One issue for computer scientists is that, to a significant extent,
their literature is composed of programs. The interest of free software
(free as in freedom, to do what you please with it) is that it can be
improved and built upon, exactly the way one does for mathematical
theories or proofs, or
A clarification: the prediction referred to by Stevan was
made by Richard Smith, the editor of the BMJ (and, I
believe, the chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group?)
not by me. I'll attach an excerpt of the entire paragraph,
so that the context for his prediction may become more
apparent.
My
On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, Jim Till wrote:
> http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7328/5
>
> [rs]> The web has advantages of speed, reach, interactivity,
> [rs]> and infinite space, but paper has the advantages of
> [rs]> readability, portability, and attractiveness. The
> [rs]> future is not "paper or el
The threads about access, dissemination, peer-review costs
and preservation raise another issue: what about the
future of journals?
There's a comment about this in the Jan. 5 issue of the
electronic version of BMJ (freely accessible, via:
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7328/5 ).
The BMJ: mov
David Goodman wrote:
>
> It would seem to me much more practical from an economic and technical
> standpoint to simply archive all scientific publications, including the
> marginal ones, than to prepare
>
> > content extractions (by the authors
> > or experts) written with the aim at being concise
It would seem to me much more practical from an economic and technical
standpoint to simply archive all scientific publications, including the
marginal ones, than to prepare
> content extractions (by the authors
> or experts) written with the aim at being concise, full content,
> understandable i
