A rather selective selection of words that David Goodman wrote on 27
Nov 2006, at 21:02:
> The other difficulties also apply just as much to conventional
> journals...
> The overlay journals would have their peer review organized by the
> same
> prestigious scientific societies that now publish journals...
> Peer reviewers and editors would do the work for the same reason as
> now...
> All that is needed ... is authors willing to publish in them--just
> as now.
It seems to me that in concept the idea of an Overlay Journal is
almost indistinguishable from the idea of a Journal. And why not?
They are both journals and they are both "overlaid" on (predicated
on, built on) preprints. The difference is largely technical
(submission and distribution loci), and hence easily glossed over by
the majority of the research population, who get their articles
individually from aggregators and portals in any case.
> If Stevan doesn't understand, he need not paticipate--just as any
> other author.
Perhaps Stevan (or any author) would not be able to tell if they were
participating or not?
> We'd also need ta rule that these journals would consider only the
> articles actively
> submitted to them, or he'd find himself an author , like it or not.
Proactive involuntary publication - now that looks like a genuinely
interesting development :-)
--
Les
Received on Tue Nov 28 2006 - 10:58:24 GMT