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

RE: [Re: paper request]




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
philidor11
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 4:16 PM
To: Tompaleo@aol.com; dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: [Re: paper request]

<Hell, if this  (the cost of doing "science" was _easy_ and _cheap_ then of
what value is the "science" that results.>

Much as you ordinarily argue cogently and forcefully, I think you're using
hyperbole here?
Let's say there is an article you really need.  You have two ways to get it:
First,
-you  research sources unsuccessfully for a long time and duplicate some of
the author's work on the topic (perhaps less effectively) because you didn't
know the article had been written,
-you 'accidentally' discover a reference to it in your 200th carefully
reviewed bibliography,
-you lose 2 weeks as your library finds the only copy they have access to is
in the hands of someone else, who is overdue to return it,
Or it'll take decades to find it. So, what, just give up.

-you send communications to everyone who might know about it and wait for
their replies,
-one of them does have access to it, and you pay to have it copied and
shipped, waiting awhile longer while your contact finds time to do the
digging and copying and sending.
Tough procedure for deadlines.
Or second,
-you go to a website once you've found your topic,
-you discover your perfect article exists when you sort by topic,
-you follow the url to the paper online,
Maybe, but I doubt you'll find FRASS 1891, Meyer, Huene's 1932 monograph or
any other mongraph.

-you download it to your printer.
Same result, you with the article you need; the only difference is the time
and expense.
No its not the same. You won't find Ostrom's Cloverly monograph on the
internet. What you might find is someone's take on it and it may be wrong.
 You wouldn't prefer a scythe to a lawnmower would you?
I know that copyrights currently make this process a bit more elaborate than
it has to be.  However, Time and Newsweek, which publish most of their
issues online, are showing the way.
But that's just news, not the articles.
  If many articles cannot be published
profitably on paper because the audience is too small, how long will it be
before we have subscription sites where peer reviewed articles will be
recorded and printable for a few dollars a month?  This may actually be a
better opportunity for prompt publication of more articles than the current
system.
How many dot com's have gone out of business this year?

The recorded music business is half trying to figure out how to prevent
people from sharing their files and half working on a subscription model
like the one discussed above.  I think that the subscription model will
eventually win out.  With all the money available in recorded music, will a
marginally profitable (I believe; correct me if I'm wrong) business like
scientific publication be able to hold out?


Pssst, want an online, underground copy of the Ostrom Symposium book, taken
from galleys?  $2.  [my own hyperbole]
Is it legal?

Anyway, assuming the most (presumably) hyperbolic meaning of what you wrote,
what's wrong with making necessary research faster, more thorough, and
cheaper?
If you have the time and money to do it, go for it.
Tracy