>   I think if you are going to investigate the quality of the product
> empirically you are going to have to start with a set of null
> hypotheses
> and suspicion of Elsevier's game plan is one acceptable catalyst for
> same.  Charity is a virtue, but so is prudence.

The key word there is "catalyst."  By no means am I saying that we
shouldn't be suspicious of Scopus.  Please, be suspicious.  What I _am_
saying is that expressing suspicion about Scopus is not the same thing
as actually advancing an argument about it.

Suspicion is a feeling about what one's opinion might be if one took the
trouble to actually examine the product.  Saying "I'm suspicious" isn't
very useful.  Examining the product and then expressing an informed
opinion, on the other hand, is.

OK, I'm done.

----
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
(775) 784-6500 x273
rickand@unr.edu