« Califa posted presentations/handouts from its recent digitization symposium | Main | More attacks on institutional copyfraud »


I, too, had wondered why anyone was asking permission of the transcriber to quote from transcripts--and actually hiring someone to do the same work over again (one wonders if they made the new transcriber sign a work for hire contract . . .)! Thank you for confirming my thoughts on this.

I honestly don't know. I'm assuming there are additional guidelines sent to Klingman after he made the submission. My limited knowledge of the AHR doesn't include that information, sadly.

My guess as to why it's in place is to prevent the peer review process from taking place in the New York Times.

Still, somebody needs to ask Rob Schneider about this. And that somebody needs not to be me, because my being an IU grad student is a massive conflict of interest.

Interesting. So where is that policy articulated? And why is it in place?

I know that medical journals maintain that they don't want incomplete reports getting out that could harm the general public (though cynics think that it is primarily commercial motivations that are driving them). But shouldn't Klingman be able to put his unrefereed manuscript on a public server and solicit comments if he wants? And shouldn't he be able to talk to the NY Times about his research if he wants? Why should the AHR care?

The AHR policy, as I understand it, wouldn't prevent Klingman from sharing his article with colleagues or presenting part of it as a conference paper. I do think it would keep him from telling the NYT about it, though.

The comments to this entry are closed.