It would help both peer or non peered eArchives to have would be two
sections, which at the time of the submission of the paper was left
completely blank except for their titles: challenges and questions
Each of these sections should be made to be enabled with a Script, which
could allow a third party reader to insert into the earchieve html links to
other websites that contain the appropriate content.
In this way, as the scientific community sifts and sorts these papers, the
work of one will help to quide the thoughts of all.
sterling
At 06:04 PM 10/31/2000 +0000, J.W.T.Smith wrote:
>
>Prof Harnad,
>
>As usual much of your reply is well thought out and has weight, however
>there is one important misunderstanding I must clear up - see below.
>
>On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
>>
>> Your approach does require first freeing the literature from peer review
>> and publishers. Well, to a first approximation (conditional on the
>> eventual outcome of your experiment), that means we are no longer even
>> talking about the same literature! I am talking about freeing the
>> current, actual, refereed literature; you are talking about freeing a
>> hypothetical future literature, no longer peer reviewed or published by
>> the journals.
>>
>
>I do not (and never have) argued for the abandoning of peer-review - I
>believe it is absolutely essential. I have only ever argued that it could
>(maybe should) be carried out by entities separate from current journal
>publishers. My main reason for this has been to break what I see as the
>'ownership' link between the journal and the article. I want the world you
>argue for - where articles are free to readers and have proposed the
>'author pays' approach to pay for the certification activity. Once the
>certification process is clearly not linked to a 'journal' other journals
>(or Subject Focal Points, or whatever they will be called) can point to or
>recommend any article to their subscribers. Yes, I still believe there
>will be subscription services but these services will be paid for their
>skills in locating and organising relevant information for their
>subscribers not because they 'own' any of this information.
>
>Let us follow the path you advocate as long as we can break the strong
>ownership link between the article and the journal/certification agency.
>There will then be an opportunity for the para-journals to come into
>existence (as I predict they will) and the current journals may find their
>making aware role shrinks to the point where they really do become no more
>than certification agents.
>
>Regards,
>
>John Smith,
>University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
>
>
Computer Aided Cell and Molecular Biology (CACMB), not medicine, will find
the cure for cancer and other diseases. There will always be a need for
the trained clinician (MD/RN) but, advanced diagnostic and treatment option
selection has become gene based, has moved from the physician's practice to
the computerized cell and molecular biology laboratory, and appropriate
treatment options should now be based on the personal biology of the
patient.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|