Re: The archival status of archived papers

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 14:57:02 -0500

If they disappear others may well make the same mistake. But if they
continue to exist, with the error noted, people will learn from
them (embarrassing as it may prove to be for the authors of the example).

Bob Parks wrote:

> ... There are some papers which prove to be wrong, even
> though there was considerable thought put into them - and possibly
> they should, as much as possible, disappear.
> >bp> Maybe not for other professions, but certainly in economics, business,
> >bp> and political science (subjects about which I have knowledge).
> >
> >I am sure this was the practise and expectation in paper days, when
> >drafts were sent only to specific trusted colleagues, but it is a fact
> >that public posting on the Web is (like publication) another ball-game
> >(a bit more like guassian roulette).
> YES, again I agree.
> >bp> The persistent URL should, as with arXiv, point to the most recent
> >bp> draft and penultimate drafts should be in the trash.
> >
> >That is an option that should be available, but its use should be
> >strongly discouraged. Better to selectively email the potentially
> >embarrassing drafts, intended to be forgotten, and self-archive only the
> >ones one feels one can live with being seen publicly (and potentially
> >remembered and referred to forever). It is, after all, something of an
> >antidote to unwelcome citing and quoting to be able to point to the
> >extant draft and say: "See, it said 'temporary draft, to be revised, do
> >not cite or quote'...."
> As above, we might have a bit of disagreement about how strongly
> one discourages removal, but I think we are in agreement.
> And again, it is not the "potentially embarrassing drafts,
> intended to be forgotten," but rather any 'draft'. I would certainly
> not want to revert to the mailing of drafts - but maybe I make a
> whole lot more mistakes than you do and that is the reason that we
> slightly disagree.
> >(Ceterum censeo: This is all irrelevant to the issue of open access,
> >which is mainly about open access to the research literature after peer
> >review. How early a draft one wishes to make openly accessible before
> >peer review is a matter for the author to decide. But open access should
> >in general be thought of as being forever.)
> Ah, mea culpa. My open access (moa?) concerns both pre peer review
> and post peer review. In economics, where lags between submission and
> acceptance are large, require an open access working paper culture.
> I fully agree that the post peer review literature ought to be
> persistant. If corrections are needed, then errata should be posted
> (and linked).
> Gee, now that we nearly completely agree, one of us isn't needed.
> I hope its me.
> (;-)
> Bob
> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> # Economics Working Paper Archive #
> # #
> # gopher #
> # #
> # Send a mail message (empty body) #
> # To: #
> # Subject: get announce #
> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> Always remember: inertia has no effect on the ultimate steady state solution.
> NEVER remember: Keynes said in the long run we are all dead.
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> | Bob Parks Voice: (314) 935-5665 |
> | Department of Economics, Campus Box 1208 Fax: (314) 935-4156 |
> | Washington University |
> | One Brookings Drive |
> | St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899|
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------*

Dr. David Goodman
Biological Sciences Bibliographer
Princeton University Library
Received on Wed Dec 04 2002 - 19:57:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:45 GMT