On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Albert Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>[ah] For anyone who missed my point (and I apologize for not making >[ah] it ultra-clear) what is controversial, and what I find insulting >[ah] to all science editors, is Till's interpretation that makes >[ah] reference to the Star Chamber -- found in the paragraph that >[ah] precedes his conclusion. Again, I can only suggest that those interested should read the article, and decide for themselves how controversial they find it to be. For example, if you had been asked to be a reviewer or an editor for this article, would you have demanded that the offending paragraph be omitted? A reminder: a definition of the verb 'censor' is: 'to make deletions or changes in'. I'd prefer not to launch a debate about the ethics of 'censorship' (for example, 'scientific censorship' by peers, e.g. on the basis of perceived errors in scientific methodology: OK; 'political censorship', e.g. in the basis of a failure to exhibit political correctness: not OK?). However, perhaps the issue of 'censorship' *is* relevant to the central theme of this Forum: freeing the (acceptable-quality) research literature? BTW, an e-print (in this case, an 'e-postprint') of my article, 'Predecessors of preprint servers' [Learned Publishing 2001(January); 14(1): 7-13], is now freely available in HTML, via: http://www.arxiv.org/html/physics/0102004 A free PDF version also continues to be available, via: http://www.catchword.com/09531513/v14n1/contp1.htm As I mentioned in an earlier message, I've retained copyright. Jim Till University of Toronto
