Re: Eprint versions and removals

From: Albert Henderson <chessNIC_at_compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 23:01:05 +0100

>>dg> Surely if someone makes a document public and publicly accessible
>>dg> in an archive, then it is the responsibility of any organization
>>dg> claiming to be an "archive" to archive it. By permitting
>>dg> removal at all you are saying that it is necessary for some
>>dg> other organization to take the responsibility of archiving your
>>dg> archive so the record remains available.
>
>sh> Please don't be so swayed by the a-word here, "archive,"
>sh> which history may decide in hindsight was an unfortunate
>sh> descriptor to have chosen to baptise this new species of
>sh> "scholarly skywriting" of pre- and post-peer-reviewed
>sh> research. The relevant (and urgent) a-word here is
>sh> *access*, of which there is currently *none* for those whose
>sh> institutions cannot afford the access-tolls, unless authors
>sh> self-*something* their writings so as to make them accessible
>sh> to the access-denied. And access will continue to be none as
>sh> long as the schmarchives remain empty!

Approaching my position at last, the mis-use of "archive" may have been
recognized. Let the author exercise rights of copyright by destroying
premature drafts. Let the editor delete published articles found guilty
of misconduct. Let the peer-reviewed journal literature remain separate
and clearly distinguishable from informal communications.

Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532_at_compuserve.com>
Received on Tue Jun 10 2003 - 23:01:05 BST