In article <2uu3qu$m8h at pobox.csc.fi> harper at convex.csc.FI (Rob Harper) writes:
>>I recently gave a talk to some publishers in Holland and they were
...
>They made a very strong case for peer review and quality. It was argued
>that no matter how many articles you published on the net, funding bodies
>would not take them seriously. Whereas publishing in an established
>journal has much more weight than publishing on the network, when it
>comes to persuasive power.
I'm trying to get grant funding for IUBio archive. Essentially all
the references to my work are URLs to electronic publications. Though
I don't have great hopes for this proposal, if grant agencies don't
recognize electronic publications when dealing with bioinformatics
research, then that field at least is in trouble.
I also agree that we are going to see more scholarly publications by
biologists in the form of network hypertext documents. These will be read
and *used* by other biologists, in part because they can provide continually
updated information (links to databases). These e-papers will have to at
some point be acknowledged by funding bodies. My guess is that funders
will be ahead of paper publishers in recognizing the importance of
electronic publishing.
-- Don
Plug: The network-rich-text software I've been working on recently
is much more suited to electronic publishing of biology documents
than is Mosaic/HTML, since it includes the ability to display symbols,
super/subscripts, multiple fonts, and all sorts of complex formatting
as you see in printed publications. The URL to this is
<ftp://ftp.bio.indiana.edu/util/dclap/apps/gopherpup/>
--
-- d.gilbert--biocomputing--indiana u--bloomington--gilbertd at bio.indiana.edu
