ent in the next
issue of FOSN.
If you have thoughts, I hope you'll post them to the forum.
--Peter
_
From the issue dated October 12, 2001
No Free Lunches: We Should Resist the Push to Rush Research
Online
B
ssue dated October 12, 2001
>
> No Free Lunches: We Should Resist the Push to Rush Research
> Online
>
> By JOHN H. EWING
> [...]
The "No Free Lunch" essay by John Ewing in the Chronicle of Higher
Education http://chronicle.com/weekly/v48/i07/07b01401.htm
is unfortunately yet another instance of the conflation of the essentials
with the optional add-ons (frills).
Peer review is essential. Publishers' on-paper texts, PDF, ind
It seems clear to me that at research institutions, delayed publication of
significant journals will not be acceptable, even if only for a month or
two. Such institutions will continue to subscribe to avoid the delay.
Journals of less significance to a particular institution have been in
most case
Dear Stevan
But this still doesn't address the point of stable financing of the essential
peer review process. This problem of stability is the main message I took from
John Ewing's arcticle.
Subscriptions are a financial firewall, author charges per page or per article
might work for some aut
why this renewed discussion on long-time settled topic?
1. Scientific work is best bolstered by instant complete information on
what colleatues anywhere do.
> Thus instant free full text publication of newest results is mandatory.
Realization is by local Webserver of scientist, institute, departme
A few points of interest:
1) Ewing seems to forget that the money that goes to pay subscriptions
charges _is_ government or college money. Therefore, how can
toll-access publishers cry foul when funding bodies decide it would
make more sense to have free-access rather than toll-access (and to
fund
I'm quite confident now that both free "no-frills" author-controlled
sites (like the arXiv) and standard "frill-filled" peer-reviewed
publishing can coexist, since they serve quite distinct purposes and in
some cases audiences. So no argument from me on Tim's # 2 or #3. But I
think there's a mis
