1

What is wrong about Pereleman-Toulmin's opposition between Legal Reasoning and Logic?

Shahid Rahman 1

(Université de Lille, UMR 8163: STL, ADA-MESHS)

Résumé

Around the 1960's, C. Perelman / L. Olbrechts-Tyteca and S. Toulmin endorsed the separation between argumentation and logic. In fact, both assumed a gap between every-day reasoning, closer to legal reasoning, and scientific reasoning based on mathematics. The main claim was that both paradigms are incommensurable, since the legal paradigm makes use of the notion of formality, that has a procedural nature with roots on a conversational and dialectical practice, and logic is based on the notion of form, that involves static (and syntactic) features. I will contest the incommensurability of both paradigms, as J. van Benthem (2009) did already, and plea that what we need is more rather than less logic. There are no juridical solutions to logical problems, if the problem is related to reasoning, then the solution relates to inferences drawn on the basis of juridical knowledge.

Dans les années 1960, C. Perelman/L. Olbrechts-Tyteca et S. E. Toulmin affirmèrent la séparation entre l'argumentation et la logique. En fait, les deux reconnaissent l'écart entre le raisonnement de tous les jours, plus proche du raisonnement juridique, et le raisonnement scientifique basé sur les mathématiques3. La revendication majeure était que les deux paradigmes sont incommensurables, du simple fait que le paradigme juridique fait usage de la notion de formalité, qui revêt une nature procédurale enracinée dans une pratique conversationnelle et dialectique pendant que la logique est basée sur la notion de forme, qui implique des caractéristiques statiques (et syntaxiques). Je vais -pour ma part-contester l'incommensurabilité des deux paradigmes, de même quel'avait déjà fait J. [START_REF] Van Benthem | One Logician's Perspective on Argumentation[END_REF], et soutenir 2 que ce dont nous avons besoin c'est davantage de logique. Il n'y a pas de solutions juridiques aux problèmes logiques, si le problème est relatif au raisonnement, alors la solution se rapporte aux conclusions relevant des connaissances juridiques.

Since the times of the ancient Greecewhere the agora emerged as the first public space for discussion and decision-making on diverse and serious matters -dialectical reasoning won a place in our understanding of science and constitution of a society which it has kept ever since. From those days, legal reasoningwith its dialectical features -seemed to provide the paradigm of reasoning in general. This paradigm was substituted by mathematical reasoning between the 19 th and the 20 th century, which lead to the axiomatization of logic developed by the work of Gottlob Frege. The rapid success of the axiomatic methods and the anti-psychologism underlying Frege's conception lead to the separation of rhetoric and logic, and with this separation the dynamics aspects of reasoning were lost. Indeed, the conception of reasoning as constituted within social epistemic interaction did not seem to fit the new notion of logic that followed the powerful work of Frege where logical consequence structures the deductive relation between propositions rather than that of judgements.

Curiously, around the 1960's, C. Perelman / L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958) and S. [START_REF] Toulmin | The Uses of Argument[END_REF] accepted the separation between argumentation and logic, though defended that argumentation (Perelman pleads for a new Rhetoric) is a field of its own. In fact, both assumed a gap between every-day reasoning, closer to legal reasoning, and scientific reasoning based on mathematics. The main claim was that both paradigms are incommensurable, since the legal paradigm makes use of the notion of formality, that has a procedural nature with roots on a conversational and dialectical practice, and logic is based on the notion of form, that involves static (and syntactic) features. The upshot was: argumentation and mathematical logic provide essentially different forms of reasoning.

In relation to the difference between legal reasoning and logic one might count as one its endorsers Hans Kelsen who based his reflection on the distinction between the normative and the logical realm.

3

I will contest the incommensurability of both paradigms, as J. van Benthem (2009) did already, and plea that what we need is more rather than less logic. Juridical inferences are inferences in the same way as those of Physics or Mathematics are: they are valid or not valid, or, less generally; they lead from the knowledge of the truth of its premises to the truth of its conclusions. There are no juridical solutions to logical problems, if the problem is related to reasoning, then the solution relates to inferences drawn on the basis of juridical knowledge. Otherwise, the problem was not about reasoning for the start. Similarly, conceptual knowledge is normative in nature: its content relates to commitments and entitlements in a game of giving and asking for reasons -and that is what inferential knowledge is about. As I will suggest below, a more promising venue to the notion of juridical solution is to understand it as linking the logical analysis with its consequences for a juridical practice (or decision taking) congenial to this analysis. The latter might partially agree albeit in a different form with Perelman's (ethical) take on the link between argumentation and decisiontaking.

So my answer is to the question of the title is: everything about the opposition is wrong! The very conception of the opposition is mistaken and this comes from the lack of understanding on what was going in logic since the 1960's. It is significant that the period when Perelman and Toulmin wrote their manifestos against logic, represents at the same time the period that can be signaled as the birth of the dynamic or dialogical turn in logic. 1 A turn that, in fact, provides the procedural means they were looking for. 2

1 The main original papers are collected in [START_REF] Lorenzen | Dialogische Logik[END_REF]. For an historical overview of the transition from operative logic to dialogical logic see [START_REF] Lorenz | Basic objectives of dialogue logic in historical perspective[END_REF]. For a presentation about the initial role of the framework as a foundation for intuitionistic logic, see Felscher (1994). Other papers have been collected more recently in Lorenz (2010a, b). 2 In fact, the dialogical turn that re-established the link between dialectical reasoning and inference interaction provides the basis of a host of current and ongoing works in the history and philosophy of logic, going from the Indian, the Chinese, the Greek, the Arabic, the Hebraic traditions, the Obligationes of the Middle Ages to the most contemporary developments in the study of epistemic interactionA detailed account of recent developments since, say, [START_REF] Rahman | Über Dialogue, Protologische Kategorien und andere Seltenheiten[END_REF], can be found in [START_REF] Rahman | On How to be a Dialogician[END_REF] and [START_REF] Keiff | Dialogical Logic[END_REF]. For the underlying metalogic see Clerbout (2013a,b). For a textbook presentation: Redmond/Fontaine (2011) and Rückert (2011a). For the key role of dialogic in regaining the link between dialectics and 4

Fortunately, [START_REF] Toulmin | The Uses of Argument[END_REF][START_REF] Toulmin | Logic and the Criticism of Arguments[END_REF][START_REF] Toulmin | Return to Reason[END_REF] at least, recognized that there are some patterns of reasoning, though he defended that they are different from the standard inferences (see appendix I). But here again, as pointed out by van Benthem (2009), Toulmin missed a crucial point, namely it looks as if Toulmin did not know about the structure of hypothetical-deductive reasoning proposed by Carl Hempel and Paul Oppenheim in 1948 that had exactly the same structure as the one brought forward by Toulmin. So, sadly, Perelman and Toulmin's arguments against logic were born from both, their dissatisfaction with the logic we nowadays call classical first order logic (FOL) and their unawareness of the developments in logic of their time.

But why is that important now? Well there are still positions that defend that there is something like a legal reasoning that is fundamentally different from logicor that nothing beyond some very basic notion of logic is needed. Moreover, those who endorse this upshot of the Pereleman-Toulmin position are still nowadays unaware of the new developments in logic and argumentation theory happening at a breath-taking pace in computersciences, artificial intelligence, philosophy, foundations of mathematics and linguistics.

I concede that if with the insufficiencies of logic, the standard first order baby logic is meant, this is correctthough , I am afraid; there are some that seems to think that even FOL is too sophisticated and that an elementary knowledge of traditional syllogism is enough. But, again nowadays there are much more sophisticated forms of logic. Is there one particular pattern or sets of patterns of reasoning that corresponds to juridical reasoning? If there is, then it must be possible to transcribe them into some kind of formal system, or algorithm that provides the means to distinguish valid, sound, invalid and unsound ones inferences. Perhaps, this might even produce an enrichment of the logical frame.

Certainly there are some important issues that Perelman and Toulmin raised and that should be discussed, such as the need for a reasoning based on logic, see Rahman/Keff (2010). Keiff (2004a,b) and [START_REF] Rahman | A non normal logic for a wonderful world and more[END_REF] content: field knowledge rather than validity. I am also prepared to accept that one might need to distinguish different properties of inferences (should non monotonic reasoning be included or not?)? However, to make use of W.

Sellars terminology the game of giving and asking for reasons is what conceptual reasoning is about, and this boils down to inference. Notice that to say that there is a system of reasoning that is parallel to the one on logic but different to it is nowadays quite tough to defend: what logic are we talking about? Is the claim that in principle there is no possible formal approach? -the latter is defended by the current school of Rhetoric at Brussels (see e.g. [START_REF] Danblon | Sur le paradoxe de la preuve en rhétorique[END_REF][START_REF] Danblon | La rhétorique : art de la preuve ou art de la persuasion ?[END_REF][START_REF] Danblon | Dialogues as a foundation for intuitionistic logic[END_REF][START_REF] Meyer | De la problématologie : langage, science et philosophie[END_REF][START_REF] Meyer | [END_REF]. Or is the point that for practical purposes we do not need a sophisticated formal system?

I am not claiming that in the legal practice we need to check every piece of knowledge with a sophisticated logical system. However, in particular difficult cases, we need to do a fine analysis of the deductive steps involved in complex reasoning and this amounts to a logical analysis In the same way that usually we do not need to make use of a sophisticated mathematical system to carry out elementary arithmetic operations. However; sometimes, perhaps, we will need of a higher level mathematical method of calculation.

In general, once more, we need much more rather than less logic One of the results of the ongoing Franco-German research project JURILOG1 is that the case of conditional law requires a finer analysis as the one usually assumed and this is the lesson Leibniz provides to Roman Lawin fact, as discussed in appendix II, Magnier's recent formulation of conditional right in the frame of a dialogical dynamic epistemic logic satifies Toulmin's structure and provides a logical analysis of conditional right

For the sake of the argument I will bring forward Leibniz's so'called juridical solution to Protagoras-Euathlos dilemma, where according to a contract established and agreed by both parts (the dilemma, mostlybut not always-, assumes that the contract is a legally valid one) , Eauthlos agrees to pay the fees of the teachings to his teacher Protagoras, under the condition that the payment is due once Euathlos wins a trial. Protagoras goes to the courts before any trial involving Euathlos took place and claims that the fees 6 are due independently of the outcome of the trial. Either the court agreed with him and the fees are to be payed or the court decided againstin the latter case Euathlos won and thus the fees are due. Euathlos argues dually and concludes that the payment is not due: If the court decided that Euathlos won the court-case he must not pay, if the court decided against Euathlos then he lost and thus Euathlos must not pay. I picked up this example, since the history of the dilemma (see Jankowski 2014), profusely discussed in the context of Law precisely shows that usual juridical practices are not enough. Indeed, from the time of ancient Greece until 1960's, several attempts were carried out, including experts in Law, most of them unsuccessfully. Some even proposed as a solution to delay the decision indefinitely. It is apparent that no solution juridical, logical, pharmaceutical or otherwise, has been accepted by the majority, though, those lawyers, seem to have a solid expertise in the theory and practice of Law and, though I guess, it is fair to assume that they possess(ed) standard common sense in general and juridical in particular.

In fact on my view Leibniz, who also assumes that the contract is a legally valid one, makes a clever logical interpretation of the quite general principle plus petitio. This principle, formulated in its generalityasking for too much -in fact only states what is to be proven: one has to prove that Protagoras asks too much. What we have to do, that is the sense of the exercise, is to advance reasons backing the claim that Protagoras asks for too much.

Leibniz's proposal is, in a nutshell, the following: the reason why Protagoras asks too much is that it is too early. Since it is too early, the condition is not fulfilled at the time of the trial at stake. However, after the decision against Protagoras has been established, the condition has now been fulfilled and Protagoras can start a new trial and gather his fees. Thus, the point of Leibniz is to provide the condition with a temporal index. Therefore, since the temporal index of the fulfilled condition is different to the one before that fulfilment no contradiction follows. However, Leibniz does not restrict to himself to furnish the ways to avoid the contradiction, he also would like to show how to implement this analysis in the juridical practice. More generally what he does is to link the argumentative analysis with its consequences for decision-taking. This is what the second trial is about. The upshot is another interpretation of what juridical solution means: juridical solution is about linking the logical analysis with an action (or chain of them) in order to achieve a decision-taking procedure. This Leibnizian approach might be contrasted with the one of E. Northrop (1944Northrop ( , re-ed. 1961)), who in his book Riddles in Mathematics, concludesas Leibniz did beforethat there is no contradiction in our case-study. Northrop's analysis is a bit more general, the point that a contradiction only follows if we do not distinguish between the different types of fulfilment of the condition. If we link this with Leibniz's analysis one can present as saying that the different temporal indexes are a particular way to make manifest in the context at stake that the types are different. So what is unsatisfactory with Northrops's analysis is not the logical one, that at the end can be his analysis can be reconstructed as a generalization of Leibniz's one, but that he did not manageor was not interestedin the practical juridical consequences of it.

Dually, according to Brewer (2011) Leibniz's solution is not logical and does only focus on the practical outcome. Brewer's analysis is wrong, the point of Leibniz is to offere a logical analysis that allows a decision-taking: what we need to understand Leibniz's suggestion is to undertake a more complex analysis one that includes temporality (see our discussion below). Now, giving reasons is inference after all. Moreover, there might even be room to argue that the lack of a thorough logical analysis lead to disregard the fundamental conceptual difference between condition and presupposition difference that might provide another version of Leibniz's solution. Once more, Lebniz provides the logical elements of how to build a test for such particular kind of reasoning, but until we built the system in all of its relevant details we have not very much more than a guess and we must make use then of our juridical and/or common sense feelings to decide if say the solution of Leibniz is better than the one of Schneider. Moreover, until the system that underlies Leibniz's solution has not been built the soundness of the juridical practice congenial to this analysis is not assured. Perhaps, here is some room for an opponent to my position who would ask how to decide which solution is the best one? This might be a sticky point but this is also applies to the non-logic position and even worse. At least, if the logical analysis has been properly developed we will be able to identify the exact point of disagreement. Another objection might be the following, but what about the logical solutions? Why did logicians not come to this solution earlier? Well, the solution we are thinking of had to wait for the development of new logics such as temporal and deontic and more crucially the development of a logic that deals with contentual inferences rather than with purely syntactic derivations and that is able to display this in a context of interaction. Coming back to our case-study, what Leibniz did, I claim, is to indicate what are, according to his view, the crucial logical steps (based on juridical knowledge) towards an accurate analysis of the dilemma. The point is now to thoroughly develop a system according to this proposed analysis and check if it works or not. If it does, a congenial juridical practice will follow. The solution of W. [START_REF] Lenzen | Protagoras contra Euathlus Betrachtungen zu einer sogenannten Paradoxie[END_REF] is close to accomplish the task, however it's semantics that combines deontic operators with temporal logic and his formulation of conditional right is too sketchy to really know if it works.

Moreover, I think that one of the positive lessons of the Perelman-Toulmin approach is that a legally efficient system for legal reasoning should be of procedural that is one where meaning is constituted by interaction at the object language levelsee appendix III. As defended in other papers I think that a dialogical approach to P. Martin-Löfs Constructive Type Theory will do the job. In this context I will also mention without going into the details R. Brandom's arguments on inferentialism as a base to link normativity and logic, however; I will not discuss the Kelsenian's arguments in detail. I will leave my discussion of Kelsen for a next time, but I have the suspicion that also he was not aware of what was going on in the logic of his time.

My talk is rather a position paper and has the purpose to invite to a discussion on what is legal reasoning after all.

Appendix 1:

Toulmin's (1958) Analysis of the Structure of Arguments

Logical Inference:

PREMISES =========== CONCLUSION Different to Argument: justification of a claim DATA=============== CLAIM ⇕ ⇕
Reasons Qualification

Backing of Reasons Rebuttal

Reasons link data and claims. But the reasons need backing Claims are mostly qualified: Certainly, most probably, probably etc. But qualifications can be defeated and changed.

Appendix II: Magnier's Analysis of Conditional Right

Sébastien [START_REF] Magnier | Approche dialogique de la dynamique épistémique et de la condition juridique[END_REF] provides a remarkable analysis of the notion of conditional right1 , which he generalizes for the logical study of legal norms.

Magnier's main idea, motivated by the earlier and exhaustive textual and systematic work of Matthias [START_REF] Armgardt | Das rechtlogische System der[END_REF][START_REF] Armgardt | Zur Bedingungsdogmatik im klassischen römischen Recht und zu ihren Grundlagen in der stoischen Logik[END_REF][START_REF] Armgardt | Zur Rückwirkung der Bedingung im klassischen römischen Recht und zum stoischen Determinismus[END_REF] 2 and the subsequent studies carried out by Alexandre Thiercelin (2001[START_REF] Thiercelin | On two argumentative uses of the notion of uncertainty in Law in Leibniz' juridical dissertations about conditions[END_REF][START_REF] Thiercelin | Epistemic and Practical Aspects of Conditionals in Leibniz' Legal Theory of Conditions[END_REF] 3 , involves Leibniz's notion of certification, which plays a central role in the famous De conditionibus. According to Magnier, the certification of the antecedent of a sentence expressing a conditional rightsuch as in If a ship arrives, Primus must pay 100 dinar to Secundusis linked to an epistemic understanding of evidence. In our example, the certification of the arrival of a ship amounts to there is public evidence for the arrival of a ship and this amounts to being in possession of the knowledge required to produce a piece of evidence for the arrival of a ship. Moreover, inspired by Kelsen's conception of legal norms, Magnier generalizes his own approach in which he rejects a material-implication approach4 and reconstructs conditional right and legal norms in the frame of a dialogical formulation of dynamic epistemic logic that includes sentences where a public announcement operator occurs. In other words, Magnier's contribution consists in a shift in perspective focussing on the semantics of truth-dependence underlying the meaning of conditional rights. The main idea is to identify the epistemic dynamics involved in the fulfilment of the condition as constituting the core of the meaning of dependence specific to the notion of conditional right. He implements this shift by means of a dynamic epistemic logic called Public Announcement Logic (PAL).

10

The dialogical framework provides a further development of this dynamic by furnishing a dynamic theory of meaning. In a nutshell, the meaning of If a ship arrives, Primus must pay 100 dinar to Secundus boils down to establishing the conditions of a legal debate where Secundus claims the 100 dinar, given that the arrival of a ship has been certified (i.e., given that it is known that a ship arrived, or given that there is evidence for the arrival of a ship), rather than rendering this meaning by means of a model-theoretic semantics. More generally, the meaning of the notions of conditional right and legal norm is established by identifying the main logical features of those argumentative interactions that are deployed in legal trials. This leads Magnier to design specific logical language games (dialogues) that yield a theory of meaning rooted in legal practice itself.

Interesting is that this can be said to satisfy Toulmin's structure: Indeed:

Qualified Claim: Primus must pay 100 coins to Secundus (Deontic qualification: must)

Data: The arrival of a ship from Asia

Reasons: The legal validity of a legal contract establishing that Primus must pay 100 coins to Secundus if a ship from Asia arrives Moreover, this shows that we can link games of giving and asking for reason with entitlements and rights: Why must Primus pay? Because a ship arrived and there is a legally valid contract establishing establishing the relevant conditional right

Appendix III: Hypothetical Reasoning and Conditional Right

I certainly endorse Magnier's idea that (i) a theory of meaning involving legal reasoning should be based on an argumentative-based semantics, (ii) an epistemic approach to the notion of legal evidence should have a central role in a theory of legal reasoning, and (iii) implication is not really at stake in the logical analysis of conditional right. However, I think that the role of evidence should be given prominence and developed into a general epistemic theory of meaning where evidence is understood as an object that makes a proposition true. More precisely, I think that we should explore the possibility of placing the piece of evidence that grounds a proposition (the object that makes the proposition true) at the object-language level, instead of via the formal semantics of an operator that introduces that evidence via the metalogical definitions of a formal (model-theoretical) semantics. That a proposition is true is supported by a piece of evidence, but this piece of evidence must be placed in the object language if that language is purported to have content. This move seems to be particularly important in the context of legal trials where acceptance or rejection of legal evidence is as much part of the debate as the main thesis itself. More generally, the notion of legal evidence should be linked to the meaning of a proposition and not only of an operator occurring within a proposition.

The underlying idea of my approach is to study the notion of conditional right by means of a constructive type theory (CTT) according to which propositions are sets, and proofs are elements. That a proposition is true means the set has at least one element. The analysis of legal norms should follow as a generalization, the details of which are not the subject of the present paper. In such a framework, the logical structure of sentences expressing conditional rights is analyzed as corresponding to that of hypotheticals rather than implications. The proof-objects that make the implications of the hypothetical true are pieces of evidence dependent upon the evidence for the condition (i.e. dependent upon the evidence for the head of the hypothetical). Herewith I follow [START_REF] Thiercelin | La Theorie Juridique Leibnizienne des Conditions. Ce que la logique fait au droit (ce que le droit fait à la logique)[END_REF][START_REF] Thiercelin | Epistemic and Practical Aspects of Conditionals in Leibniz' Legal Theory of Conditions[END_REF] interpretation that considers the notion of dependence as the most salient logical characteristic of Leibniz's approach to conditional right. Moreover, in line with Armgardt (2001, pp. 220-25), I will study the general notion of dependence as triggered by hypotheticals and then the logical structure of dependence specific to conditional right. However, in my view, the dependence of the conditioned on the condition is defined with regard to the pieces of evidence that support the truth of the hypothetical rather than the propositions that constitute it. According to this analysis, the famous example for a conditional right:

If a ship arrives, then Primus must pay 100 dinars to Secundus has the form of the hypothetical Primus must pay 100 dinars to Secundus, provided there is some evidence x for the arrival of a ship

And this means 12

The evidence p for a payment-obligation that instantiates the proposition Primus must pay 100 dinar to Secundus is dependent on some evidence x for a ship arrival Furthermore, the general logical structure of the underlying notion of dependence yields:

p(x) : P (x : S)

where x is a yet unknown element of the set of arrivals S (i.e. x : S), and where the evidence for a payment-obligation (the piece of writing that establishes the conditional right) is dependent on the arrival x of a ship, i.e., the evidence for payment-obligation is represented by the function p(x).

In this setting, when there is knowledge of some ship arrival s, the variable will be substituted by s.

Still, the logical structure p(x) : P (x : S) represents the more general case of dependence triggered by an underlying hypothetical form which is common to all right-entitlements that are dependent upon a proviso clausesuch as the requirements clause of statutory right-entitlements or the condition clause of conditional right-entitlements. Moreover, a further deeper analysis requires an existential quantification embedded in a hypothetical of the sort:

If (∃w : S)Arrive(w) true, then Pay (100 dinar, primus, Secundus) true 1Even this deeper analysis does not seem to fully capture the future contingency of the conditions upon which conditional rights are built. Nevertheless, this formalization p(x) : P (x : S) provides a general formal approach to the notion of dependence that, as pointed out by Armgardt (2001, pp. 221-25), seems to be in line with Leibniz's (A VI; I, pp. 235) own approach to the generalization of right-entitlements by means of hypotheticals.

As regards the specificity of conditional right, Leibniz himself defended, on one hand, a biconditional reading of the notion of dependence 2 , and on the other hand, the uncertainty regarding the fulfilment of the condition at the moment of the formulation of a (legally valid) concrete case of conditional right-entitlement.1 If we consider explicitly the underlying epistemic and temporal structure in the way that Granström (2011, pp. 167-170) tackles (in the CTT-frame) the issue on future contingents, a biconditional formalization specific to Leibniz's notion of condition-dependence is possible. 2 As a matter of fact, Aristotle's chapter of the Peri Hermeneias on the sea battle naturally leads to Leibniz's example of the ship. Roughly, the underlying idea is that both implications hold:

If a ship arrives then, Primus must pay 100 dinar to Secundus, (provided (S or not S) and assuming that the arrival of a ship proves the disjunction).

If Primus must pay 100 dinar to Secundus, (provided (S or not S) and assuming that the arrival of a ship proves the disjunction), then a ship arrival is the case.

Regarding the link between condition and conditioned, we can understand the whole structure as a conjunction of two implications embedded in one hypothetical. The implications are the following:

If the condition C is fulfilled then the beneficiary is entitled to the right at stake, assuming that some evidence for C solves the uncertainty (C or not C) underlying the conditional right.

If the condition not C is fulfilled then the beneficiary is not entitled to the right at stake, assuming that some evidence for not C solves the uncertainty (C or not C) underlying the conditional right.

Making use of the CTT-language we have the following formalization of Leibniz's example: 14

Which reads:

If there is some evidence for a ship arrival, and this arrival solves the uncertainty (S or not S) underlying the conditional right, i.e., if the ship arrival provides evidence for the left side of the disjunction, then the beneficiary is entitled to the right at stake. If there is some evidence for no ship arrival and this solves the uncertainty (S or not S) underlying the conditional right, i.e., if the evidence for no ship arrival provides evidence for the right side of the disjunction, then the beneficiary is not entitled to the right at stake.

In fact, this (hypothetical) conjunction of implications seems to be the most suitable formalization of the logical and epistemic structure underlying the notion of conditional right. Furthermore, this is developed within a dialogical framework where the distinction between play-object and strategy-object (or proof-object) leads to the further distinction between two basic kinds of pieces of evidence such that strategy-evidence is made up of play-evidence.

Based on a talk at the JURILOG meeting, May 19-20

2014, Lille.

An ANR-DFG-project between the University of Lille and the University of Konstanz (Germany), leaded by Shahid Rahman (Lille) -Logic and Epistemologyand Matthias Armgardt (Konstanz) -Civil Law and History of Law.

In the present paper the term is used in the sense of Leibniz rather than in the sense in which it is generally understood in legal contexts nowadays.

The work of Matthias Armgardt prompted and influenced a host of new research on the bearing of Leibniz's approach to current studies in legal rationality.

In fact, Thiercelin's research was prompted by the work of Armgardt.

In factMagnier (2013, pp. 151-157, 261-292) rejects other forms of implication interpretations too, including strict implication or connexive implication.

This was suggested by Göran Sundholm in a personal email.

The biconditional reading relates to the link between the condition and the conditioned. Leibniz calls this feature of the conditional right convertibility. It is not clear if, in Leibniz's view, the biconditional reading only applies to conditional right.

This seems to be rooted in actual legal practice: If the condition A is not satisfied, the benefactor is not entitled to B. The actuality of this feature of the Leibnizian approach to the notion of conditional right has been defended by modern-day scholars of Law theory such asKoch / Rüßmann (1982, p. 47) and more thoroughly by[START_REF] Armgardt | Das rechtlogische System der[END_REF]

2008, 2010).2 Cf. Rahman/ Granstöm, forthcoming.


Hélène Prost
email: helene.prost@inist.fr

Joachim Schöpfel
email: joachim.schopfel@univ-lille3.fr

Grey Communities

The paper explores grey communities outside the Grey Literature Network Service (GreyNet) and identifies potential members for GreyNet. GreyNet can be compared to a Learned Society or a special interest group specialised in grey literature as a particular field of library and information sciences (LIS). Its relevance is related to its capacity to enforce the terminology and definition of grey literature in LIS research and publications, and its impact and outreach can be assessed through the proportion of experts dealing with grey literature and connected with GreyNet. From five databases (Web of Science, Scopus, LISTA, Pascal and Francis) and from open repositories we selected 2,440 papers on grey literature published between 2000 and 2012 by 5,490 authors. Publishing features, preferred journals and the number of publications per author are described for the whole sample. For a subsample of 433 authors strongly committed to grey literature, we present data on geographic origins, place of work, scientific domain and profession. We discuss the characteristics of grey communities in and outside of GreyNet and suggest strategies for the further development of the network.

Introduction

In 2012, the Grey Literature Network Service (GreyNet)1 celebrated its 20th anniversary, with nearly 300 contributors from 30 different countries. In recent years, GreyNet has directed its activities towards open access through the launching of OpenGrey, and the creation of the GreyNet LinkedIn group marked its entry into social networks. The activities of GreyNet, such as workshops, summer schools, curriculum development, best practices, discussion list, publications and conferences, contributed to the creation and development of a subject community by means of shared terminology, tools, events, experiences and topics. GreyNet can be compared to a Learned Society specialised in grey literature as a particular field of library and information sciences (LIS). However, it is different from an academic group insofar as it is not confined to LIS but also reaches out to include information professionals and scientists from other disciplines (social sciences, computer sciences, law, economics...). In fact, GreyNet is more a kind of special interest group that recruits experts from the field of grey literature in order "to facilitate dialogue, research, and communication between persons and organisations (and to) to identify and distribute information on and about grey literature in networked environments" (GreyNet web site). The relevance of GreyNet is related to its capacity to enforce the terminology and definition of grey literature in LIS research and publications, and its impact and outreach can be assessed through the proportion of experts dealing with grey literature and connected with GreyNet. In other words, if we want to evaluate the success of GreyNet as a community-creating structure and its potential for future development, we need to know the degree of GreyNet to attain and aggregate all (or at least a significant number of) scientists, academics and information professionals interested in the field of grey literature and contributing to its knowledge. Our definition of community is pragmatic and follows the sociological approach to science [START_REF] Kuhn | The Structure of Scientific Revolutions[END_REF][START_REF] Latour | Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts[END_REF]. We consider a scientific and/or professional community as a social group with interaction and communication, common practice, identity and values, and shared interests, definitions and language (see Callon 1989[START_REF] Schrecker | La communauté: histoire critique d'un concept dans la sociologieanglosaxonne[END_REF][START_REF] Paganelli | Recherche en SI. Analyse des discours sur la notion d'« usage » dans deux revues en sciences de l'information : Doc-SI et BBF[END_REF]. Our study builds on three other papers on scientific and professional members of GreyNet. In 2005, we analysed the citations of the first five conferences on grey literature [START_REF] Schöpfel | Citation Analysis and Grey Literature: Stakeholders in the grey circuit[END_REF]. This first paper defined the "stakeholders" as "those authors who focus their research and writing on the topic of grey literature (...) referred to as the meta-authors on grey literature" and identified 152 authors and co-authors of 139 papers. The citation analysis of 1344 records and 1721 authors or corporate authors revealed that roughly one quarter of these cited authors matched with the "meta-authors on grey literature" of GreyNet, and that another quarter "(...) deals (dealt) with grey literature, but does (did) not explicitly adhere to the term". Four years later, when the new OpenGrey service2 (formerly OpenSIGLE) was launched, [START_REF] Farace | OpenSIGLE, Home to GreyNet's Research Community and its Grey Literature Collections: Initial Results and a Project Proposal[END_REF] defined the grey community as the "250 authors/researchers in the GL-Conference Series" and described the integrating role of GreyNet and the new open repository. The paper also mentioned two groups of potential interest for further development, i.e. the 3 former EAGLE member institutions and "new stakeholders in Grey Literature" whoever this may be. More recently, [START_REF] Marzi | Knowledge Communities in Grey[END_REF] highlighted the particular relationship between terminology and community. She compared the usage of specific terms and the syntactic complexity of the proceedings of the GreyNet conference to social networks (Facebook) and subject-based communities (LinkedIn) and focused on "supporting relationships and content sharing". Her conclusion was that subject-based collections such as the proceedings offer a more "coherent flow of shared and structured knowledge" than social networks but that subject-based communities such as the GreyNet group on LinkedIn can nevertheless contribute to "knowledge building and informative flow", if there is a "strong interaction between medium and content (as in subject-based community exchanges)". Obviously, sharing common research interests, belonging to a group, attending the same events and speaking the same language are key factors for the definition of a community. GreyNet without a doubt is such a community, with an accepted terminology, reference definitions, social events and vectors of communication. But if it is relatively easy to determine the core grey community based on membership, publishing behaviour and conference attendance, the frontier between inside and outside the community is hard to find. Surely, often enough we can read on Twitter or elsewhere questions like "what does grey literature really mean?" Often enough we can guess that outside of GreyNet the "inside-terminology" is not really in use and that grey literature remains a rather obscure topic, not quite clear, not well known. On the other hand, we can also observe that other scientists and professionals from LIS or other domains publish about/on grey literature. Sometimes they apply the concept of grey literature together with the definition of GreyNet, sometimes they don't for instance, when an article about PhD theses does not mention their grey character. We were interested in the boundary (should we say continuum?) between inside and outside of the GreyNet community. This time we have not tried to define this boundary through citation analysis (= which authors are working together? Who cites whose publications?...) but through the analysis of usage of terminology and choice of topics. Who uses "grey literature" as an object of research and publication? Who works on documents belonging to grey literature without applying the term "grey literature"? Our expectation is that this double approach may provide evidence of the outreach and impact of GreyNet beyond its community and of its potential for further development.

Methodology

The first step was a search for publications on grey literature in selected scientific databases. The search was conducted in March and April 2012 in five databases (table 1), applying three criteria: Document type: The search was limited to published papers. Time period: We considered documents published between 2000 and 2012. Content: We searched for references that contain "grey literature" or variants in the title, abstract or keyword fields. Subsequently, we added references on PhD theses or Master dissertations.

The exact approach for each database is described in Appendix 1. The results were cleaned and consolidated. Cited publications and documents published by GreyNet (TextRelease3 ) were discarded (Table 1). We then conducted the same research in different open access directories and search engines (DOAJ4 , OpenDOAR5 , ROAR6 , E-Lis7 , OAIster8 ) but only the results from E-Lis were satisfying and relevant while the other tools were not specific enough (no limitation to the time period, to search on fields except full text and/or to published documents). Therefore, we only added the references from the E-Lis directory (Table 2). Again, these references were cleaned and consolidated, and GreyNet publications were discarded. The references from all sources were uploaded to a unique database. Again, double entries were eliminated, references were cleaned and consolidated. The final database contains 2,440 references and allows for three analyses:

Source

Source

• Study on the publication patterns: the study was conducted in order to know more about these references on grey literature -document types, publication years, preferred journal titles. • Study on authors: the study was conducted in order to describe this community publishing on grey literature outside of the GreyNet, in particular their institutional affiliation, geographical origin, preferred journals and other vectors of communication. • Comparison with GreyNet community: The GreyNet community (inside) is defined based on the authors who usually publish in the GreyNet newsletter, in The Grey Journal, or in the proceedings of the annual conferences on grey literature partially available in the OpenGrey repository. The list was downloaded in April 2012 from the TextRelease web page called "WHOIS in Grey Literature 2012"9 . Together, this corpus (i.e. the GreyNet community) accounts for 296 members, more or less involved, active and publishing.

Our comparison was conducted in order to better understand the specificity of the grey community, its boundaries, outreach and potential.

Results

The corpus of publications on grey literature and/or PhD theses or Master dissertations contains 2,440 references. As mentioned above, these references were retrieved from six different sources. No reference was available in all sources but some are listed in two or three sources; for instance, 762 references (30%) are indexed in both Web of Sciences and SCOPUS databases. All references from GreyNet sources (The Grey Journal, GL conferences) were discarded. 50% of the references contain "grey literature" in the title, keywords or abstract while another 49% of the references mention PhD or Master theses (dissertations etc.) in their metadata. 12% of all references can clearly be identified as belonging to scientometrics or bibliometrics, mostly citation analysis.

The results are presented in two stages. First we describe publishing features, preferred journals and the number of publications per author for the whole sample of 2,440 and 5,490 authors. This first part is followed by a more detailed analysis of geographic origins, place of work, domain and profession with a subsample of 433 authors who are strongly committed to grey literature.

Whole sample

Publishing features 82% of the references are from journal articles. Yet, about 18% are from other document types, such as theses or conference proceedings (Table 3). Roughly 8,4% of the papers on grey literature and PhD theses are published and disseminated as grey literature while 82% are "mainstream" article publishing, probably mostly by commercial academic publishing houses.

Document type

The scope of our study was limited to papers published between 2000 and 2012. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the year of publication. The median age of publication is four years. 30% of the papers were published during the last two years (2010)(2011)(2012) or are in press.

More than 36% of all papers were published in medical or public health journals while another 27% appeared in journals from library and information sciences or magazines from the publishing and book trade industry. The other papers were published in different disciplines, for instance in education, computers, biology or psychology.

Preferred journals

Academic journals are still the most important vector for scientific communication. Which titles do scientists and professionals prefer for the submission and publishing of their papers? Our sample provides two different answers.

Articles that mention grey literature in their titles are most often published in LIS journals (Table 7). All these authors are in some way committed to grey literature or related subjects. Yet, as we were interested in those authors strongly committed to grey literature, we selected a subsample based on two criteria: authors with at least three papers (i.e. 199 authors or 3.6% of the whole sample), and those with at least one paper that mentions "grey literature" in the title. This subsample of authors strongly committed to grey literature contains 432 individuals and one committee of authors (GLISC), that is 8% of the initial sample.

Publishing

Subsample of authors strongly committed to grey literature

Altogether, these 433 authors have published 550 papers on grey literature and/or PhD theses or Master dissertations.. One quarter of their papers mention "grey literature" in the title. Nearly 13% of the papers present results from scientometric studies.

Geographic origins

Half of these authors are from Europe; another third are from North America (Figure 3). Even if the authors are concentrated in Europe and North America, all continents are represented. Nevertheless, there is no BRICS effect, at least not in this sample.

Place of work and domain

Where do the authors work, which are their professional domains? Unsurprisingly, most of the authors (68%) come from Higher Education, mainly from universities, sometimes from schools. Another 17% are working in research organisations (laboratories, institutes...). The others are working in hospitals, government agencies, non-profit organisations or corporate companies. 4% are from more important and independent libraries, such as INIST, etc. (Figure 4). In which domain are they working? We tried to identify their scientific or professional disciplines from their affiliation or other related information. 40% are working in structures of medical sciences and health, in hospitals or universities, followed by structures in library and information sciences (27%), often in universities (Figure 5). Other significant domains are social sciences and humanities (9%) and environment (7%) while only 5% of the authors are working in disciplines related to natural sciences.

Profession

What are the jobs of the authors publishing about grey literature? More than two thirds are librarians in different functions and settings. Another 25% are scholars teaching Library and Information Sciences at universities or working in research structures (see Figure 6). A very small number are computer experts, editors, consultants etc. For others, it was impossible to determine the profession. Most of the academics are teaching Library and Information Sciences while the scientists are often from medical research.

Overlap with GreyNet

Are these authors members of the GreyNet community? Are they listed in the WHOIS, members of the LinkedIn group, authors of papers communicated at a GL conference? We tried to find out by comparing the different samples. First, we compared the GreyNet community (296 individuals) with our sample of 5,490 authors. 81 people belong to both. This means that 27% of the GreyNet community are represented as authors on grey literature in our initial large sample, but only 1.5% of the authors occasionally writing on grey literature belong to the GL network (sample 1 in figure 7). Secondly, we limited our comparison to the smaller sample of 433 authors more strongly involved in publishing on grey literature. 64 people are in both communities (sample 2 in Figure 7). Again, this figure means that about 22% of the GreyNet community publish outside of the network and are engaged in grey literature while 15% of these authors are members of the GreyNet community.

The comparison between the two samples 1 and 2 shows that the more an author publishes on grey literature, especially when mentioning the term "grey literature" in the title, the more likely it is for him/her to be a member of the GreyNet community. But these figures also mean that 70-80% of the members of GreyNet are not identified in databases and repositories as occasional or regular publishers on grey literature or related issues.

Outside of GreyNet -same or different?

85% of the authors strongly committed to grey literature (n=369 of 433) do not belong to the GreyNet community. Are they different?

The comparison of the two groups in our sample of 433 authors shows that the GreyNet authors are not represented in Africa, South America and Australia. Authors from outside of GreyNet represent 36 countries (Figure 7) while GreyNet authors are from only 12 countries. Columbia, Mexico, Portugal, Greece, Austria, New Zealand, Pakistan and Turkey are countries so far beyond the reach of the GreyNet. At least this is so in this sample of authors strongly committed to grey literature and publishing more than others. With regards to the other aspects, we can identify some other differences between GreyNet members and the other authors. For instance:

• GreyNet is less academic than the author sample.

• Research structures, non-profit organisations and libraries are better represented in GreyNet than outside. • In GreyNet, LIS and natural sciences are better represented, while medical sciences, ecology, applied sciences and social sciences and humanities are underrepresented. • The relationship between scholars and librarians is completely inverted. Publishing GreyNet members in our study are mostly information professionals while the majority of the publishing community outside of GreyNet is working in Higher Education or research organisations. These results show two communities which, despite shared interests, are rather different, with a more consistent profile for the GreyNet community.

Discussion

Methodological shortfalls

Our choice to evaluate terminology (grey literature) and choice of topic (theses) as indicators for belongingness to a community is not exhaustive. Also, this kind of scientometric analysis depends partly on the quality and consistency of abstracting and indexing services of databases and repositories and also on the quality and relevance of their search tools and results. Missing search facilities for instance reduced the number of open access directories and most probably the number of identified publications and authors. Also, we had to apply different search strategies (see Appendix) that probably increased inconsistency in the corpus and eliminated relevant items. Another problem shared with other scientometric studies is the author identification because of misspelling, changes or variants of the first and/or last name and so on. Because of missing person or author identifiers, the consolidation and validation were done manually, a procedure that decreases the reliability of the results. The same remark applies to the analysis of geographical origins, affiliations and domains of activity. We tried to control this source of error through double-checking and, in some cases, by eliminating the reference or author from the sample. This may reduce the error rate but at the same time decrease the relevance of the overall results.

Grey community or grey communities?

A subject community, as defined above, shares terminology, tools, events, experiences and topics. The "grey community" should therefore share the basic terminology of grey literature, should attend the same events (conferences, workshops, other meetings), make use of the same tools of communication (journals, listservs...) and research (methodology), and discuss the same topics. But does it? Drawing on our empirical evidence, we can distinguish different groups (Table 6).

Name Number Comments GreyNet 296

Coordination and management by GreyNet Amsterdam and TextRelease. GreyNet publishing outside 81

The "visible" part of GreyNet outside of the GreyNet events and communication vectors. More information professionals. Occasionally publishing on GL 5057 One or two papers in ten years, no usage of grey literature terminology. All disciplines. In 433 authors sample, Regularly publishing on GL with GL terminology

149

Three or more papers. SS&H, LIS. More scholars. In 433 authors sample, Regularly publishing on GL without GL terminology

31

Three or more papers. Medical sciences. All disciplines. More scholars. These groups are not exhaustive, and we could add others such as:

• GreyNet members attending events,

• GreyNet authors publishing occasionally,

• Groups regularly publishing on grey literature with scientometric approach,

• Groups occasionally publishing on theses,

• Subgroups according to disciplines, organisation or profession, etc. Some of these groups are defined mainly by practice (publishing features, attendance to events etc.), others by usage of terminology and methodology (citation analysis, grey literature definition etc.) or are mixed. Probably, members of some groups would not have any problem to identify themselves as part of a "grey literature community" while others would probably prefer to define their affiliation by means of a scientific discipline or a profession.

In and outside of the community

One does not need to use Eskimo words to describe different kinds of snow. As Molière's Bourgeois Gentilhomme discovered with delight, one can speak prose without knowing it. And one can publish about grey literature without using the term, or even without awareness of it. We included in our sample papers on theses as a significant and central part of grey literature. We obtained two subsamples, one with references that explicitly mention "grey literature" in the title or in other header information; the others are papers on theses that may or may not mention "grey literature" in the body of the text. In the complete sample of references, the GreyNet authors represent 15%. But when we consider only the references with "grey literature" in the header information, this proportion increases up to more than 40%. On the other hand, when we consider the subsample on theses, the percentage of GreyNet authors decreases to 8%. This means that GreyNet authors when publishing outside of the GreyNet use the grey literature terminology more often but they do not do it in a consistent way. And this means also, that this terminology is known outside of GreyNet but not generally accepted or explicitly used when studying grey literature such as theses.

Comparison between the two samples of authors (the 433 authors and the others) against the two communities (GreyNet and outside) reveals another significant difference. The statistical distribution of the usage and non-usage of the grey literature terminology across these groups is significantly different from the expected values ( The figures in bold are higher than expected, and the figures in italics are lower than expected.

In other words: Authors from GreyNet but also from outside who are highly committed to grey literature significantly use the term "grey literature" more often the others when describing their work. Compared to less committed authors, we can speak of a terminology-based community.

One reason for the differences may be that while GreyNet authors (mainly librarians from all disciplines and LIS academics) often choose grey literature as their object of research (Library and Information Sciences), authors outside of the GreyNet (mainly academics from different disciplines) include specific types of grey items in citation analysis or reviews (state of the art), in particular in medical or life sciences, without having a global concept of grey literature.

Our empirical data tend to confirm the reality of two grey communities, with relatively closed frontiers between inside and outside of Greynet -only 3.5% of all papers are co-authored with somebody "from the other side". Obviously in the complete sample we cannot speak of some kind of freedom for the movement of ideas, projects and publications across this border. In so far as both are working with the same material, is this a problem? Perhaps not, as long as mutual understanding and exchange remain possible. Yet, the concept of grey literature draws a framework for research and practice and allows for a better understanding of a specific kind of scientific and technical communication. Therefore, the use and promotion of "grey literature" terminology is all but trivial, not only inside the GreyNet community but also and above all outside of the community.

Conclusion

As we stated at the beginning, a community builds on shared terminology, concepts and practice, such as common methodology and events. Our empirical data indicate the existence of different shades of grey communities, with regards to GreyNet membership, publishing features and usage of terminology. Nine out of ten authors appear to be "bouncers" during the observed period 2000 to 2012, occasionally speaking of grey literature or using grey material. Only one out of ten authors can be considered as a kind of "returnee", with a kind of loyalty and respectful behaviour regarding grey literature. The analysis of 2,440 papers published by 5,490 authors confirms that the concept of grey literature remains more or less a professional affair applied by librarians and LIS academics. The papers can be mapped in three concentric circles: at the core, some studies on grey literature as an object of research, followed by a group of papers with a conscious and direct use of the concept. The third and largest circle contains papers that make usage of grey items, with or without awareness of the concept of grey literature. Thus, the data show a potential for the development of the GreyNet community beyond the actual and often tight frontiers. We conclude with two possible strategies for the development of GreyNet, one based on proximity, the other on exploration.

Proximity

The first strategy is centred on authors outside of GreyNet with a profile adjacent to that of GreyNet members. This calls for contact as a priority:

• Authors who mention grey literature in the header information of their paper.

• Librarians and other information professionals, scholars from library and information sciences. • Authors of papers published since 2008. Contact could be established in order to invite publications for The Grey Journal or a monograph, to suggest communications for the GL conferences, and to invite to join the GreyNet listserv etc.

Exploration

The second strategy focuses on specific groups of authors that are not necessarily very near to GreyNet but nevertheless in (some kind of) grey literature. For instance:

• The Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD), an international organization dedicated to promoting the adoption, creation, use, dissemination, and preservation of electronic theses and dissertations. • Other library sections dedicated to special collections, acquisition policy and institutional repositories. • Identified authors from Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Australia or the BRICS countries.

• Identified authors of papers on grey literature (citation analysis, case studies etc.) in medical sciences. Here, contact could be made in order to suggest joint publications or events, keynote addresses to GL conferences, or invitation to join the GreyNet listserv etc.

Beyond the community

These strategies could be implemented with the help of the GreyNet group on LinkedIn. This group already radiates beyond the traditional frontiers of GreyNet. Presently (November 2013) it has 328 members, and only around twenty of them usually publish in the GreyNet newsletter, in The Grey Journal, or in the proceedings of the annual conferences. Here, the GreyNet community clearly has the potential to expand and to enhance its impact. However, radiating beyond the community can also mean publishing on grey literature in other media and products, editing special issues related to grey literature not only in LIS journals but also in selected journals from other disciplines that are usual "consumers" of grey literature (medical sciences, social sciences and humanities...), and fostering joint research and publishing projects between professionals and academics. Integrating authors near to GreyNet, exploring other communities and reaching beyond the GreyNet community could be three different but complementary ways to promote and foster sustainable development of this network.

Bibliography

Callon M. (1989). La Science et ses réseaux: genèse et circulation des faits scientifiques. Paris, La Découverte.

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Year of publication (n=2,440)

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2: Proportion of authors with number of publications (all authors, n=5,490)

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3: Geographic origins of authors (n=433)

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: Place of work of authors (n=433)

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 5: Scientific and professional domains of authors (n=433)

Figure 6 :

 6 Figure 6: Profession of authors (n=433)

Figure 7 :

 7 Figure 7: Publishing authors and GreyNet community (sample 1 n=5,490 authors; sample 2 n=433authors)

Figure 8 :

 8 Figure 8: Geographical origin of authors outside of GreyNet (n=369)

Table 1 : Databases with search results

 1

		Owner	Nb of references	Search date
	LISTA	Ebsco	465	4/10 2012
	Scopus	Elsevier	1,412	3/31 2012
	Web of Science	Thomson	1,206	4/1 2012
	Pascal/Francis	INIST	129	3/31 2012

Table 2 : Open access directory E-Lis with search results

 2

Table 3 : Document types (n=2,440)

 3

Table 6 : Concentric and overlapping groups

 6

Table 7

 7 ).

		GreyNet	GreyNet	Outside	Outside
		Terminology No terminology Terminology	No	Total
					terminology
	433 authors	64	0	336	33	433
	Others	14	3	3549	1491	5057
	Total	78	3	3885	1524	5490

Table 7 : Usage of grey literature terminology in header across the author samples

 7

GreyNet home page http://www.greynet.org/

OpenGrey home page http://www.opengrey.eu/

TextRelease home page http://www.textrelease.com/

Directory of Open Access Journals home page http://www.doaj.org/

Directory of Open Access Repositories home page http://www.opendoar.org/

Registry of Open Access Repositories home page http://roar.eprints.org/

Open Archive for Library and Information Science home page http://eprints.rclis.org/

Union catalog of millions of records representing open access resources, search interface at http://oaister.worldcat.org/

http://www.textrelease.com/whois2012.html

Documentation et bibliothèques

The high ranking of Publishing Research Quarterly can be explained by a former agreement with GreyNet that gave permission to PRQ to re-publish the best papers from the international conferences on grey literature. In 2010 Archaeologies published a special issue on grey literature in archaeology that may at least partly explain the second place on the list. Considering the whole sample and not only the articles with "grey literature" in the title, other titles appear to be as important if not more important than the cited LIS journals (Table 5). Our data show that journals in medical science and public health (nursing) regularly publish papers that build on grey literature and/or theses and dissertations as valuable sources for literature reviews, scientometric analyses or state of the art contributions. Yet, these journals correspond to about 10% of all articles, and the complete list of journals with articles on grey literature, theses and dissertations is much longer and contains nearly 1,300 different titles. This in other words, means that these publications are more or less scattered in a significant number of journals.

Cochrane Database of

Number of authors

128 references (5%) are anonymous papers and/or without information (n/a) about the author(s). The remaining papers are signed by 5,490 different individual authors. Most of them signed only one paper (88%). The others published two (9%), three to five (3%) or up to fifteen papers (Figure 2).

Appendix

For each data source, we preferred if available the advanced search interface, eliminated double entries and references from the GreyNet (The Grey Journal, GL conference series etc.), and limited the results to the time period mentioned above (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012). OAIster was accessed through the OCLC WorldCat but the results were not specific enough. We could not search in the LISA database because we had no access. We did not consider the results from ROAR and OpenDOAR because of missing search functionalities. The search results were much too large and without interest for our study. The table shows the search strategies. After some exploratory tests, we decided to limit the search in the following way/manner:

• Grey (or gray) literature in the title of the publication.

• Grey (or gray) literature in the abstract.

• Grey (or gray) literature in the keywords. In order to produce some information about authors dealing with grey literature but not using the concept of grey (or gray) literature, we also searched for papers on theses and dissertations, excluding biographical papers.

Corpus

Extraction LISTA all txt contains "grey literature" or "gray literature" or dissertation or "master thesis" or "doctoral thesis" Scopus Grey Title abstr keyword contains "grey literature" or "gray literature" Scopus Thesis KW contains thesis or Title contains doctoral dissertation WoS Grey Topic contains "grey literature" or "gray literature" WoS Thesis Title contains dissertation or "master thesis" or "doctoral thesis" PASCAL and FRANCIS All text contain "grey literature" or "gray literature" E-LIS All metadata & Full Text contain "grey literature" or "gray literature", or subject = "H. Information sources, supports, channels > HB. Gray literature" or "master thesis" or "doctoral thesis"

All references were cleaned and consolidated, and GreyNet publications were discarded.