David Goodman wrote:
> Surely If someone makes a document public and publicly accessible on
> an archive, then it is the responsibility of any organization claiming
> to be an "archive" to archive it. By permitting removal at all you are
> saying that it is necessary for some other organization to
Stevan Harnad wrote:
There seem to be a few cases of this in bio-medicine in recent years
Which?
The placebo-effect for one. A recent review seems to have seriously
questioned the original "placebo-effect" research.
Almost any "twin" study on heritability seems to be met with great
sk
[By the way, Stevan changed my Subject line - but I suppose it's a
relevant followup]
Stevan Harnad wrote:
I would say there is no particular lesson to be learnt from such cases,
precisely because they are rare, and no one cares.
How do we know how rare they are? The problem I see with this,
Some of you may be interested in the following "slashdot" discussion
from a day or two ago:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/03/1224243&mode=thread&tid=93&tid=134&tid=146
titled "Riemann Hypothesis Proved?" quoting a Swedish newspaper
(apparently the major print news outlet in Swe
By the way, Tim O'Reilly (of O'Reilly software book publishing fame) has
an interesting article up on very related issues in the book publishing
business (and music publishing, movies, and other forms):
http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2002/12/11/piracy.html
Some quotes:
"Obscurity is a far gr
Andrew,
thanks, I'd forgotten about your article; it does have some useful
numbers (though 8 years old - in particular, Phys Rev B's numbers have
changed somewhat, and the profit you mentioned was quite atypical for
us...). However, on the issue of publication expenses vs R&D
expenditures - t
Stevan Harnad wrote:
The following is a wild guess on my part (but, considering how
conservative was my estimate of the number of would-be users, I think
it's a well-buffered guess): I doubt that even 10% the planet's would-be
users have access to even 10% of that annual corpus today.
In physi
Hi David! Do you count as one of our less than happy librarians?
David Goodman wrote:
The proposed solution is that the gap be filled by revenue from the
developing world.
Only proportionally as the developing world "develops" - should the US
be subsidizing the rest of the world in perpetuity
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> >sh> -- it would not solve the far more fundamental
> >sh>problem of needless impact-loss (unless you imagine that distributing
> >sh>the toll costs more widely would somehow make anywhere near all
> >sh>20K peer-reviewed journals affordable to all the wo
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 spendi
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 auth
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Fytton Rowland wrote:
> It has always been quite easy (if you have the money) to get a book printed.
> Publishers are not printers. The business of getting a book printed is only
> one (and not the most important) of a publishing company's functions. Editing
> to improve the
My father (who lives in Canada and reads the Globe & Mail regularly)
was just asking me about this article :-) I hope Andrew Odlyzko
was misquoted on the "do the same thing for $100,000"! Perhaps he'll
explain himself...
Anyway, on a somewhat related topic, I have a question for Stevan
and the oth
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> This is an empirical question, and one that the ALPSP opinion survey of
> a few years ago could not possibly answer. Only the market can answer
> it, by testing whether scholars (actually, the institutions who pay for
> their subscriptions) value the part
Lawrence Lessig and company are proposing something
called the "Creative Commons", providing both new
types of copyright licenses and a "conservancy"
for placement of intellectual property still under
copyright but whose owners no longer find economically
useful. Something scholarly authors, librar
On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, David Goodman wrote:
> It may help others to know that
> http://publish.aps.org/IUPAP/program.html contains
> the program for the Nov 2001 conference, but not the proceedings.
> The report of the previous July 2001 working group is available at
> http://www.iupap.org/finalrep.
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> [... arguments I'm not sure I can say much more on ...]
> > [I wrote: ]
> > Note that I'm not worrying about freeing the literature here; if
> > publishing free literature really involved no copy-editing, we would
> > likely never do it, as a publisher w
A lot to catch up on! I'm not sure when I'll get a chance! But one thing
I thought I ought to respond on, to clarify the problem a bit:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, Andrew Odlyzko wrote:
>
> [On shifting costs back to authors' institutions]
>
> Bringing back secretaries to do basic typesetting does not m
On Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Bernard Lang wrote:
> [...]
> I have absolutely no experience with copy editing but ...
>
> How much of the process could actually be mechanized ? Part of it at
> least is checking specific presentation rules, I believe.
A good question. The answer though is only a little,
t
On Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Eberhard R. Hilf wrote:
> deat Arthur,
> what would be a very rough estimate if APS would let their journals free
> online but print costly and therefore raise the membership fee of APS by
> what amount.
> [Numbers such as: DPG has 40.000 members, fee raising by 10 % would amo
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
> on Fri, 14 Dec 2001 Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> > "4. Whereas all refereed research should be fully accessible
> > on-line without cost to all would-be users worldwide, it is
> > nevertheless not altogether costless to produce. The main cha
Stevan,
very interesting (and it explains a few things...)
Just one thought on this - the tone of the article seems to indicate
there is some ideal or best mode of communication, or use
of our capability for language; among other phrases that indicate
this I randomly chose one here:
On Sun, 25
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> I cannot follow this, about "responsibility" and "context," at all. We
> are talking about authors self-archiving their final, refereed draft,
> the one that has been peer-reviewed, revised, finalized and accepted.
Sez who? Take for example:
http://www
On Thu, 6 May 1999, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> Everything below rides on three issues:
>
> (1) Is the true cost closer to $2000 per article or $200?
Well, the true cost (for this specific question, for us) is
a matter of calculation, not speculation. Taking our total
costs for editorial and productio
Arthur P. Smith :
On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Albert Henderson wrote:
> PRICE Constant
> year pages curr.$ const.$ price/page CIRCULATION PPPxcirc deflator
> 1950 4000 $25 $172 $0.043 5628 242 0.1453
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
