RE: Questions: RE: Vanishing Act -- continued

[David Goodman <dgoodman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>]

I appreciate Stephen's thoughtful comments, which dexhibit a commendable
realism.

I note, however, that every last one of the recent cases for which data
was available involving Elsevier was one where there appears to have been
no legal necessity for removing the article that was demonstrated.

I regret that this discussion has so greatly focused on Elsevier--I agree
there is no evidence that its standards are worse in general than those of
others. In fact, if anyone knows of corresponding items elsewhere, they
should make the list aware.

In the more general matter, Stephen's final proposal may indeed be the
only feasible solution, especially when international issues are involved.
If we cannot maintain academic freedom in one country, maybe we can in
another.

Speaking personally,

Dr. David Goodman
Princeton University Library
and
Palmer School of Library and Information Science, LIU
dgoodman@princeton.edu

____

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003
stephen.barr@sagepub.co.uk wrote:

> ...  Alternatively, the record should be protected by other means, for 
> example in the kind of distributed archiving envisaged in the LOCKSS 
> proposal.
>
> Stephen