On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Albert Henderson wrote: > >sh> Please don't be so swayed by the a-word here, "archive," > >sh> which history may decide in hindsight was an unfortunate > >sh> descriptor to have chosen to baptise this new species of > >sh> "scholarly skywriting" of pre- and post-peer-reviewed > >sh> research. The relevant (and urgent) a-word here is > >sh> *access*, of which there is currently *none* for those whose > >sh> institutions cannot afford the access-tolls, unless authors > >sh> self-*something* their writings so as to make them accessible > >sh> to the access-denied. And access will continue to be none as > >sh> long as the schmarchives remain empty! > > Approaching my position at last, the mis-use of "archive" may have been > recognized. Let the author exercise rights of copyright by destroying > premature drafts. Let the editor delete published articles found guilty > of misconduct. Let the peer-reviewed journal literature remain separate > and clearly distinguishable from informal communications.
Albert, I quite like your position, if this is indeed it: Let authors continue publishing, as always, in peer-reviewed journals, while also putting their pre-refereeing preprints and their peer-reviewed postprints, separately, "informally," in eprint schmarchives, where all would-be users can access them. Sounds just fine to me! Cheers, Stevan
