A debate on preprint exchange—Con: Criticism of the proposed Physics Information Exchange

JUN 01, 1966

Con: Criticism of the Proposed Physics Information Exchange

Simon Pasternack

I AM CONVINCED that the Physics Information Exchange (PIE) proposed by Moravcsik constitutes a serious threat to physics communication and to the physics research community. In the name of improved physics communication it would undertake to distribute an unedited, unrefereed, uncontrolled collection of documents many times larger than any physics journal. It would have a blanket exemption from the regulations of the physics journals, from the real needs of research physicists, from economic reality and from the integrity of the English language.

This article is only available in PDF format

References

1. COSATI Report PB 168 267 (AD 624 560), “Recommendations for National Document Handling Systems in Science and Technology,” available from Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, US Department of Commerce, Springfield, Va. 22151
2. S. Keenan, P. A. Atherton, The Journal Literature of Physics, AIP/DRP PA1 (1964).
3. D. E. Green, Science 143, 308 (1964); https://doi.org/SCIEAS
D. E. Green, 148, 1543 (1965); https://doi.org/SCIEAS , Science
E. C. Albritton, private communication.
4. S. Pasternack, PHYSICS TODAY 19, no. 5, 38 (1966).https://doi.org/PHTOAD
5. M. J. Moravcsik, PHYSICS TODAY 18, no. 3, 23 (1965).https://doi.org/PHTOAD

More about the authors

Simon Pasternack, The Physical Review.