Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review)

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 17:59:30 -0500

I hate to mention it, Eberhard, but I am not sure how many places
 would want to keep most of them in print format. I am not even sure
whether most universities ought

Based on use data, print use of many titles -- including
many or most APS ones--in almost all science fields is very low for years
that are also avail in electronic format. Numbers forthcoming for the
libraries here. but not for a few months.

A good case, though, can be made for keeping such titles as PR in print in
a major university for what I call Iconic reasons--to demonstrate to the
students physically what the science consists of. Some librarians and
faculty here and elsewhere feel quite strongly about this, and, though I
am not the one who will decide, I am pretty sure
our university will decide to keep PR and most or all APS titles in print
as long as they are so published.
How many titles this reasoning should apply to is an interesting question
to think about.


David Goodman, Princeton University Biology Library
dgoodman_at_princeton.edu 609-258-3235

On Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Eberhard R. Hilf wrote:

> deat Arthur,
> what would be a very rough estimate if APS would let their journals free
> online but print costly and therefore raise the membership fee of APS by
> what amount.
> [Numbers such as: DPG has 40.000 members, fee raising by 10 % would amount
> to 200.000 $ or 200 articles..]
> Ebs
>
Received on Sun Dec 16 2001 - 00:08:26 GMT