Chris Rowley writes:
> > No. You can't review articles.
> What???? We can, and do, all the time. You may really mean we cannot
> (without some cost) administer this process.
> > You can't provide easy searching and access
> > to all articles in an area.
> This is certainly something that should be provided a t a reasonable
> cost by the correct type of organisation.
it baffles me why academic mathematicians feel able to turn into
economists at the drop of a \hat. you concede that the things you want
done cost money, but then you blame publishers for providing the
service and charging you. sadly, we dont live in a socialist world, so
probably not worth shedding crocodile tears for an ideal world that we
have *did* exist
> close connections with publishing, are clearly part of the mathematical
> community and employi at senior levels academic mathematicians rather
> than "publishers".
i am sure the senior publishers at places like this are happy to have
their academic backgrounds dismissed so lightly
> I do know that maths is very different in the requirements it makes of
> intra-document search engines. This is one, of many, reasons why the
in what are you different from chemists or physicists, to name but two
> as is, has delivered what is needed in this area). And again, here,
> it seems unlikely that, even given the right languages/tools,
> publishers will be able to provide useful added-value in this area
> without using specialised mathematicians to encode documents.
we have those "specialised mathematicians", thanks, they are called