At 22:54 03/12/2002, you wrote:
I think deletion should be a (discouraged but available) option, but
with a persistent tag for the deleted (null) text, as a place-holder for
would-be citers who did read that draft and do want to refer to it (even
against the author's request, and even backed up
On the Faustian Grip article http://econwpa.wustl.edu/ewp-mic/0202005.abs
- basically this boils down to the way a free market works - people
do what's in their self-interest, there's a division of labor, and
money/resources change hands. While there are various optimal solutions
a central
on Wed, 27 Nov 2002 Arkadiusz Jadczyk a...@cassiopaea.org wrote
But the main problem in this thread is the proceder of peer reviewing
and what to do about it. For me the action of the editor of Classical
and Quantum and Gravity is just funny. If they are really serious, they
should
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Arthur P. Smith wrote:
On the Faustian Grip article http://econwpa.wustl.edu/ewp-mic/0202005.abs
...on average, overall total
cost to (all) readers per published article for commercial journals is
not that much more than for non-profit publishers, and eliminating the
I agree with the response by Miller.
Actually removing stuff is unacceptable. With print that was kind of
impossible because of the many distributed physical copies (at least it
demanded an effort comparable to Orwells 1984). With the digital medium no
such guarantee follows - it has to be
At 22:54 03/12/02 +, Stevan Harnad wrote:
OED's definition was written before the Internet. One can certainly
write on a draft, prominently This is just a temporary draft, and will
be revised. One can even add Please do not quote or cite. But if you
put that on the Web, not only will some
I agree completely with Mark Doyle and was not (in my reply to a query
from a user) venturing to suggest policy. I was trying to explain to
the user why one could not keep updating the same archived paper
(whether metadata or text). I leave it to Mark, Chris and the experts
to pick the optimal
Stevan Harnad wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Arthur P. Smith wrote:
Nope. Even if this ended the serials budget crisis -- though it's hard
to see how having the poorer parts of the world take over more of the
burden is a remedy!
The spending on publications need only catch up to the spending on
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Arthur P. Smith wrote:
The spending on publications need only catch up to the spending on
research - which is what you've been proposing all along anyway (under
the author/institution-pays scheme).
What needs catching up is self-archiving! That's the *guaranteed*
provider
Re-posted from: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/print_version/atwood1202.asp
(PS interpolations are comments from Peter Suber of FOS.)
In the January 2003 MIT Technology Review, Sally Atwood reviews
DSpace. Quoting MacKenzie
If they disappear others may well make the same mistake. But if they
continue to exist, with the error noted, people will learn from
them (embarrassing as it may prove to be for the authors of the example).
Bob Parks wrote:
... There are some papers which prove to be wrong, even
though there
11 matches
Mail list logo
