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 obvious examples? > 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 "authors" :-} sebastian