[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2nd Open Archive Initiative Workshop at CERN

• To: Multiple recipients of list <epc-l@iucr.org>
• Subject: Re: 2nd Open Archive Initiative Workshop at CERN
• From: Brian McMahon <bm@iucr.org>
• Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:50:10 +0100 (BST)

> Attached a report and commentary on the meeting I have just been to in
> Geneva. 

Butterfingers - this should have read "... Howard and I have been to ..."
Howard may of course have different points of view that he will share with
us.

One thing that I did want to comment on less formally was this model of
scholarly discourse proceeding through the "amazon.com" model of instantly
awarding 7/10 in a mini-review and passing the recommendation on to one's
friend. While this rapid-turnaround commentary may be fine for some
types of communication, much scientific discussion surely takes the form
of reading a piece of work, thinking about it, then going away to repeat the
experiment or set up a counter-experiment. The results of this new work may
not be available for years, and the analysis, commentary and presentation of
the results - forming the *considered* response to the research presented in
the initial article - represents the real next step in the discourse. No
doubt this can live alongside the "amazon.com" model, but I often feel at
these presentations that this longer-term type of response is not given
sufficient weight.

Brian

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• Prev by Date: 2nd Open Archive Initiative Workshop at CERN
• Next by Date: Re: 2nd Open Archive Initiative Workshop at CERN
• Prev by thread: 2nd Open Archive Initiative Workshop at CERN
• Next by thread: Re: 2nd Open Archive Initiative Workshop at CERN
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread