On 12/09/2007, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand why we're promoting JSTOR, rather than linking to the journal directly?
JSTOR's main value (as far as I'm aware; I've never had to use it) is for its vast archives of older material, not for contemporary scientific literature; "linking to the journal" is pretty futile for, say, 1930s economics. It's not quite the same situation as, say, the Springer databases.
We should certainly cite the journal article itself properly, and other than through laziness I don't think anyone really challenges this. A JSTOR link is a bonus, but it's not one of many options; there is this link or, in 95% of cases, there is no link. Take your pick.