Your response to my message about forgetting the importance of editors is completely off. I understand perfectly well that: sh&gt; My [i.e. Harnad's] recommended correction was to drop peer review reform sh&gt; AND to make it explicit that a SELF-ARCHIVE was precisely what sh&gt; E-biomed was to be (in the first instance), exactly as LANL is a sh&gt; self-archive. AND, most important of all (and systematically not sh&gt; taken into account in any of Joseph's comments), a self-archive sh&gt; not only for the unrefereed preprint literature but for the REFEREED sh&gt; reprint literature (exactly as LANL is, and has been from its very sh&gt; inception, as Paul Ginsparg's recent posting has reminded us). And the latter is taken into account in my comments. And you are way off-base in saying: sh&gt; Joseph's imagination is taken up with the OTHER side of sh&gt; self-archiving, the unrefereed preprints. And insufferably so with this: sh&gt; I do think I recognize (from 20 years' of editing) the core sh&gt; of Joseph's grievance. It is the single aggrieved author's sh&gt; viewpoint (analogous to the single aggrieved student's sh&gt; viewpoint, when he feels that a test has not been a proper sh&gt; measure of his proficiency or performance). This is ad hominem discreditation, based on nothing, and completely beneath you and your position. I think it would be in order for you to apologize for that, after which you might reread what I said in view of the fact that I am not laboring under the