[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: publishing on the web



>Not really.  Most people just photocopy articles.  Generally only
>libraries, corporations, and professors on grants actually *subscribe*
>to a journal! [With the exception of the cheaper ones like _Science_
>and _Nature_].

   Illegal, unless the journal gives specific permission.  That's neither
here nor there, I suppose.

>Even the rather basic printer we have here at work does pictures
>better than a photocopy machine does.  My printer at home even does
>color (and it isn't exactly top of the line either)!

   No doubt.  The question then becomes 1) is it ultimately cheaper and 2)
is the quality of the pictures good enough for peer review.  If, today,
everybody merely photocopies articles, then the answer to number two is
"yes."  This brings up another question, though.  Dinogeorge states that
pictures must be really good for proper review.  If professional reviews are
based on poor pictures, what does that have to say about the current review
process ... if not the reviews themselves?  I'm not making a judgement ...
it's just a question from someone outside the field.

** THE DINOSTORE.  Our products include Dinosaur related books, the Battat   **
** 1/40th scale Museum of Science collection, fine fossil replicas by        **
** Skullduggery, and Safari Poison Dart Frogs.  Price list current as of     **
** 11/1/95. Sauropods are the Dinosaur-of-the-Month. Check out our home page **
** at http://www.infinet.com/~jpoling/ for price lists and dinosaur essays.  **