On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Greg Kuperberg wrote:
> Maybe you want to say more conservatively that new submissions should be
> superlinear, i.e., concave up.
Yes, yes, that's it.
(And that's: "new self-archived eprint (whether pre- or post-)," NOT
"new submission." Submission is for journals. Self-archiving is better
described as a "deposit.")
> And maybe instead of asymptotics you are interested in the
> short term. In that case the right way to say it is that you open
> archiving should grow faster in the near term.
Yes, it should go concave up, steeply, until the entire (finite)
current refereed corpus is up there, online and free.
And I do mean steeply. There is no reason it should not all have been
up there, freed, yesterday, so certainly no reason to drag it out for
another decade.
As to "asymptotics": I am referring to the current refereed corpus;
this annual corpus is finite though also itself growing somewhat
annually, but not nearly so fast as to require my refining the shape of
the curve: the "sharp concave up" covers it all...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk
Professor of Cognitive Science har...@princeton.edu
Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582
Computer Science fax: +44 23-80 592-865
University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
Highfield, Southampton http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM
NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free
access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the
American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00):
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
You may join the list at the site above.
Discussion can be posted to:
american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org
