As I interpret the authors' argument it accepts the viability of the model in the high energy physics community, but argues that it is not generally applicable because other scientific communities are not equally disciplined or responsible.
As Steve wisely remarks, how can we tell unless we try? As a librarian, I have been an observer of academics in a number of different fields. The basic patterns of academic publication and status seem to be not that dissimilar all of the physical and biological sciences. In all areas, one writes for the audience of ones's professional peers in the general sense; one hopes to see one's ideas not only read by those who one wants to read it, but accepted by them as important. One anticipates, as a consequence, being considered for promotion, tenure and honors. One knows that a reputation for having published--even in preliminary form-- erroneous, absurd, or poorly-written material will not bring this about. I do not myself know if this is the case in academic areas other than the sciences, but I suspect it is. As an admittedly personal example, but one which Joe will hardly mind, he clearly took great care with his posting, even though it was merely an informal communication in what is presumably not his principal professional field. There is an impression among many non-physicists that physicists are brighter than those in their own field. (If physicists share this among themselves, they have always been too polite to tell me so.) Perhaps this is true; perhaps it is more a question of working styles and multiple forms of intelligence. Even if it were true, why would this make them more independent in judgment or more responsible? I have indeed heard some very well respected molecular biologists say that the Ginsparg model would not work for their area. But they usually say that it would not work because of the competition--that they count on the priority of having submitted a paper knowing it will be months before anyone but the reviewers see it. Even if this is a valid objection, there are clearly technical solutions. And aren't ones most likely reviewer's also one's most likely competitors? (I know that taking advantage of this is not supposed to be ethical....) David Goodman, Princeton University Biology Library [email protected] 609-258-3235
