On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Albert Henderson <chessNIC_at_COMPUSERVE.COM> wrote:
>[ah] For anyone who missed my point (and I apologize for not making
>[ah] it ultra-clear) what is controversial, and what I find insulting
>[ah] to all science editors, is Till's interpretation that makes
>[ah] reference to the Star Chamber -- found in the paragraph that
>[ah] precedes his conclusion.
Again, I can only suggest that those interested should read the article,
and decide for themselves how controversial they find it to be. For
example, if you had been asked to be a reviewer or an editor for this
article, would you have demanded that the offending paragraph be omitted?
A reminder: a definition of the verb 'censor' is: 'to make deletions or
changes in'. I'd prefer not to launch a debate about the ethics of
'censorship' (for example, 'scientific censorship' by peers, e.g. on the
basis of perceived errors in scientific methodology: OK; 'political
censorship', e.g. in the basis of a failure to exhibit political
correctness: not OK?).
However, perhaps the issue of 'censorship' *is* relevant to the central
theme of this Forum: freeing the (acceptable-quality) research literature?
BTW, an e-print (in this case, an 'e-postprint') of my article,
'Predecessors of preprint servers' [Learned Publishing 2001(January);
14(1): 7-13], is now freely available in HTML, via:
http://www.arxiv.org/html/physics/0102004
A free PDF version also continues to be available, via:
http://www.catchword.com/09531513/v14n1/contp1.htm
As I mentioned in an earlier message, I've retained copyright.
Jim Till
University of Toronto
Received on Wed Jan 03 2001 - 19:17:43 GMT