This is yet another example of an unnecessary debate between two compatible approaches.
Having free access after a year is clearly not as good as having it immediately. But it is better than never having it. Its intended beneficiaries are not those active researchers in the primary field of the journal. Its intended beneficiaries include: people in underdeveloped countries, students and faculty in small colleges who will see the items referred to in indexes and later articles, and people in other fields who will see an occasional later reference. These are important groups, comprising many more people than the active workers in a specialty. I cannot see how one approach will harm the other. Of course we should have free universal archiving, both discipline and university based. But while we have the existing journals as they are, let's make the best use of them we can. People will publish in whatever way gives their work best exposure to those who matter to them, and that carry the highest prestige. The balance of these two factors will vary from person to person, as well as from field to field. Let's all stop saying that any approach that isn't the same as one's own must have fatal defects, and that victory will go to the person who is the cleverest at presenting them. (Though I will say that reading the messages in this and previous controversies has given me a very good appreciation of skillful argumentative prose style.) David Goodman, Princeton University Biology Library [email protected] 609-258-3235
