Re: Elsevier Gives Authors Green Light for Open Access Self-Archiving
[To save time and minimise misunderstanding, my reply is appended at end. SH] --- Stevan Harnad writes: >Elsevier has just gone from being a Romeo "Pale-Green" publisher to a full >Romeo Green publisher: Authors have the publisher's official green light >to self-archive both their pre-refereeing preprints and their refereed >postprints. The change seems to be from the restriction still found on: <http://authors.elsevier.com/getting_published.html?dc=PRP> "We request that authors do not update public server versions of their articles to be identical to the articles as published. Author requests to post a published article on a public server will be considered by Elsevier on a case-by-case basis. Note that we have no other restrictions about updating public server versions, just that they should not be updated so as to mimic the article as published." That was somewhat restrictive. But the new wording does not seem to be full Green - there is one request and one restriction. The request: "Each posting should include the article's citation and a link to ^^ the journal's home page" which as long as people understand it is a request and not legally binding (because it is a request, else they would have said MUST not SHOULD). The restriction however "but any other posting (e.g. to a repository elsewhere) would require our permission." seems identical to the prior restriction. Hence I can post to my own web pages, and possibly to EconWPA.wustl.edu (since it is housed by my institution) or possibly not (because it is not my institution's archive) but I can not post it to some other 'elsewhere' server without permission meaning PALE GREEN. I applaud Elsevier but IMHO the new statement is not much greener before. I guess each baby step in the right direction is good, but honestly this is a baby step compared to the position before which allowed preprints without restriction or request. MODERATOR'S REPLY: (1) Elsevier inicated that they are in the process of revising their documentation. (Bob quotes the old documentation.) (2) Citing and linking the article is just good scholarly practise. (3) The restriction against 3rd party websites is to avoid sanctioning 3rd-party cut-rate rival-publication. But OA obviates any motivation to do 3rd-party re-publication and OAI interoperability means it is sufficient to self-archive in one's own institutional archive and merely deposit the metadata and link in central archives, if one wishes. (4) Elsevier is a BRIGHT GREEN publisher. -- S.H. | Bob Parks Voice: (314) 935-5665 | | Department of Economics, Campus Box 1208 Fax: (314) 935-4156 | | Washington University| | One Brookings Drive | | St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899b...@parks.wustl.edu|
Re: Scientometric OAI Search Engines
Robert Kiley writes:
>It is recognised that there are here are two ways to provide OA:
>(1) publishing articles in OA journals and
>(2) publishing them in conventional journals but self-archiving them
>publicly on the web as well.
>
>One problem with route 2 that doesn't seem to have been fully addressed
>is how should the PubMed or Web of Knowledge user find these open access
>articles. By way of example let us assume I stumble across the
>following PubMed article:
>
>Harnad S. Ingelfinger over-ruled...
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
>cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11191471
>[published in the Lancet] {Had this article appeared in a more recent
>issue - then PubMed would have linked directly to ScienceDirect and
>access would be limited to subscribers']
>
>Of course the author has self archived this article:
>
>http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/1703/
google search for 'Ingelfinger over-ruled' produces the cogprints as the first
item.
google is (intensively) indexing the academic literature (at least the OA
literature).
However 'Ingelfinger' is too unique and hence easy - But my experience has been
so far that if it is accessible via OAI methods, google finds it.
>...but how would the PubMed user know this? Do we honestly expect users
>to search PubMed and then go and search the OAIster service in the hope
>that an open access version may be available.
Either that or they have to subscribe to everything, right?
>I agree that route 2 is a way to provide open access - but at the same
>time we must ensure that the major bibliographic services (PubMed, Web
>of Knowledge etc) provide links to the open access version - as well as
>the publisher version. Is there any strategy for addressing this?
My point is that google probably will do it as long as the suppliers
let google index them.
Bob
*--*
| Bob Parks Voice: (314) 935-5665 |
| Department of Economics, Campus Box 1208 Fax: (314) 935-4156 |
| Washington University|
| One Brookings Drive |
| St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899b...@parks.wustl.edu|
*--*
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
Stevan Harnad writes: >If they want to ask the rest, fine; but better still, do as the far >more sensible physicists did: self-archive, and decide whether or not to >withdraw only if and when someone ever asks! EXACTLY. Stevan you need to emphasize this point more. Although I am certainly not a copyright lawyer, my belief is that : Author posts the paper. Publisher does not complain - GREAT - we are on our way. Publisher complains - NOTE that in order to complain, the publisher really needs to determine whether the author has asked for permission. But the publisher can play the game and just ask for removal. Author removes but makes a public comment about it. My guess, after a few complaints, publisher alters course and allows posting. Author decides not to remove. Worst case - publisher sues for copyright violation. Publisher must show that the paper is in violation and that the violation caused economic harm. Certainly lawyers are good at making such arguments but making the economic harm case will be difficult. Hopefully we could get a defense fund or free labor from law schools to help the Author who was sued. My bet is that the publishers have much better things to do than to attempt shouting COPYRIGHT at authors (who supply the articles to the publishers). But post the papers, wait until somebody complains, request documentation for the complaint (that is make it costly for the publisher to go forward), and IF in the end the author wants to avoid suit, then retract the paper but make a public statement about the retraction. Bob *------* | Bob Parks Voice: (314) 935-5665 | | Department of Economics, Campus Box 1208 Fax: (314) 935-4156 | | Washington University| | One Brookings Drive | | St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899b...@parks.wustl.edu| *--* *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* # Economics Working Paper Archive # # http://econwpa.wustl.edu/wpawelcome.html # #gopher econwpa.wustl.edu # # # # Send a mail message (empty body) # # To: econ...@econwpa.wustl.edu # # Subject: get announce # *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Re: EPrints, DSpace or ESpace?
Stevan Harnad writes:
>
>On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Goodman wrote:
>
>> I can testify personally to one of the strong disincentives, though it
>> sounds trivial.
>> I work in an old version of MS Word...
>> The version I use does not automatically make pdfs...
>> ...the pdfs produced this way do not have full functionality...
>> I would as soon
>> change my preferred word processing program as my browser or my email.
>>
>> Any commercial publisher will gladly take my .doc files and convert
>> them. ArXiV and similar OAI programs will not. It is more important to
>> me to write conveniently than to support a particularly inconvenient
>> version of archiving. I'll contribute to OAI archives when they
>> accommodate me. To the best of my knowledge, a great many people in the
>> academic world feel the same.
>
>This is indeed trivial, but I suspect that all of the kind of things
>holding people back from self-archiving are equally trivial.
Having spent 10 years helping people with similar problems (submitting
to EconWPA), I don't think this is so trivial. At EconWPA, if an
MS-Word or WordPerfect file is submitted, I convert it to a pdf format,
myself, by hand.
I suspect that it would be a good idea to incorporate such a
service, or even point to such services.
>
>There is no need to generate PDF. All the Eprint archives require is
>one text version, screen-readable and harvestable by full-text inverters.
Well, then it is on US to be sure that the requirements are known, and that
they are easy requirements, and that Eprint software requirements are
known. For example, where is it written that the document must be
full-text invertible?
If old versions of Word are a problem, then WE (the preachers) ought
to remove those impediments to getting it into archives.
I will offer to convert any Word or WordPefect document, up to 10 per month.
Simply email the document as an attachment to b...@parks.wustl.edu and
put 'please help convert to pdf' as the subject. Indicate in the body of
the text the archive in which you will place the converted pdf.
>Hence MS-Word-generated HTML or even ASCII (text-only) is sufficient. As
>long as you archive one version like that, you can also archive the
>MS Word document for those who can use it, and wish to.
Well, MS-Word-generated HTML might not be available (if the Word
version is old enough), and I suspect that this author would worry
about formatting problems in the ASCII version (or even the HTML version).
E.g., footnotes are problematical in older versions of Word.
>
>Remember, self-archiving is a *supplement* to peer-reviewed journal
>publication, not a *substitute* for it; it is intended to provide
>immediate open access to your peer-reviewed research output ("vanilla
>version") for those whose institutions cannot afford toll-access to
>the official publisher's version, in order to maximize the impact of
>your research:
>http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm
YEP!!
>
>Next...
>
Bob
--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
# Economics Working Paper Archive #
# http://econwpa.wustl.edu/wpawelcome.html #
#gopher econwpa.wustl.edu #
# #
# Send a mail message (empty body) #
# To: econ...@econwpa.wustl.edu #
# Subject: get announce #
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Always remember: inertia has no effect on the ultimate steady state solution.
NEVER remember: Keynes said in the long run we are all dead.
*--*
| Bob Parks Voice: (314) 935-5665 |
| Department of Economics, Campus Box 1208 Fax: (314) 935-4156 |
| Washington University|
| One Brookings Drive |
| St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899 bpa...@wuecona.wustl.edu|
*--*
Re: Query about journal (not author) self-citation rates
f journals are around in the UOA, I think that their 'rankings' will be about the same and for the same reasons. Some will get higher, some lower, but for the most part they will remain the same. I don't see why what journal the article appeared in as being a minor measure. The current situation is based on the referee system and self selection. Top journals have top referees and get top articles. UOA will not lessen that, and I doubt that dept chairs, or deans will think that an article in a third tier journal is worth much even if all of the other 'direct measures' available in UOA are high. Bob (Gee, maybe Stevan and I can disagree on something) >http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm -- *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* # Economics Working Paper Archive # # http://econwpa.wustl.edu/wpawelcome.html # #gopher econwpa.wustl.edu # # # # Send a mail message (empty body) # # To: econ...@econwpa.wustl.edu # # Subject: get announce # *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Always remember: inertia has no effect on the ultimate steady state solution. NEVER remember: Keynes said in the long run we are all dead. *--* | Bob Parks Voice: (314) 935-5665 | | Department of Economics, Campus Box 1208 Fax: (314) 935-4156 | | Washington University| | One Brookings Drive | | St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899 bpa...@wuecona.wustl.edu| *--*
Re: The archival status of archived papers
Bernard Lang writes: > >right ... > > why not erase all historical mistakes from the history books ... so >that we can learn only how thing should go, and not how they can go >wrong. I was not speaking of books nor peer reviewed 'published' papers, but rather 'preprints' aka working papers. That is a different issue. Bob > >Bernard > > >On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 02:57:02PM -0500, David Goodman wrote: >> If they disappear others may well make the same mistake. But if they >> continue to exist, with the error noted, people will learn from >> them (embarrassing as it may prove to be for the authors of the example). >> >> Bob Parks wrote: >> >> > ... There are some papers which prove to be wrong, even >> > though there was considerable thought put into them - and possibly >> > they should, as much as possible, disappear. >> ... >> > >> > >bp> Maybe not for other professions, but certainly in economics, business, >> > >bp> and political science (subjects about which I have knowledge). >> > > >> > >I am sure this was the practise and expectation in paper days, when >> > >drafts were sent only to specific trusted colleagues, but it is a fact >> > >that public posting on the Web is (like publication) another ball-game >> > >(a bit more like guassian roulette). >> > >> > YES, again I agree. >> > >> > >bp> The persistent URL should, as with arXiv, point to the most recent >> > >bp> draft and penultimate drafts should be in the trash. >> > > >> > >That is an option that should be available, but its use should be >> > >strongly discouraged. Better to selectively email the potentially >> > >embarrassing drafts, intended to be forgotten, and self-archive only the >> > >ones one feels one can live with being seen publicly (and potentially >> > >remembered and referred to forever). It is, after all, something of an >> > >antidote to unwelcome citing and quoting to be able to point to the >> > >extant draft and say: "See, it said 'temporary draft, to be revised, do >> > >not cite or quote'" >> > >> > As above, we might have a bit of disagreement about how strongly >> > one discourages removal, but I think we are in agreement. >> > >> > And again, it is not the "potentially embarrassing drafts, >> > intended to be forgotten," but rather any 'draft'. I would certainly >> > not want to revert to the mailing of drafts - but maybe I make a >> > whole lot more mistakes than you do and that is the reason that we >> > slightly disagree. >> > >> > >(Ceterum censeo: This is all irrelevant to the issue of open access, >> > >which is mainly about open access to the research literature after peer >> > >review. How early a draft one wishes to make openly accessible before >> > >peer review is a matter for the author to decide. But open access should >> > >in general be thought of as being forever.) >> > >> > Ah, mea culpa. My open access (moa?) concerns both pre peer review >> > and post peer review. In economics, where lags between submission and >> > acceptance are large, require an open access working paper culture. >> > >> > I fully agree that the post peer review literature ought to be >> > persistant. If corrections are needed, then errata should be posted >> > (and linked). >> > >> > Gee, now that we nearly completely agree, one of us isn't needed. >> > I hope its me. >> > >> > (;-) >> > >> > Bob >> > >> > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* >> > # Economics Working Paper Archive # >> > # http://econwpa.wustl.edu/wpawelcome.html # >> > #gopher econwpa.wustl.edu # >> > # # >> > # Send a mail message (empty body) # >> > # To: econ...@econwpa.wustl.edu # >> > # Subject: get announce # >> > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* >> > Always remember: inertia has no effect on the ultimate steady state >> > solution. >> > NEVER remember: Keynes said in the long run we are
Re: The archival status of archived papers
something disappear (from the archive) for whatever reason. However, you say "deletion should be a (discouraged but available) option" so we have no disagreement. >bp> Maybe not for other professions, but certainly in economics, business, >bp> and political science (subjects about which I have knowledge). > >I am sure this was the practise and expectation in paper days, when >drafts were sent only to specific trusted colleagues, but it is a fact >that public posting on the Web is (like publication) another ball-game >(a bit more like guassian roulette). YES, again I agree. >bp> The persistent URL should, as with arXiv, point to the most recent >bp> draft and penultimate drafts should be in the trash. > >That is an option that should be available, but its use should be >strongly discouraged. Better to selectively email the potentially >embarrassing drafts, intended to be forgotten, and self-archive only the >ones one feels one can live with being seen publicly (and potentially >remembered and referred to forever). It is, after all, something of an >antidote to unwelcome citing and quoting to be able to point to the >extant draft and say: "See, it said 'temporary draft, to be revised, do >not cite or quote'" As above, we might have a bit of disagreement about how strongly one discourages removal, but I think we are in agreement. And again, it is not the "potentially embarrassing drafts, intended to be forgotten," but rather any 'draft'. I would certainly not want to revert to the mailing of drafts - but maybe I make a whole lot more mistakes than you do and that is the reason that we slightly disagree. >(Ceterum censeo: This is all irrelevant to the issue of open access, >which is mainly about open access to the research literature after peer >review. How early a draft one wishes to make openly accessible before >peer review is a matter for the author to decide. But open access should >in general be thought of as being forever.) Ah, mea culpa. My open access (moa?) concerns both pre peer review and post peer review. In economics, where lags between submission and acceptance are large, require an open access working paper culture. I fully agree that the post peer review literature ought to be persistant. If corrections are needed, then errata should be posted (and linked). Gee, now that we nearly completely agree, one of us isn't needed. I hope its me. (;-) Bob *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* # Economics Working Paper Archive # # http://econwpa.wustl.edu/wpawelcome.html # #gopher econwpa.wustl.edu # # # # Send a mail message (empty body) # # To: econ...@econwpa.wustl.edu # # Subject: get announce # *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Always remember: inertia has no effect on the ultimate steady state solution. NEVER remember: Keynes said in the long run we are all dead. *--* | Bob Parks Voice: (314) 935-5665 | | Department of Economics, Campus Box 1208 Fax: (314) 935-4156 | | Washington University| | One Brookings Drive | | St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899 bpa...@wuecona.wustl.edu| *--*
Re: The archival status of archived papers
hard to access - rather they should show items in context
>> > > and give easy access to an item's history and versioning with a single
>> > > identifier for the work taken as a whole.
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > Mark
>> > >
>> > > Mark Doyle
>> > > Manager, Product Development
>> > > The American Physical Society
>> > >
>>
>
>___
>OAI-general mailing list
>oai-gene...@oaisrv.nsdl.cornell.edu
>http://oaisrv.nsdl.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oai-general
>
--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
# Economics Working Paper Archive #
# http://econwpa.wustl.edu/wpawelcome.html #
#gopher econwpa.wustl.edu #
# #
# Send a mail message (empty body) #
# To: econ...@econwpa.wustl.edu #
# Subject: get announce #
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Always remember: inertia has no effect on the ultimate steady state solution.
NEVER remember: Keynes said in the long run we are all dead.
*--*
| Bob Parks Voice: (314) 935-5665 |
| Department of Economics, Campus Box 1208 Fax: (314) 935-4156 |
| Washington University|
| One Brookings Drive |
| St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899 bpa...@wuecona.wustl.edu|
*--*
Re: Discipline Differences in Benefits/Feasibility of Open Access?
Stevan Harnad wrotes: >[Bob may I have permission to post this also to the >American Scientist Forum?] Again fine with me to share. NOTE that the [BOAI list] does not allow me to post, so if you desire that forum to see my stuff, you guys will have to do it. I think the main points are defining 'optimal' and second determining the process to optimality. >>bp> I will not belabor the point, but I can not see an OPTIMAL solution >>bp> to this particular market. > >It's an understandable inference on the part of an economist, but in >fact I was not speaking about a market optimum, in particular, when I >said open access was optimal. (I'm not even sure what a market optimum >is!). What I said (and here repeat, with undiminished confidence!) is that >open access to the entire refereed research literature is optimal for >researchers, their institutions, their research-funders, the tax-payers >who fund the funders and the institutions and benefit from the research, >and for the progress of research itself. Right now, that optimum is tied >(needlessly) to a Gutenberg-era economic model for the sale of a product: >a text. In the Gutenberg era there was no other option for this anomalous >commodity (refereed research). In the PostGutenberg (online) era there >is. And it is part of the much-needed information campaign to dispel >under-informedness about the cause/effect connection from access to >impact, in order to make these new options clear and explicit to the >research community. With Stevan's definition of optimal, I could not agree more. Research within academic institutions (most of it anyway) should be freely available to those that desire to view it. Some research in academia may be more like private research and hence might demand tolls - and I do not want to step into those waters. So the research I have in mind is what the majority of academics do, write papers to further knowledge, at least indirectly (I think that most of us write because if we don't we won't get paid). And optimality requires that the research be available without toll. Fortunately, the internet provides us with a means to distribute that research without any measurable cost. Hence to have any toll to access the research (which once produced is a public good, with no distribution cost). To exclude anyone from viewing the research is to exclude benefits without cost and hence can not be optimal. Let me now present an optimal world in which there is completely open access (as I presented the other case earlier). The major resource cost of research is the writing, the author's time. This today is compensated by the rewards gained from the writing, gaining certification from editors and referees (I wish to avoid the word 'publish', postprint, etc). Referees today are mostly uncompensated or so poorly compensated that we can ignore their compensation. Hence in today's world they must benefit from spending their time refereeing, and in a completely open access world, there is no reason to believe that they would not benefit in a similar manner. Editors were not compensated 30 years ago (or very rarely). Today many editors are compensated. My argument is that given 30 years ago they were not compensated, in an optimal open access world, they would need no compensation other than the benefits that they were getting 30 years ago. And today, many editors are not compensated at all, except for the prestige, etc. (Note that editors today, at least in economics/business, demand compensation because others are getting compensation, not because they would not edit if they were not compensated.) Hence, the writing of the paper, and the certification of the paper (editors and referees), does not require resource transfers. Those who read the research do not have to compensate those who write and certify, as it is in their own interests to do so without charge. RESULT: A complete open access of research without any resource transfer - certainly there are resource costs, but they are borne internally. There are NO costs to be paid from one (person, or institution) to another. The product is produced 'freely' for consumption, and for optimality, consumption can not be reduced by tolls. In the world above, I do not even allow the $500 per paper that Stevan has mentioned. It is not a cost that must be compensated externally. And if that is a cost that must be externally compensated, we are really at the current state, qualitatively at least. One of my arguments in my Faustian Grip paper was that reducing the 'out of pocket' cost of research, from its current level, to say just 10% of the current 'charges', will still lead to a 'crisis' in the long run. The current library/journals/acquisition/etc crisis will be solved in the short run by lowering today's charges but certainly not forever. That is why I support BOAI and do not support ELSSS or Sparc or Berkely Press as long run optimal solutions. And IF resource costs of producing the certified
Re: Journal Papers vs. Books: The Direct/Indirect Income Trade-off
List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:24:08 -0500 (CDT) From: Bob Parks To: har...@coglit.ecs.soton.ac.uk Stevan, this is not private correspondence so reply and send where you want - I am not on all the lists which seem to be discussing the points. And I am arguing for subversion (I hope). SH> and HV>> have written: >An intrinsically interesting side-issue is emerging from the exchanges >with Hal Varian. Nothing substantive hinges on it for the purposes >of the strategy and outcome I happen to advocate -- what I have taken to >calling the "optimal and inevitable" one for the refereed journal >literature: > >freeing the literature online for everyone, everywhere, forever, >through (1) universal public self-archiving of all refereed journal >papers, and, when the time comes, (2) a downsizing of journals to >providers of the service of quality control and certification, paid >for on the author-institution out of S/L/P savings rather than at >the reader-institution end via access-blocking S/L/P. > >Our disagreement is only about whether I am exaggerating the difference >between the motivations of refereed-journal papers-authors (regarding >THOSE papers) and authors in general -- of books, magazine articles, >etc. -- in suggesting that the former are, and have always been, >interested ONLY in giving those papers away, whereas other authors (as >well as themselves, when wearing other hats) have at least the hope of >some direct revenue from the sale of their texts. I don't know of any study that has formally determined why we academics do what we do, and how much of it we do. What I think is relevent is whether 'free access archiving' of scientific literature will reduce the quality of that literature, whatever the goals are of those who write it. 1. xxx.lanl.gov has about 100,000 papers and that archive does not seem to have reduced the number of journals in physics, nor the quality of the scientific literature. Hence we have at least one strong piece of evidence that 'free access archiving' will not lower the quality. I don't know of any evidence showing that quality has been lowered in physics or elsewhere. 2. 'free access archiving' allows the largest audience for scientific work - the most readers can see the most articles. This then means that a) the wheel will not be invented quite as often as it is now; b) the possibilty of citation is increased. How that affects the quality of scientific literature is unknown (to me at least). 3. xxx.lanl.gov seems to have conditioned its audience to 'filter' relevent articles from the large number of submissions. I would guess that works much like the usual filtering process that any academics use for 'hard copy working papers'. I would guess that Harnad and Varian get a very large number of hard copy working papers and each has some way of filtering through them - that filter might depend on repuation of the author, but those reputations are not solely determined from journals. 4. When we have citation-linking for all scientific literature http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/citation.html it will be natural and easy to 'value' writing - namely by the number of citations (and possibly the 'quality' of citations). Such citation criteria are already used in promotions and salary (at least in my small biased sample). One can argue whether quality is better determined from citations than from knowing that two or three referees and an associate editor have passed judgement. 5. As an economist, I would have to argue that the resources devoted to refereeing are misallocated because they are not compensated directly. In the current journal model, there may be too much refereeing (or there may be too little). If 'free access archiving' means the end of journal refereeing as we know it, I am not sure whether I (at least) could argue that there is a social gain or loss. Referees might spend their time writing/reading rather than refereeing, which could result in better scientific literature than what exists with their time spent refereeing. I am not arguing that refereeing has no value, only that we do not know what that value is, and that whatever that value is, it is not compensated (directly at least). >So I am taking up the gauntlet here for one reason only: That if I >should happen to be right and Hal should happen to be wrong about the >reality of the fundamental motivational difference between >refereed-journal authors and (just about) all others, then it is >important to sort this out, because it is only too easy otherwise to IMHO, the only reason to sort it out is to determine, given the goals of the esoteric author (a term I like), whether 'free access archiving' will lower or r
