Re: The forgotten importance of editors

From: Ransdell, Joseph M. <ransdell_at_DOOR.NET>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 08:29:44 -0500


Your response to my message about forgetting the importance of editors
is completely off. I understand perfectly well that:

sh> My [i.e. Harnad's] recommended correction was to drop peer review
sh> AND to make it explicit that a SELF-ARCHIVE was precisely what
sh> E-biomed was to be (in the first instance), exactly as LANL is a
sh> self-archive. AND, most important of all (and systematically not
sh> taken into account in any of Joseph's comments), a self-archive
sh> not only for the unrefereed preprint literature but for the REFEREED
sh> reprint literature (exactly as LANL is, and has been from its very
sh> inception, as Paul Ginsparg's recent posting has reminded us).

And the latter is taken into account in my comments. And you are way
off-base in saying:

sh> Joseph's imagination is taken up with the OTHER side of
sh> self-archiving, the unrefereed preprints.

And insufferably so with this:

sh> I do think I recognize (from 20 years' of editing) the core
sh> of Joseph's grievance. It is the single aggrieved author's
sh> viewpoint (analogous to the single aggrieved student's
sh> viewpoint, when he feels that a test has not been a proper
sh> measure of his proficiency or performance).

This is ad hominem discreditation, based on nothing, and completely
beneath you and your position. I think it would be in order for you to
apologize for that, after which you might reread what I said in view of
the fact that I am not laboring under the misunderstanding about your
proposal that you impute to me. I await your response before
responding further.

Joseph Ransdell  <> or <>
Dept of Philosophy   Texas Tech Univ.  Lubbock TX 79409
(806)  742-3158 office    797-2592 home    742-0730 fax
ARISBE:Peirce Telecommunity
Received on Wed Feb 10 1999 - 19:17:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:45:35 GMT