As is his custom, Albert Henderson has focused his attention on his own
perception of only one of the reasons (the Library crisis) included in
my short list of major reasons why the primary research literature should
be freed (see below).
So far, no novel reasons have been mentioned. Are there
David Goodman wrote:
The publication of material in an free archival system will permit much
more open and effective review and comment than the present system does.
Permit perhaps - but will it actually happen? So much is published these
days that the vast majority is unlikely to ever receive
As I suspected, Peter and I are in almost 100% agreement. My cautionary
suggestion (to prominently tag consumer-ripoff-facilitators so as to
distinguish them unequivocally from producer-giveaway-facilitators) was only
made in the hope of preventing misunderstandings on the part of others
who,
It's not exactly a novel reason, but I would certainly add under 1-
that it works faster and more efficiently in getting the information
disseminated.
Even the reviewing (of whatever form it takes) should be faster.
It may also work better at getting the information organized and
findable than
Questions and comments regarding the CPS have been cross-posted by list
owners to various other relevant lists. For this reason please forgive this
similar cross-posting in response.
This message is posted to:
{american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org, chem...@ic.ac.uk,
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Arthur Smith wrote [in part]:
[jt (1d)]- Academic freedom: Censorship based on cost rather than
[jt] quality can't be justified.
[as] (1d) I'm afraid I don't understand - can you describe a scenario
[as] where cost is involved in censorship somehow?
My proposed four
I would add an extension to the public property argument: a bit like roads,
fundamental public knowledge ought to be considered as a basic infrastructure
for all kinds of other activities, including further public, fundamental
research as well as private, business oriented research. Roads,
Jim Till wrote:
[...]
My proposed four main reasons why the primary research literature should
be freed were, in brief:
(1a) Information gap; (1b) Library crisis; (1c) Public property; and,
(1d) Academic freedom.
Re (1d): please bear in mind that a definition of the verb censor is
make
