What if it's peer-review versus free-access?

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 19:37:19 -0500

Stevan, which do you regard as more important:

1/ achieving free access to scientific research even if it means relaxing
the standards or changing the methods of peer review
2/ Maintaining the system of peer review even if it means postponing the
freeing of the journal literature?

We all know you are certain that there is no conflict, and that both can
be done simultaneously. We all also know, if only from the responses on
this forum, that many who are working towards the same goals disagree with
you--and that most of those are people whose motives and opinions I believe
you otherwise respect.

You surely cannot accomplish your goals without the assistance of
others. Let's imagine that your friends and
supporters outvote you, and we are all faced with the choice.
Would you go with 1/ or with 2/ ?

(I myself think--or at least hope-- that we could
do both. But if necessary, I would go with 1/ , on the pragmatic
grounds that it will be easier to accomplish both if we start there.)

David Goodman
Princeton University Library
Received on Mon Dec 17 2001 - 01:19:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:20 GMT