Re: 2.0K vs. 0.2K

From: Thomas J. Walker <tjw_at_GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 12:40:06 -0400

At 02:41 PM 5/10/99 +0100, you wrote:
>On Mon, 10 May 1999, Thomas J. Walker wrote:
>> Since 1994, the Florida Entomological Society
>> has *given* e-reprints to all Fla. Entomol. authors as an added service.
>> This service is paid from the $45 per page fee that authors have paid since
>> 1990. However, if library subscriptions begin to drop, e-reprints may then
>> be sold rather than given away.
>Until journals scale down to their one essential service, peer review,
>and let public archives like LANLe (and E-biomed and Scholar's Forum, as
>soon as they are ready) handle the rest. The page charge will be for that
>service, not for the e-prints.

Do you mean that you do not want authors to pay a little now for a service
that you expect them to pay more for later? To put the formatted, archived
version of a refereed article on the Web server that is most convenient to
those who might want to access the article is a service that is surely
worth something to authors. (That is why I don't understand why APA
doesn't offer it, while at the same time requiring authors to sign away
their right to do it themselves.)

>> Secondly, my proposal does not assume that S/L/P can persist. It assumes
>> that paper publication isn't going to end immediately and that in the
>> meanwhile some authors will want to pay a fee (e.g., price of 100 paper
>> reprints) to secure immediate, permanent, toll-free Web access for the
>> formatted, refereed, archived version of their articles...
>They can get almost exactly that for free already, by self-archiving
>their final, refereed drafts in their local and global servers, as

Not so. Authors cannot yet expect other researchers to look for their work
where they have signed an agreement not to put it.

>> APS is coming close to giving such access away (!) but [...PDF...]
>The exact PDF page images are not worth the extra money. The (refereed,
>accepted) figures and text, reformatted without pages for online
>self-archiving, are just fine.

Under my plan, authors would be able to decide this themselves. Do those
using the physics literature not want to know what page particular text is
on and don't they feel that the equivalent of a photocopy of the archived
version is more reliable than with any lesser representation of the final
refereed version?

Tom W.

Thomas J. Walker
Department of Entomology & Nematology
University of Florida, PO Box 110620, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
E-mail: FAX: (352)392-0190
Received on Wed Feb 10 1999 - 19:17:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:45:31 GMT