Re: Web-available manuscript

[Tompaleo@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 96-01-30 20:15:16 EST, you write:

>A comment on Stefan Bengston's comments on Internet posting of manuscripts.
>I do believe that Richard stated that the manuscript should be cited (if at
>all) as "personal communication". Obviously the intent is not to circumvent
>the "normal" peer review process, but rather to make manuscripts available
>to interested colleagues sooner than 2-3 years after preparation. Of course
>peer review has to continue, for purposes of noise reduction in the
>published literature. But this format is not published literature; it is a
>new twist on personal communication. Given the ability to reach many
>interested persons almost instantly via the Internet, I see no reason why it
>should not be used in this manner. 

I have been pondering this for some time. I completely agree that peer review
should and must continue but I also see no reason why a manuscript or
abstract of same should not be posted regardless of it's "status". My only
caveat to this would be that a disclaimer be posted which specifically states
that if the particular paper is "in press" , "under peer review" , and/or
"personal communication"  etc., should be  BOLDLY printed in the beginning of
the text prior to posting on the net (sensu lato). In order to keep the
"lunatic fringe" at bay, maybe one should post his or her paper ONLY to that
mailing list to which the paper has relavence and only place the same paper
on the WEB (implicating a wider audience) after it is "officially" accepted
but not yet published, and even after ist has been to reach that wider
audience. 

If you think about it, right now the peer review process is at work on this
and other mailing lists. For the most part, they are made up of professionals
and serious non-professionals who collectively contribute to the list.
Generally, such contributions are posted to the _entire_ list and therefore
are subject to peer review by virtue of the membership of that list has.
Flames can be regarded as repudiation of someone's "paper" (posting) or
general acceptance is rendered in the form of "good reviews" from major
members of said list. These are of course extremes but they illustrate the
point just as any replies regardless of position, to this posting of mine,
are subject to review of my peers on this list. The only drawback that I can
envision is the definition of a "peer" on the NET.  Regardless, a separate
section of the bibliography could be set aside that is dedicated  to "Data or
Information obtained via the Internet"  with a full citation as is the case
with printed material.

The key to keeping this forum on a level commensurate with the expertise and
professionalsm found in the traditional peer review process is the disclaimer
and the bibliography!

IMHO!

Regards,
Thomas R. Lipka
Paleontological/Geological Studies