarly Libraries (ACRL), TwelfthNational Toddler Years' of Open Access Aslib and Institutional Publishing," Proceedings 54, Conference. Proceedings (April 7-10, Journals Reposi 149-157. 190-196. in and pp. 2005), MinneapoUs, pp. tories," Library Information K. 2001. "The Place of M. F. 1986. The and De Manuel, Stieg, Origin Technology Association, Forum, E-Prints in the Publication Patterns Historical 1 velopment of Scholarly October 2005, http://www. of Science and Ala. Physical Scientists," Periodicals, University, lita.org/ala/lita/litaevents/ Libraries 59-85. P. 2005. Access in the Technology 20, pp. Suber, "Open Htanationalforum2005sanjoseca/ S. 1999. McGinty, Gatekeepers of Humanities," Syllecta Classica 16, 05forumsched.html (accessed Editors in Knowledge: Journal the pp. 231-246. January 10,2007).

Josiah Ober Brent D. Shaw

Stanford University Princeton University

department of political science department of classics

encina hall west, room ioo 141 east pyne california new stanford, 94305-6044 princeton, jersey 08544-oooi

[email protected] [email protected]

Walter Scheidel Donna Candemente

Stanford University Princeton University

department of classics department of classics

building 20 141 east pyne california new stanford, 94305-2080 princeton, jersey 08544-oooi

[email protected] [email protected]