[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: Howard Flack <Howard.Flack@cryst.unige.ch>
• Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:11:25 +0100 (BST)

> 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.


 Correct.
 
 The 'amazon.com' model is highly suitable for an e-pre-print server. It
is very good at getting rid of rubbish and evident mistakes. It can also
provide some feedback as to the way to improve the presentation of the
article. To some extent it is what a referee is being asked to do.
However, the better the referee, the more considered the initial
response will be.

  
-- 


Howard Flack        http://www.unige.ch/crystal/ahdf/Howard.Flack.html

Reply to: [list | sender only]

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