Two key objections to IEGs at the time were:
1. Their exclusive nature. They were available only to a small group of laboratories.
2. The extremely cumbersome method of distribution and inconvenient format of
the material. (They were one-sided photocopies of typescript.)
The current self-archiving and related proposals, in any of their variants,
are obviously free of both these objections.
In the group that I remember (I was just beginning as a graduate student at
the time), essentially all of the papers were fairly soon published in
essentially unaltered form. This is not surprising when it is remembered that
membership was limited to senior investigators at major institutions.
The objections of journal publishers were taken perhaps a little more
seriously at a time when major libraries could afford all necessary journals,
and individual scientists the key titles. In retrospect, they certainly seem
self-serving.
Incidentally, has anyone kept an archive of any of the groups? A few items
from them were (improperly, of course) cited in the literature and are
sometimes requested, and I know of no source. With any of the current
proposals, this subsequent loss of access would not recur.
--
Dr. David Goodman
Biology Librarian, and
Co-Chair, Electronic Journals Task Force
Princeton University Library
dgoodman_at_princeton.edu http://www.princeton.edu/~biolib/
phone: 609-258-3235 fax: 609-258-2627
Received on Mon Jan 24 2000 - 19:17:43 GMT