Re: Science Article (Roberts et al.) and Science Editorial

From: Greg Kuperberg <greg_at_MATH.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 14:23:48 -0800

On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 09:59:26PM +0000, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> For his conclusion can hardly be based on "experience" (except possibly
> subjective experience). The fact is that mathematicians have not been
> faced with the former choice, as some biomedical scientists have.

Actually, when I submit a paper to a journal, the first thing
I do is read the copyright license to see if meets my requirement
of free electronic redistribution. And I know several other people
who always keep copyright for their papers. That may not be an official
boycott, but what's the real difference?

> (in Greg's arXiv).

Major correction: The arXiv isn't mine.

> But alas, this empirical hypothesis has no objective evidence in its
> support (just some subjective testimony from Simon), because what
> Simon DOES in this new self-archiving era is EXACTLY the same as what
> he did before: He continues to submit all his work to his preferred
> refereed journals.

Actually I have completely rewritten my list of preferred journals in
light of the copyright concern.

> The only thing that is new is that IN ADDITION, he self-archives it
> (thereby freeing it).

I personally wouldn't contribute a published paper to the arXiv if I am
under agreement not to. I'm not convinced that my old copyright
transfer agreements aren't binding.

> What does not yet have enough widespread "credibility" is
> self-archiving itself (which Simon is already doing, centrally, in 35%
> of physics and 20% of mathematics).

Actually it's maybe 5% of mathematics. Where did you get the 20% figure?
  /\  Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
 /  \
 \  / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at
  \/  * All the math that's fit to e-print *
Received on Wed Jan 03 2001 - 19:17:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:05 GMT