| Previous by Date |
Index by Date
Threaded Index |
Next by Date |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Thread | Next by Thread |
Re: ILL & License
We are getting at the difficult essence of the matter it seems to me. We the librarians,the publishers, the academic societies, etc. may have reached an accuracy with our statistics that obscures another essential aspect: because we have been able to detect, through our many studies, that most articles in most journals are never read, or read only seldom, that they are not necessary. And I realize that no- one has been trying to make that argument in this discussion. Still I would argue that they are evidence of the living process of science, just as our redundant neurons, etc are a part of a living organism. That redundancy, multiple statements of similar hypotheses, etc are vitally necessary to the scientific process, and to the whole endeavor and construct of science. That there are and will be few whose clarity, accuracy, and original concatentations of thought take science forward in small or large steps but that these would not probably exist at all except in the great ferment, the great background noise of the voices and thoughts of the many, expressed in one form in the scientific literature. That original work in this process sometimes has delayed or debated recognition, and may be ignored for some period, and rediscovered later when the science catches up to it. I know this is not news to you, my colleagues, but I hope it will not be ignored as budgets and bean counting pressure us all. K. Halcrow C.R. Drew Univ. Los Angeles
|
http://www.library.yale.edu/liblicense © 1996, 1997 Yale University Library |
Please read our Disclaimer E-mail us with feedback |
|