Dorothea posted about this, too, and I posted earlier. Also an interesting comment from Claudia on friendfeed. DrugMonkey's comment on my post and my re-reading of the editorial (readability helps and it appears to be freely available) brings up more questions than it answers. Specifically, I'm thinking that the disciplinary differences in what supplemental materials contain and how they're treated might be important.
Here are some questions:
- What is in the supplemental material? Just data? More calculations or derivations of equations? Multimedia (which will actually be moved into the text for the Journal of Neuroscience - a pdf with a video in it, security holes, anyone? preservation concerns anyone? maybe)
- To what extent are these materials peer reviewed?
- If they are peer reviewed, are the reviewers given separate criteria or are they to use the criteria set out for the text?
- According to the comments and the editorial, reviewers required supplemental material (and additions thereto). Is that right? Typical? Good?
It seems like I've been considering the problem as if we were talking about data tables or calculations/derivations, and that these things weren't reviewed the same way.
Oh and other random points occuring to me now:
- if you get the article via interlibrary loan, you don't get the supplemental materials, right?
- if you get the article via aggregator, you don't get the supplemental materials, right?
- what about videos - they won't come through Illiad - will the journal allow for some way to lend them? Will they come through in aggregators?
- as Dorothea mentions, will this encourage authors to archive in their local repositories or to just chuck the files under the desk and lose them? (the editorial hopes for more disciplinary repositories - so that could be a net win)