Re: Eprint versions and removals

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 23:14:14 +0100

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Albert Henderson wrote:

> >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, I quite like your position, if this is indeed it: Let authors
continue publishing, as always, in peer-reviewed journals, while also
putting their pre-refereeing preprints and their peer-reviewed postprints,
separately, "informally," in eprint schmarchives, where all would-be
users can access them.

Sounds just fine to me!

Cheers, Stevan
Received on Tue Jun 10 2003 - 23:14:14 BST