Re: Exponential growth

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 11:50:43 +0000

On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Greg Kuperberg wrote:

> Maybe you want to say more conservatively that new submissions should be
> superlinear, i.e., concave up.

Yes, yes, that's it.

(And that's: "new self-archived eprint (whether pre- or post-)," NOT
"new submission." Submission is for journals. Self-archiving is better
described as a "deposit.")

> And maybe instead of asymptotics you are interested in the
> short term. In that case the right way to say it is that you open
> archiving should grow faster in the near term.

Yes, it should go concave up, steeply, until the entire (finite)
current refereed corpus is up there, online and free.

And I do mean steeply. There is no reason it should not all have been
up there, freed, yesterday, so certainly no reason to drag it out for
another decade.

As to "asymptotics": I am referring to the current refereed corpus;
this annual corpus is finite though also itself growing somewhat
annually, but not nearly so fast as to require my refining the shape of
the curve: the "sharp concave up" covers it all...

Stevan Harnad
Professor of Cognitive Science
Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582
             Computer Science fax: +44 23-80 592-865
University of Southampton
Highfield, Southampton

NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free
access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the
American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00):

You may join the list at the site above.

Discussion can be posted to:
Received on Mon Jan 24 2000 - 19:17:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:45:57 GMT