/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120113/26dcc470/attachment-0001.html
://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120113/57607a53/attachment-0001.html
Research Works Act, HR3699
Â
There is one aspect of the proposed Act HR3699 that is very interesting. It is
an admission by the publishers involved that they do not at present have any
intrinsic intellectual property right to control the disposition of the Version
of
http://bit.ly/x9UzXE
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
http://bit.ly/zUfpKB
Â
Â
Â
[ Part 2: Attached Text ]
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Jan-
I just don't think the ArXiv model would work for archaeology. Part of
the reason may be the heterogeneous nature of the field, which runs from
hard science to interpretive humanities, and part may be the overall
lower level of agreed-upon disciplinary standards (related to, but not
Mike,
I understand. The main point I was trying to make is that if and when we want
or need a system of pre-publication peer review, we should be aware of the cost
per article that that system entails. I compared a system built on
pre-publication peer review (upwards of $2000 per article) with
[Forwarding from Mike Rossner, Executive Director of Rockefeller University
Press. Â --Peter Suber.]
January 13, 2012
Â
Representative Carolyn Maloney
2332 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515-3214
Â
Dear Representative Maloney,
Â
I am the Executive Director of The Rockefeller University Press, a
