You seem to be answering a point I'm not raising.
The thrust of my argument is that because the peer review process *is
changing* (quite how it is and will change we may disagree about - I
have little real experience here and bow to yours) there is a sense of
urgency that publishers should recognise if they want to capture the
By replying only to my last two paragraphs you have refocused my
argument away from urgency, towards peer review, which is not what I'm
In fact, your entertaining and mildly anarchistic proposal to bring
down the paper house of cards would accelerate the urgency.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:24:07 GMT