Dear Professor Harnad
As someone who has studied electronic publishing in some depth over the
last few years and produced a report on the subject for JISC, I much
enjoyed the rehearsal of your proposal yesterday at IIS
http://www.iis.org.uk/events/agm2k/index.html. I cannot claim the
eminence of
Chris Armstrong's message raises once again the important issue
of interaction of technology and culture. Electronic publishing
does threaten the idea of a single definitive version of a
scholarly article. Is that a bug or a feature? There are simple
technical solutions (metadata, cryptographic
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Chris Armstrong wrote:
[RE] http://www.iis.org.uk/events/agm2k/index.html.
As someone who has studied electronic publishing in some depth over the
last few years and produced a report on the subject for JISC,
I can't this find on the JISC site.
it is here that I have to
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, George Lundberg wrote:
But there is another fly in Stevan's ointment: Large numbers of articles
submitted to biomedical journals NEVER appear in print after being
unfavorably reviewed. They do not deserve publication. Editors and
reviewers REALLY DO protect both readers
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Lynn C. Hattendorf Westney wrote:
the easy availability of (unrefereed)
preprints is downright disturbing to me as I am sure it is to others.
Those who find unrefereed preprints disturbing are advised to ignore
them, and stick to refereed postprints.
For those active
At 15:11 08/09/00 +0100, Chris Armstrong wrote:
Steve Hitchcock s.hitchc...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
misunderstanding implied in your comments. It has never
been the role of those who provide access to
information, librarians or publishers, to FIX
content, i.e. to select a particular version,
