On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
James E. Till sees science editors as the main barrier to the
circulation of free preprints. He should understand that there is
a good reason for editors' successful opposition, one that is not
as well recognized by the author as by the scientific
Referees are very rarely asked to do this, according to our recent seminar
on Peer Review. However, a number of editorial offices go to considerable
lengths to check every single one. Apart from anything else, if the links
are incorrect/non-existent it will be impossible to create links to the
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
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote (on the subject:
Re: Conflating Gate-Keeping with Toll-Gating):
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
James E. Till sees science editors as the main barrier to the
circulation of free preprints. He should understand that there is
a good
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 06:42:26PM -0500, Albert Henderson wrote:
It is not surprising that administrators perceive science editors
as motivated by selfish or commercial interests. As if reading a
Rorschach inkblot, they reveal their own miserable outlook.
Here is the chain of command above
At 12:48 30/01/01 +, Fytton Rowland wrote:
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
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Sally Morris wrote:
I have been asked whether the acceptance/rejection figures varied
significantly by subject area, so I have delved deeper into the figures to
analyse this. The provisional results are interesting (bear in mind,
though, that the samples for some
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Jim Till wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Sally Morris wrote:
I have been asked whether the acceptance/rejection figures varied
significantly by subject area, so I have delved deeper into the figures to
analyse this. The provisional results are interesting (bear in mind,
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 06:42:35PM -0500, Albert Henderson wrote:
Moreover, and my point: if the fourfold increase in
journal articles since 1970 is not worth our attention, then
don't the unreviewed postings on free preprint servers risk
a real waste of time for any reader who values his/her
