Re: L.Rev (C) Release

On 11/1/99, Harold Federow <haroldf[_at_]bsquare.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 1999, Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Richard Schafer <schafer[_at_]mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Although I can't speak for that particular journal, as a former
> > > journal editor I can make some guesses:
> > >
> > > 1. Journals really want to be the first to publish articles. We
> > > would refuse out of hand any submission that had ever been
> > > published elsewhere, including on a website.
> > >
> > *********
> >
> > This is very interesting, since I and virtually everyone else I know
> > put up draft working papers on the Web in order to get comments on
> > our work. In fact, there is an organization (SSRN) which has over
> > 11,000 draft papers on the Web at last count.
>
> Circulating preprints was one of the first uses of the Web!

But no innovation. Informal communications in the form of letters or preprints circulated since before the PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS and never stopped. The important difference is that someone other than the author invests in formal publication based on its excellence and the notion that customers will pay for information that has achieved editorial recognition.

In the 1960s, NIH and AEC both attempted systematic circulation of (mimeographed) preprints and were soundly rebuffed for filling mailboxes with sludge.

Any number of studies have noted that many conference papers -- another type of informal communication -- are never followed by journal articles. No real study has been done to define and isolate reasons why, but it seems likely that authors realize the work will not make it through peer review.

Albert Henderson
Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
<70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Tue Nov 02 1999 - 02:57:22 GMT