Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review)

From: Arthur P. Smith <apsmith_at_APS.ORG>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:17:12 -0500

On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote:

> [... arguments I'm not sure I can say much more on ...]
> > [I wrote: ]
> > Note that I'm not worrying about freeing the literature here; if
> > publishing free literature really involved no copy-editing, we would
> > likely never do it, as a publisher with a historical interest in certain
> > publication standards.
> Do you mean APS would then not do copy-editing, or that it would then not
> publish? I hope you mean the former, as peer review is still essential, and
> the real standard underlying the value of the refereed research literature.

What I meant was the latter. Just my opinion, really. The publications
have long had an ambiguous relationship with the society, being by far
the most expensive thing the APS does. The society has stated goals
to "advance and diffuse the knowledge of physics" which is more
about publishing quality "content" than "doing peer review". We manage
the peer review as part of publishing journals of course, that's
how we determine what's worth putting in our journals. But if the
journals ceased to really mean anything in terms of improved
presentation of the content, I suspect we would just sell the
business to whoever wanted it; Elsevier probably.

Received on Wed Dec 19 2001 - 11:30:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:21 GMT