Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review - NOT!)

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 21:10:49 +0100

On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Mark Doyle wrote:

> P.S. I hadn't noticed that Stevan had once again changed the subject
> line of a thread biased to his own point of view. My thread
> has nothing to do with "implementing peer review", but with implementing
> archiving in a non-publisher based manner. This kind of thing
> is what makes me a reluctant participant in the debates here.

Mark's original posting had been on the thread "Re: Excerpts from FOS
Newsletter," which does not describe the discussion topic but is merely a
thread for Excerpts from the FOS Newsletter. The "Re: The True Cost of
the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review)" to which I redirected it has
been covering this topic in this Forum now continuously for 2 years.
Many postings have appeared on this thread that have different views
about costs and essentials. The purpose of a thread-name is to allow later
users of the archive to follow a continuous line of discussion.

I'm quite happy to let Mark's "NOT!" stand henceforth, if it makes him
feel less reluctant about participating.

[I actually think this is a much-neglected but important function of a
moderator. Not to bias the tenor of the thread-names, but to keep
related items under a continuous header rather than letting them go off
willy-nilly in directions that are not transparent from or even
unrelated to the thread-name. I have silently changed many idiosyncratic
or unrepresentative subject headings in this Forum from its inception
in 1998 with an eye to making it more integrated and navigable to later

I'll reply to Mark's substantive points a little later.

Received on Mon Apr 01 2002 - 21:12:01 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:28 GMT