> > 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. But in pure maths this has only ever been seriously attempted by Math Reviews and Zentralblatt; and both of these, although naturally having close connections with publishing, are clearly part of the mathematical community and employi at senior levels academic mathematicians rather than "publishers". I have no idea if this yet another way in which maths is "different" but that concept is not at all new to me; it is a daily part of my working life as I represent the species in an institution which necessarily (and very effectively) standardises anything that moves (or at least anything that costs money). 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 idea of MathML came to fruition (NOTE: I am not claiming that MathML, 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. chris