Re: Reasons for freeing the primary research literature
on 21 Aug 2001 T.D.BRODY <tdb198_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> 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 librarians.
Every qualified researcher is (or can be) a member
of a major research library.
The history of libraries and photocopying
technology has taught us that university
managers will cut library spending based on
no more than a hint of "savings" and put
the "savings" in the bank. Since 1970,
research universities have cut their library
shares of spending in half in spite of
faculty pleading to maintain collections.
Resource sharing at some level fails to
provide the goods. Financial gains are
lost in the unmeasured quality of research
and education.
Moreover, self-archiving opens the door to
a mess of unreviewed articles which many
readers are unable to evaluate in terms of
poor preparation, error, misconduct, and
fraud. Again, quality of research and
education will suffer. The quality of the
practice of medicine will also suffer.
Finally, your use of the term "give-away"
is mistaken and misleading -- a major
fallacy in this forum. Authors give nothing
away. Although they are not paid in cash,
authors exchange their reports for recognition
and dissemination by editors that they value.
Thanks for asking. I hope I have cleared
up my position a little.
Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532_at_compuserve.com>
.
.
.
Received on Wed Jan 03 2001 - 19:17:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:14 GMT