On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Arthur Smith wrote:
> It is all well and good to say "of course peer review will be available",
> but peer review is expensive and the model you have proposed for a journal
> based on the xxx archives does not seem to be in any way viable as
> a purely electronic entity.
Please explain why peer review is expensive? The reviewers don't get paid
(at least in my field: psychology). If the submissions and reviews are
sent via e-mail, there are no paper, printing, or postage costs. (There
are some costs, of course, associated with maintaining the required
additional electronic communication services, but these are a miniscule
fraction of a university's--or other corporation's--general computing
costs.) Even journal editors often only receive honoraria of a few
thousand dollars per year. Surely peer review is one of the least
expensive parts of a conventional journal's operation (compared with, say,
the costs associated with printing and posting the individual issues).
> What's so special about a truly electronic-only journal? It merely
> eliminates one of the production and distribution pieces of the process.
> Prior to production, the same automation efficiencies are
> available whether or not you produce a print version. The majority
> of users of electronic journals print out a copy of articles they
> are interested in - does that make every electronic journal not
> electronic-only?
Perhaps (though this may well change as screens improve). And in any case,
they print ONLY those articles they want, not every article the journal
publishes.
Regards,
Christopher D. Green office: (416) 736-5115 ext. 66164
Department of Psychology FAX: (416) 736-5814
York University
Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3 e-mail: christo_at_yorku.ca
CANADA
http://www.yorku.ca/faculty/academic/christo
Received on Tue Aug 25 1998 - 19:17:43 BST