I've tried to obtain a copy of the paper by David Green, referred to by
Steve Hitchcock. I've been unsuccessful so far, but I did find a review by
Anne B. Piterick (Attempt to find alternatives to the scientific journal: a
brief review, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 1989; 15(5):
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Albert Henderson wrote:
There are many differences between bioscience and
physics. The most important is is the problem of
(and sensitivity to) conflict of interest. The
commercial opportunities available for quack health
remedies, devices, and preventions are huge. The
on 2/28/00 Andrew Odlyzko a...@research.att.com wrote:
Jim Till t...@oci.utoronto.ca writes:
It's still far from clear (at least, to me!) why members of the physics
research community seem, in general, to be more comfortable with eprints
than are (as yet?) many members
:
Original Message -
From: Stevan Harnad har...@coglit.ecs.soton.ac.uk
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: Medical journals are dead. Long live medical journals
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Albert Henderson wrote
- Original Message -
From: Jim Till t...@oci.utoronto.ca
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: Medical journals are dead. Long live medical journals
My thanks to my colleague Peter Singer for his provocative
Jim Till t...@oci.utoronto.ca writes:
It's still far from clear (at least, to me!) why members of the physics
research community seem, in general, to be more comfortable with eprints
than are (as yet?) many members of the biomedical research community.
That is an excellent question
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Peter Singer wrote:
[sh] And it is unrealistic to imagine that authors will choose their
[sh] journal by its web policy (or price) rather than its prestige
[sh] quality and impact factor.
PAS: I understand the allure of brand name of the journal, but I dont think
the
