Stevan, which do you regard as more important: 1/ achieving free access to scientific research even if it means relaxing the standards or changing the methods of peer review or 2/ Maintaining the system of peer review even if it means postponing the freeing of the journal literature?
We all know you are certain that there is no conflict, and that both can be done simultaneously. We all also know, if only from the responses on this forum, that many who are working towards the same goals disagree with you--and that most of those are people whose motives and opinions I believe you otherwise respect. You surely cannot accomplish your goals without the assistance of others. Let's imagine that your friends and supporters outvote you, and we are all faced with the choice. Would you go with 1/ or with 2/ ? (I myself think--or at least hope-- that we could do both. But if necessary, I would go with 1/ , on the pragmatic grounds that it will be easier to accomplish both if we start there.) David Goodman Princeton University Library 609-258-3235 [email protected]
