On Tue, 4 May 1999, Steve Hitchcock [shi] wrote:
> sha> Why would anyone want to continue paying for what they can get for free?
>
shi> Good question, and one for the commercial players to
shi> answer. Non-exclusivity is the lever to get them to answer, and it would be
shi> good not just for autho
On Fri, 7 May 1999, Arthur Smith wrote:
> sh> So the only way to implement page charges that does not tamper in any
> sh> way with classical peer review is to assess them only for accepted
> sh> papers (factoring in the costs of processing the rejected papers with
> sh> the overall cost per accept
On Fri, 7 May 1999 15:53:43 +0100, Stevan Harnad
wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:52:06 -0400 (EDT)
>> From: "Arthur P. Smith"
>>
>> sh> (1) Is the true cost closer to $2000 per article or $200?
>>
>> Well, the true cost (for this specific question, for us) is
>> a matter of calculation, not
> Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:52:06 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Arthur P. Smith"
>
> sh> (1) Is the true cost closer to $2000 per article or $200?
>
> Well, the true cost (for this specific question, for us) is
> a matter of calculation, not speculation.
Fair enough. But I of course did not mean the true
On Fri, 7 May 1999 11:51:16 -0400, Thomas J. Walker
wrote:
>Selling electronic reprints, so long as paper publication continues, can be
>quite profitable (and thus fiscally responsible).
Well, I wasn't very clear in my reply on that - sorry. The reason
we can't sell electronic reprints is becau
Stevan, In view of the recent explosion of debate you have
participated in (Scholar's Forum etc.) this is going back a week or so, but
in the interest of wanting not to 'weigh it (the LANL model) down' ...
At 12:44 PM 4/28/99 +0100, you wrote:
>It is conceivable to pay for the quality co
On Thu, 6 May 1999, Arthur Smith wrote:
> Journals will relinquish some of their current-content and distribution
> roles to things like the preprint archives, but will be taking on new
> responsibilities also in areas traditionally dominated by abstracting
> and indexing services (through interli
On Fri, 7 May 1999 13:27:27 +0100, Stevan Harnad
wrote:
> [... discussion of multiple evaluation ...]
>
>So the only way to implement page charges that does not tamper in any
>way with classical peer review is to assess them only for accepted
>papers (factoring in the costs of processing the reje
On Thu, 6 May 1999, Ransdell, Joseph M. wrote:
> It still is not clear why [Scholars Forum] should put as much
> weight... on the self-archiving principle as you think
> they should... it is surely well within the power of
> such a Consortium to attract as many prestigious editors with their
> jo
At 10:43 AM 5/7/99 -0400, you wrote:
>On Thu, 6 May 1999, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 6 May 1999, Thomas J. Walker wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > I was naive to think that Societies would think it win-win to sell at a
>> > profit what their authors want.
>
>If it was something that obviously increase
On Thu, 6 May 1999, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> Everything below rides on three issues:
>
> (1) Is the true cost closer to $2000 per article or $200?
Well, the true cost (for this specific question, for us) is
a matter of calculation, not speculation. Taking our total
costs for editorial and productio
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 10:07:34 -0400
From: "Thomas J. Walker"
To: Stevan Harnad
Stevan--
Thought you might be interested in this exchange from earlier this year.
I was naive to think that Societies would think it win-win to sell at a
pro
12 matches
Mail list logo
