In this particular case I meant only the insistence of some
administrative bodies that the publications be in formal conventional
journals, sometimes even requiring that they be in print format.
This has nothing to do with peer review, one way or another. I agree
with Stevan on this, and endorse his statements below.
Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
>
> > From: "David Goodman" <dgoodman_at_PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU>
> >
> > What will prove or disprove the case is not [ALPSP's] study, or anyone's,
> > but the market. If people value the features, they will pay for them.
> > And it is really that simple, assuming there are no artificial
> > constraints,
> > such as excessively rigid tenure requirements and other
> > administrative interference.
>
> I fervently hope that we will not be led down the garden path of
> "evaluation/assessment reform" (or "peer-review reform") in continuing
> this discussion.
>
> There are no doubt grievances and gripes in both those domains too, and
> plenty of room for reform, but they have nothing to do with what we are
> discussing here, causally, apart from the fact (which changes nothing)
> that academic evaluation/assessment currently depends in part on
> publication ("publish or perish") and on publication in high-imact
> peer-reviewed journals in particular.
>
> We are here to
> free this peer-reviewed literature, such as it is, from its
> impact-blocking access-tolls, not to free it from peer review or
> impact, nor from the uses to which the output of those quality-control
> methods and metrics are subsequently put.
>
> Stevan Harnad
--
Dr. David Goodman
Research Librarian and
Biological Science Bibliographer
Princeton University Library
Princeton, NJ 08544-0001
phone: 609-258-7785
fax: 609-258-2627
e-mail: dgoodman_at_princeton.edu
Received on Mon Apr 22 2002 - 16:14:40 BST