I'm considering adding version control to the files. This is going to be
needed for the oft discussed j-prints (eprints with peer review)
I think for archives like ECS letting the author un-deposit then resubmit is
probably OK, but bad for cogprints. I'm considering adding it as an *option*
which
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Bob Parks wrote:
My own thought has been that there will be preprint archiving but
little change in the journals -- as argued in: The Faustian Grip of
Academic Publishing http://econwpa.wustl.edu/ewp-mic/0202005.abs
Bob, if I'm not mistaken, most of your predictions in
Here is an other survey of current archive usage. (It would
be especially interesting to track changes in time these days,
to estimate the rate at which progress is occurring.)
Ibironke Lawal, Scholarly Communication: The Use and Non-Use of
E-Print Archives for the Dissemination of Scientific
At 14:08 03/12/02 +, you wrote:
Here is an other survey of current archive usage. (It would
be especially interesting to track changes in time these days,
to estimate the rate at which progress is occurring.)
Ibironke Lawal, Scholarly Communication: The Use and Non-Use of
E-Print Archives
Stevan Harnad writes:
It cuts both ways. Yes, authors should not start archiving willy-nilly
every raw draft and every afterthought. But they should not feel
The word DRAFT implies correction and updates. In economics, where
working papers and revisions of them are extremely common, one would
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Bob Parks wrote:
Stevan Harnad writes:
sh It cuts both ways. Yes, authors should not start archiving willy-nilly
sh every raw draft and every afterthought.
The word DRAFT implies correction and updates. In economics, where
working papers and revisions of them are
