On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 04:38:02PM +0000, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> I don't know what point you are making, David. The proposition was that
> the non-peer-reviewed preprint is the same as the peer-reviewed
> postprint, i.e., that peer-review is either non-existent or
> unnecessary.
I have never said, nor do I believe, that peer review is either
non-existent or unnecessary. I believe that the preprint is the postprint
in the same sense that "Greg Kuperberg with tenure" is the same person as
"Greg Kuperberg without tenure".
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
Received on Mon Jan 24 2000 - 19:17:43 GMT