<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Stevan Harnad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com" target="_blank">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><b>Preamble:</b> If you wish to sample some of the most absurd, incoherent, pseudo-legal gibberish on the subject of "rights" retention, "systematicity" and free will, please have a look at what follows under "<a href="http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/postingpolicy" style="color:rgb(0,51,102)" target="_blank"><b>Elsevier Article Posting Policies</b></a>" below. (And bear in mind that an institution only provides a tiny fraction of any journal's content.) <br clear="all">
</div></blockquote><div><br>I completely agree. Elsevier reuse "terms and conditions" on websites are also self-contradictory and often uninterpretable. <br><br>Just as seriously the process of converting an author's manuscript to the "final version of record" often destroys scientific information and is seriously un-accessible (e.g. to unsighted humans and certainly machines). <a href="http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/11/23/ami2-opencontentmining-ami-reports-progress-on-pdf2svg-and-svgplus-the-standard-of-stm-publishing/">http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/11/23/ami2-opencontentmining-ami-reports-progress-on-pdf2svg-and-svgplus-the-standard-of-stm-publishing/</a> . The idea that publishers "improve" quality by typsetting, formatting, etc. is a myth - information is usually destroyed. I would suggest that the author version should be regarded as the end product, not the publishers.<br>
<br>Kaveh Bazargan, who runs a STM typesetting company, has (bravely) castigated the STM publishers' typesetting process ("It’s madness really. I’m here to say I shouldn’t be in business. " see <a href="http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/11/19/yet-another-solo12-recap-part2/">http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/11/19/yet-another-solo12-recap-part2/</a> ). I shall provide additional technical justification shortly. <br>
<br>In short STM publishers do not add technical value in scientific production - they destroy it.<br><br></div></div>P.<br><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>
University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069<br>