Sunday, August 3, 2003

NY Times: In DSpace, Ideas Are Forever. [Scripting News] The article accepts a false contrast between institutional repositories like DSpace and refereed publication. Keepers of print journal monopoly like the editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine quoted in the article predictably repeat standard FUD about the danger of “premature findings” in material that is supposedly not “rigorously reviewed.” They do not explain how free net distribution precludes rigorous reviewing, either in e-journals like JMLR or in peer-reviewing overlays for existing repositories, with accuracy and persistence guaranteed by straightforward technical means (crypto checksums, backup archives). Most of the content of scientific journals is created by academics, reviewed by academics, and read by academics. The print journal middleman adds decreasing value to the process, and extracts monopoly rents. University libraries are in the business of archiving the most important scholarly materials and making them available a broad community. By diverting some of what they pay in monopoly rents to supporting repositories and e-journals, they could increase the flow of scholarly communication without increasing costs. That is, they can increase their productivity and address better the needs of their customers. 11:31:55 AM