![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
I discuss the social significance of publication in the life of a scientific knowledge object (SKO). The importance of publication is made evident by the complex issue of unpublication (the strong version of retraction whereby a SKO is completely destroyed). Unpublication is a tempting option in the electronic world. I argue against the viability of unpublication, both on practical and on principled grounds related to the cascading entitlements of published paper.
Acknowledgements
Research for this paper was made possible by EC grant 213360 Liquidpub. Thanks to Gloria Origgi and Judith Simon for comments on a preliminary draft of the paper.
Notes
[1] I shall only consider original (or allegedly original) and non‐derivative SKOs. Translations, anthologies, digests are thus excluded. There are of course borderline cases, such as surveys and textbooks.
[2] Whenever admitted, a minimal right to be born, possibly conflicting with self‐determination rights of the carrying mother, would just be a restatement of the metaphysical issue.
[3] Again, in order to avoid begging the question on issues such as abortion and its difference from infanticide, we do not discuss here the right to stay alive. Many other rights are interesting enough for the point we want to make.
[4] The paper you are reading quotes the retracted Hwang et al. paper. This pushes up the citation value of the retracted paper; an unpalatable consequence of the use of plain citation indicators in a socially complex world. As of March 2009, the Hwang et al. paper collects 499 citations on Google Scholar.
[5] A list of recommendations for managers of online publications will be found in Appendix A.