Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review - NOT!)

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_cogprints.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 21:10:49 +0100

On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Mark Doyle wrote:

> P.S. I hadn't noticed that Stevan had once again changed the subject
> line of a thread biased to his own point of view. My thread
> has nothing to do with "implementing peer review", but with implementing
> archiving in a non-publisher based manner. This kind of thing
> is what makes me a reluctant participant in the debates here.

Mark's original posting had been on the thread "Re: Excerpts from FOS
Newsletter," which does not describe the discussion topic but is merely a
thread for Excerpts from the FOS Newsletter. The "Re: The True Cost of
the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review)" to which I redirected it has
been covering this topic in this Forum now continuously for 2 years.
Many postings have appeared on this thread that have different views
about costs and essentials. The purpose of a thread-name is to allow later
users of the archive to follow a continuous line of discussion.

I'm quite happy to let Mark's "NOT!" stand henceforth, if it makes him
feel less reluctant about participating.

[I actually think this is a much-neglected but important function of a
moderator. Not to bias the tenor of the thread-names, but to keep
related items under a continuous header rather than letting them go off
willy-nilly in directions that are not transparent from or even
unrelated to the thread-name. I have silently changed many idiosyncratic
or unrepresentative subject headings in this Forum from its inception
in 1998 with an eye to making it more integrated and navigable to later
users.]

I'll reply to Mark's substantive points a little later.

Stevan
Received on Mon Apr 01 2002 - 21:12:01 BST