On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Fytton Rowland wrote: > While I lean toward's Stevan Harnad's view of the world rather than Albert > Henderson's in general, I think it is worth pointing out that scholarly > journal editors are not *just* gatekeepers. They don't just certify papers > as acceptable. They also *improve* papers.
This is certainyl correct, but it has no bearing whatever on my point. Of course refereed-journal "gate-keeping" is not just a binary red-light/green-light process. No one who has edited a refereed journal for over two decades as I have could fail to be fully aware of that: "Peer review is the evaluation and validation of the work of experts by qualified fellow-experts (referees) as a precondition for acceptance and publication, so that the research community at large can know which work is likely to be worth the time and effort of reading and trying to build upon. Peer review is not a red-light/green-light, accept/reject system: It is a dynamic interaction between the author and referees, mediated by and answerable to a qualified expert (the Editor). It sometimes involves several rounds of revision and re-refereeing before a final draft can be certified as having met the quality standards of a particular journal." http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/science.htm But let us not forget that the referees referee for free, just as the author gives away the paper for free. What needs to be paid for is the implementation of that refereeing -- which costs a pittance compared to what is currently being forcibly paid for that essential service PLUS many add-ons (on-paper version, distribution, PDF) that should be optional rather than obligatory in the on-line age. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm So let me repeat: The ESSENTIAL services are what I have called the QC/C services, and they will continue to have to be rendered and paid for, except that they need not be "wrapped in" as "value-added" into a take-it-or-leave-it S/L/P product, as in the past. > Henderson was right to point > out that often papers as submitted -- even if scientifically valid -- are > badly written, poorly structured, etc. Academic editors, assisted by their > paid editorial assistants, create in many cases a piece of work that > provides a better impression of the authors than they had provided for > themselves. I have argued before -- mainly in my chapter in the 1996 Peek > and Newby book -- that there remains a need for professional publishing > expertise in the electronic era. In Harnad's current vision of things -- > the journals carry on, but authors mount their own papers for > free-of-charge access on the WWW -- maybe this professional attention is > part of the value added that the journals can lay claim to providing. The essentials will continue to be the essentials, and will continue to be paid for (as a QC/C service to the author-institution). It is the optional add-ons to which we must no longer allow the essentials to be held hostage. (The add-ons too, can of course continue to be bought and sold, but separately.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 & 01): 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