Steve, I am sure you know perfectly well that there are more choices than
:
> (i) that preprint quality and usability would stay at its current level if there were no
> peer review OR
> (ii) that a hypothetical post-hoc "open 'peer' feedback" (by the
> readers and users of the Archive) could substitute for the
> quality-control function currently exerted by peer review.
For example, there are peer-reviewed virtual journals, commercial or
non-commercial, or any one of a number of arrangements that have been amd
will be devised.
I also see no reason to doubt that those (includinging of course yourself) who
have devised the current archives sturucture, and the current A&I systems,
will be well up to the challenge of finding ways for
> navigating, ... systematically evaluating and sign-posting a
> an unfiltered and unconstrained literature
I further suggest that what is holding back the wider adoption of these
systems is not just
> uncertain speculations
but the refusal of proponents of the various schemes to accept the possiblity
that others may have equally good ideas, and that judging by what
> sounds quite speculative, not to mention subjective, to me...
is not a sufficient criterion.
--
David Goodman
Biology Librarian
and Co-chair, Electronic Journals Task force
Princeton University Library
Princeton, NJ 08544-0001
phone: 609-258-3235
fax: 609-258-2627
e-mail: dgoodman_at_princeton.edu
Received on Mon Jan 24 2000 - 19:17:43 GMT