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

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:25:36 -0500

Mark, In what respect are PDF and especially TeX archives flawed?
I'm asking not as a challenge but to find out what you think is deficient.

The only thing I could find from your posting that they were deficient in
is the provision of links. But this can be incorporated into the
preparation of text, especially if all the documents are on OAI
repositories.

The other part that might be missing is an organization that will
permanently stand behind the repository. I do not think anyone regards
commercial publishers as sufficient, and in response they are beginning to
make arrangements with more durable organizations. Societies might be
sufficient, if they are strong societies like yours'. But surely you could
just as well adopt the responsibility of maintaining ArXiv as you accept
the responsibility of maintaining your current journals.

I consider publishers' platforms universally a
nuisance, and so do our users. Their use is increasing, because
publishers do their best to direct users there as a form of
self-advertising. If a user has a reference, the user wants to go
to it, or at least the journal, not the publisher's home page. The various
features for personalization are of limited value when they are linked to
a single publisher. They might be of great value if they offered
universal coverage, and the APS could well provide this service for its
member completely independently of publishing journals.

David Goodman
Research Librarian and
Biological Sciences Bibliographer
Princeton University Library
dgoodman_at_princeton.edu 609-258-7785
Received on Sat Mar 30 2002 - 02:24:51 GMT