There's been much discussion, via this forum, about HOW the primary
research literature might be freed. (By "primary" research literature, I
mean original contributions by active and appropriately-qualified
researchers, where new knowledge, such as novel concepts, novel data, or
novel interpretati
on Sat, 11 Aug 2001 Jim Till wrote:
> There's been much discussion, via this forum, about HOW the primary
> research literature might be freed. (By "primary" research literature, I
> mean original contributions by active and appropriately-qualified
> researchers, where new knowledge, such as no
Jim Till wrote:
>
> But, what about reasons WHY the primary research literature should be
> freed? Here's my first attempt at a summary of some of the main reasons:
>
> 1. It should be done:
>
> - Information gap: Libraries and researchers in poor countries can't
> afford most of the journal
As is his custom, Albert Henderson has focused his attention on his own
perception of only one of the reasons (the "Library crisis") included in
my short list of major reasons why the primary research literature should
be freed (see below).
So far, no novel reasons have been mentioned. Are there
It's not exactly a novel reason, but I would certainly add under 1-
that it works faster and more efficiently in getting the information
disseminated.
Even the reviewing (of whatever form it takes) should be faster.
It may also work better at getting the information organized and
findable than t
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
> Instead of scientific studies to support
> the misnamed "self-archiving" argument, we are abused
> with the rhetoric and nonsense such as attempts to
> justify the phrase "virtually all" while citing a
> source
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Arthur Smith wrote [in part]:
[jt (1d)]>- Academic freedom: Censorship based on cost rather than
[jt]> quality can't be justified.
[as]> (1d) I'm afraid I don't understand - can you describe a scenario
[as]> where cost is involved in censorship somehow?
My proposed four
I would add an extension to the public property argument: a bit like roads,
fundamental public knowledge ought to be considered as a basic infrastructure
for all kinds of other activities, including further public, fundamental
research as well as private, business oriented research. Roads, aft
Jim Till wrote:
> [...]
> My proposed four main reasons why the primary research literature should
> be freed were, in brief:
>
> (1a) Information gap; (1b) Library crisis; (1c) Public property; and,
> (1d) Academic freedom.
>
> Re (1d): please bear in mind that a definition of the verb "censor" is
Sorry for a bit of phase lag here:
> Jim Till wrote:
> >
> > reasons WHY the primary research literature should be freed
> >
> > - Information gap: Libraries and researchers in poor countries can't
> > afford most of the journals that they need. [1a]
> >
> > - Library crisis: Libraries and researc
On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 03:23:01PM -0400, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:
>
> PS I heard a strange piece of news recently: a fellow apparently named Albert
> Henderson has found himself incapacitated in some manner. I do not know the
> exact cause, but what is clear is that his computer is spewing off
[This is for SEPTEMBER98-FORUM]
I would like to underline David Goodman's comment on Jim Till's list
of reasons that the literature could and should be free. David is
exactly right that the arXiv is faster and more convenient than the
journal system. This is not so much a "could" or a "should" a
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Jim Till wrote:
> Re (1d): please bear in mind that a definition of the verb "censor" is
> "make deletions or changes in".
Peer review certainly is not censorship. Nor is charging tolls for access
to the on-paper or on-line text that is the result of the peer review.
And try
On Sat, 18 Aug 2001, Greg Kuperberg wrote:
> David is exactly right that the arXiv is faster and more convenient
> than the journal system.
But Eprint Archives are still only SUPPLEMENTS to peer-reviewed
journals, not SUBSTITUTES for them. Indeed (by definition) the
self-archiving of peer-reviewe
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Jean-Claude [iso-8859-1] Guédon wrote:
> I would add an extension to the public property argument: a bit like
> roads, fundamental public knowledge ought to be considered as a basic
> infrastructure for all kinds of other activities, including further
> public, fundamental res
On Sat, 18 Aug 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Jim Till wrote:
>
[jt]> Re (1d): please bear in mind that a definition of the verb
[jt]> "censor" is "make deletions or changes in".
>
[sh]> Peer review certainly is not censorship.
I seem to have touched a nerve when I used the eye
on Fri, 17 Aug 2001 Jim Till wrote:
[jt]> As is his custom, Albert Henderson has focused his attention on his own
[jt]> perception of only one of the reasons (the "Library crisis") included in
[jt]> my short list of major reasons why the primary research literature should
[jt]> be freed (see bel
on Fri, 17 Aug 2001 Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
>
> > Instead of scientific studies to support
> > the misnamed "self-archiving" argument, we are abused
> > with the rhetoric and nonsense such as attempts to
> > justify the
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
> on Fri, 17 Aug 2001 Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> > The 36% referred to the number of authors that updated their reference
> > at that time: this is another irrelevant statistic (for Albert's
> > purposes), about which the author, Tim Brody, has already p
On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Jim Till wrote:
But, what about reasons WHY the primary research literature should be
freed? Here's my first attempt at a summary of some of the main reasons:
1. It should be done:
- Information gap: Libraries and researchers in poor countries can't
afford most of the
At 16:46 20/08/01 -0400, Albert Henderson wrote:
I am not getting through. I should have asked,
Are there any valid reasons
to justify massive self-archiving?
Yes:
Improved access to data - faster, available everywhere, always
Higher productivity
Better
At 16:46 20/08/01 -0400, Albert Henderson wrote:
> http://opcit.eprints.org/tdb198/opcit/
> http://opcit.eprints.org/ijh198/
Now that this source is clearly involved in a
propaganda campaign where conclusions are so often
unrelated to the facts, who would take it seriousl
At 11:44 21/08/01 +0100, vous avez écrit:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
> on Fri, 17 Aug 2001 Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> > The 36% referred to the number of authors that updated their reference
> > at that time: this is another irrelevant statistic (for Albert's
> > purposes), abou
on 21 Aug 2001 T.D.BRODY asked
> I put again what I asked in a previous post: why are you (are
> you?) against providing public, Internet based access to the primary
> "give-away" literature?
I am against self-archiving as a substitute for
libraries, library collections, and libr
on 21 Aug 2001 Steve Hitchcock wrote:
> At 16:46 20/08/01 -0400, Albert Henderson wrote:
> > I am not getting through. I should have asked,
> >
> > Are there any valid reasons
> > to justify massive self-archiving?
>
> Yes:
> Improved access to data - fas
on 21 Aug 2001 Helene Bosc commented:
> May I share my feeling ? I think that Albert plays a kind of Devil's
> Advocate because he his just looking for "celebrity". He has succeeded :
> look at the number of message and reactions he has generated on this forum.
> His name is now as "famous" as
26 matches
Mail list logo
