As a relative outsider, I do not consider myself qualified to decide definitively which approach is best.
But even were I actively working on this, I would not consider it appropriate to decide on the basis of argumentation. We on this list are all either scientists, or information workers serving scientists. We should know that the way to determine this is to try the different approaches, and determine by observation and experiment. The problem is large enough to accommodate several different large scale trials. I suggest that for anyone working actively in this field, the best answer if anyone criticizes part of one's concept, or proposes another, is to say "go right ahead and try, but please keep it interoperable, and let us all know your results." And I would say the same to alternate schemes of reviewing, or any of the issues that confront us. If anyone really has a need to argue, there are enough people who do not yet see the necessity of changing the status quo to serve for opponents. Dr. David Goodman, Princeton University Biology Library [email protected] 609-258-3235
