On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Fytton Rowland wrote:
> >sh> the author population is exactly the same as the referee
> >sh> population
>
> That statement is untrue. Not all authors referee, either for one
> particular journal, or at all. Remove "exactly" and replace it with
> "substantially" and it might be
Stevan wrote:
>sh> "(since the author population is exactly the same as the referee
>sh> population!)"
That statement is untrue. Not all authors referee, either for one
particular journal, or at all.Remove "exactly" and replace it with
"substantially" and it might become true. Probably all
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Daniel Wolf wrote:
> I agree entirely with the self-archiving idea; unfortunately, it appears
> that some (if not many or most) commercially-published journals will refuse
> to even consider an article if it is already available in _any_ form. It is
> for that reason that I be
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
>> From: Daniel Wolf
>> Subject: Closing the 'Digital Divide'
>> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:14:53 +0200
>>
>> The most effective way to alter this situation may be
>> through organizing the
On 5 Jun 2001 Tabah Albert wrote:
> I couldn't help answering a few of Albert Henderson's digs:
>
> > With the sole goal of getting free stuff you hold open the door for
> > quacks, cranks, and manufacturers' shills to mingle their garbage
> > with reports of good science. The general public (i
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
> With the sole goal of getting free stuff you hold open the door for
> quacks, cranks...
We are talking here about the refereed literature. It is journals'
gate-keeping (peer review) that certifies it as non-quackery, not
journals' toll-gating (subscri
on Sat, 2 Jun 2001 Peter Singer wrote:
> SH> Note that the Ingelfinger Rule is NOT a legal matter, and is not a
> SH> copyright policy. It is a submission policy.
>
> SH> I agree with David, however, that if George is indeed here endorsing
> SH> the Ingelfinger Rule, so construed, then ma
I couldn't help answering a few of Albert Henderson's digs:
> With the sole goal of getting free stuff you hold open the door for
> quacks, cranks, and manufacturers' shills to mingle their garbage
> with reports of good science. The general public (indeed many PhDs)
> cannot distinguish between p
SH> Note that the Ingelfinger Rule is NOT a legal matter, and is not a
SH >copyright policy. It is a submission policy.
>
SH >I agree with David, however, that if George is indeed here endorsing
SH >the Ingelfinger Rule, so construed, then many of us are indeed urging
SH >that this policy be change
The Ingelfinger rule is not a rule or law but a policy of some publishers
as of 1969, that is of the time referee first, publish/distribute then.
With the online age the authors should serve the scientific progress as
best they can. That is publish/distribute first, using their own/their
instituti
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Tabah Albert wrote:
> I am wondering whether you know of any physics journal that imposes the
> Ingelfinger rule. I mean, aside from Science or Nature, such as
> Physical Review Letters, etc.
I hope others in this Forum will be able to reply. All I know is that
the APS journa
It's important to note that neither the ACM or IEEE imposes this rule.
Furthermore, all
journals that compete with ACM and IEEE do not enforce this rule.
Lee Giles
Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2001, Tabah Albert wrote:
>
> > I am wondering whether you know of any physics journal that i
Hello,
I am wondering whether you know of any physics journal that imposes the
Ingelfinger rule. I mean, aside from Science or Nature, such as Physical Review
Letters, etc.
I have been doing some thinking about the contradiction between the visibility
obtained from posting preprints on the web an
[Sender identity not posted as permission not requested or granted]
> Congratulations on your award! It's great news, not only for you but for
> the scientific enterprise in general. I'm for open publication any day.
>
> I would certainly like to archive my work in CogPrints, but I'm unclear
> abo
14 matches
Mail list logo
