On Mar 8, 12:49 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

THe only thing I've personally read was his survey book
with Michaels. I would be interested in more myself.
Sadly - and to my surprise - I've discovered that most
scientific journals have not yet discovered the power
of open publication on the web, so it's hard to get
to primary sources.

This may come as a shock to you but the journals
support themselves by selling subscriptions and
reprints. Some do carry advertisements, but their
circulation is too small for advertising revenues
to be a major income stream.

That may be a good thing, as it allows the
journals to maintain editorial independence.
Imagine, if you will, the chilling effect on academic
publication if the journals had to rely on grants
from government, industry and philanthropists.

Consider how Reader's Digest quit carrying
anti-smoking articles and the New York Times
quite carrying advertisements for programs
to help people stop smoking after RJ Reynolds
bought up some of their major advertisers like
del Monte and Nabisco.

I thought this was not the case, but
was challenged by someone else and when I looked ... they
were (mostly) right. Unless you have large bags of money,
good luck getting access to the papers in any convenient way.


I do agree that scientific publication is an
area in which collectivism has its merits.
Fortunately that collectivist spirit s manifest
in the United States in institutions called libraries.
While I am fortunate to have access to an
excellent science library within waling distance
of my home, most readers have ready access
to one or more major University Libraries.

I have never found a University Library that was not
open to the public.

--

FF