On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> wrote:
> *Preamble:* If you wish to sample some of the most absurd, incoherent, > pseudo-legal gibberish on the subject of "rights" retention, > "systematicity" and free will, please have a look at what follows under > "*Elsevier > Article Posting > Policies*<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/postingpolicy>" > below. (And bear in mind that an institution only provides a tiny fraction > of any journal's content.) > I completely agree. Elsevier reuse "terms and conditions" on websites are also self-contradictory and often uninterpretable. Just as seriously the process of converting an author's manuscript to the "final version of record" often destroys scientific information and is seriously un-accessible (e.g. to unsighted humans and certainly machines). http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/11/23/ami2-opencontentmining-ami-reports-progress-on-pdf2svg-and-svgplus-the-standard-of-stm-publishing/. The idea that publishers "improve" quality by typsetting, formatting, etc. is a myth - information is usually destroyed. I would suggest that the author version should be regarded as the end product, not the publishers. Kaveh Bazargan, who runs a STM typesetting company, has (bravely) castigated the STM publishers' typesetting process ("It’s madness really. I’m here to say I shouldn’t be in business. " see http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/11/19/yet-another-solo12-recap-part2/ ). I shall provide additional technical justification shortly. In short STM publishers do not add technical value in scientific production - they destroy it. P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
