For clarity, I'm not seeking to 'turn this list' into anything. I was just seeking members' views.
Furthermore, there was never any suggestion that peer-reviewed papers would be discriminated against in any circumstances or in any way. Rather, I simply suggested that policy *could* be that any closed-access papers should be file-attached, if that was the wish of members. Considering member comments expressed publicly and privately, it seems that a useful stance would be to encourage authors to file-attach papers, but never to sanction those who do not do so in any way. I hope this resolves the matter for members, and I thank everyone for their attention to this issue. A On Jun 23, 2012 8:43 AM, "Ken Caldeira" <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> wrote: > This list was originally set up to help facilitate communication among > working scientists and other professionals. We generally have access to > these journals through our institutions. > > Also, pdfs of many papers have been sent directly to this group -- a > practice that I applaud. > > So, in short, Alan is right: We should be worrying a bit more about > reducing the number of posts with low or misleading information content > (like this email), and not implement restrictive posting policies to try to > improve professional publication practices (which is, no doubt, a laudable > goal). > > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Alan Robock <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>wrote: > >> Dear Andrew, >> >> Absolutely not! In fact, I think we should ban all the drivel that is >> not peer-reviewed. >> >> Published papers are not closed to anyone with an academic library or a >> subscription. While some journals are open access, such as ACP, others >> like Science, Nature, JGR, and Journal of Climate are not. Someone has to >> pay for publishing, and none of these, with the possible exception of >> Nature, are for profit. They are published by AAAS, AGU, and AMS, which >> are professional societies. And every author will be happy to send >> reprints to anyone who asks, so there is really no hindrance to anyone >> reading any peer-reviewed published paper. >> >> So I reject your assertion that open access is necessarily better than >> journals for which someone has to pay. And I reject your attempt to turn >> this list into just opinions and not the distribution of quality research. >> And the only standard for quality is peer review. Peer review is >> imperfect, but it is better than any alternative. >> >> Alan >> >> Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) >> Editor, Reviews of Geophysics >> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program >> Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction >> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 >> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 >> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu >> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~** >> robock <http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock> >> >> >> On 6/22/2012 7:02 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: >> >>> >>> Dear Members, >>> >>> A question: Should we ban members sending their own papers to the list >>> if these papers are not open access, or file-attached? >>> >>> To allow this practice to continue seems like we're offering tacit >>> support for closed access publication of geoengineering research. I note >>> both the growing open-access movement, and the particular sensitivities >>> around any perceived secrecy in geoengineering research. >>> >>> Furthermore, in practical terms, posted closed-access research is not >>> available for non-academic list members, of which there are many. This >>> clearly hinders subsequent list discussion of attached papers. >>> >>> I'd be very interested to hear members' views on this matter. >>> >>> Thanks for your time. >>> >>> A >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> geoengineering@googlegroups.**com<geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >>> . >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> geoengineering+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>> group/geoengineering?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> >>> . >>> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To post to this group, send email to >> geoengineering@googlegroups.**com<geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@ >> **googlegroups.com <geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. >> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >> group/geoengineering?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> >> . >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
