Dorothea found an intriguing survey - If it's not online... - in which physicists and astronomers say, pretty much, that 'if an article is not online then it is not worth the effort to obtain it'.
An interesting discussion (with a couple of more links added by others) ensued here.
What do you assume if a paper is not online? Do you track it down anyway? What are your criteria for choosing to do so?
- Log in to post comments
This is nonsense. There is little correlation between online availability and quality in my experience. Personally, I always track the reference down. In my field, it seems that all the best papers were written in the 70's, but hardly anyone knows about them. Reading them is one of the things that gives me an edge.
In paleontology (in which decades- or century-old research is still quite relevant and important), it's still essential to go to the library. I understand that things are different in fields such as optical physics (where some research tools have only been around for a few years), but in a field like paleontology, a historical context is essential. Of course, it's always easier when the old papers are on-line! (and sometimes, I'll even find old goodies that were missed by the paper-based indexing services).
It is the other side of the same coin as Matthew Effect. I read 19th century paper if I thought they would be useful, so I do not understand this mindset at all.
I can understand tracking down the source in print if you're doing research in a given field. However if, like me, you wish to educate yourself outside fields you work in, as a private citizen rather than a professional, journals can prove to be too expensive. Making serious scientific research available to everyone who wants to read it is important, and the move to open publication on the web is something I really approve of.
Of course it's nonsense, Dr. Leifer, but it's a fascinating and possibly-useful perception! Do we argue with it, or sort out how to use it?