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

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:59:24 -0500

because, Arthur, the intellectual reputation and respectability of the
physicists who constitute your society is much greater than any commercial
--or governmental--organization would ever be. As your members care about
 physics as a science, they presumably will want to continue
certifying research and researchers, and assisting universities in
selecting physics faculty. No institution can be trusted to judge
itself without some form of outside assessors. The point of peer review
isn't that it's review by one's peers, but that it's review by one's
peers from other universities. Of course, there are many conceivable
arrangements, and the publication of your journals is not inextricably
linked to the process. No matter how well you do publication, the purpose
of the APS is not primarily or necessarily that of a publishing house.

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

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Arthur Smith wrote:

>
> But back to my speculation on what the society would do: if all the
> information were already available for free online in an acceptable,
> readable, long-term archival format, with full searching capabilities,
> etc. why would we want to simply be some sort of contractor to
> universities in assessment of their faculty? Better a commercial company
> takes on that task, and leave us to planning meetings and lobbying the
> government...
>
> Arthur
>
Received on Fri Dec 21 2001 - 10:45:54 GMT