On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 09:59:26PM +0000, Stevan Harnad wrote: > For his conclusion can hardly be based on "experience" (except possibly > subjective experience). The fact is that mathematicians have not been > faced with the former choice, as some biomedical scientists have.
Actually, when I submit a paper to a journal, the first thing I do is read the copyright license to see if meets my requirement of free electronic redistribution. And I know several other people who always keep copyright for their papers. That may not be an official boycott, but what's the real difference? > (in Greg's arXiv). Major correction: The arXiv isn't mine. > But alas, this empirical hypothesis has no objective evidence in its > support (just some subjective testimony from Simon), because what > Simon DOES in this new self-archiving era is EXACTLY the same as what > he did before: He continues to submit all his work to his preferred > refereed journals. Actually I have completely rewritten my list of preferred journals in light of the copyright concern. > The only thing that is new is that IN ADDITION, he self-archives it > (thereby freeing it). I personally wouldn't contribute a published paper to the arXiv if I am under agreement not to. I'm not convinced that my old copyright transfer agreements aren't binding. > What does not yet have enough widespread "credibility" is > self-archiving itself (which Simon is already doing, centrally, in 35% > of physics and 20% of mathematics). Actually it's maybe 5% of mathematics. Where did you get the 20% figure? -- /\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis) / \ \ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/ \/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
