[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Elsevier's Vanishing Act
- To: reedelscustomers@lists.cc.utexas.edu
- Subject: Re: Elsevier's Vanishing Act
- From: David Goodman <dgoodman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:45:40 EST
- Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
My good friend Anthony has kindly provided exactly the illustration I needed. His description below is a very good account of the kind of inadequate editing and reviewing that I had in mind. In fact, for at least one the articles involved, it corresponds very closely to what I have been told actually happened, where the article was self-invited, self-refereed, and self-edited. As for copyright infringement, I believe one of the roles of reviewers, in particular, is to be aware of material on the subject that has been previously published. The editor selects the reviewers. Dr. David Goodman Princeton University and Palmer School of Library and Information Science, LIU dgoodman@princeton.edu
- Prev by Date: Re: VPN and Electronic Licenses
- Next by Date: ALCTS SS Journal Costs in Libraries DG
- Prev by thread: Re: Elsevier's Vanishing Act
- Next by thread: Re: Elsevier's Vanishing Act
- Index(es):