FURTHER TO THE SBL-SEMINAR-PAPER CITATION CONTROVERSY, which I started a while ago, I've been meaning to note that Paul Nikkel of Deinde has also weighed in on the subject ("Opening access while restricting interaction with papers of a 'provisional' nature discourages dialogue at the point where it is most valuable and fruitful."). And now Mark Goodacre notes that AKMA has posted on it as well ("I�m firmly in the camp of those who regard this as a spasmodic contraction of the failing muscles of the moribund model of print publication"). Near as I can tell, the blogging contingent of the SBL membership agree that the new SBL policy on citation of Seminar Papers is ill conceived and counterproductive. I'm disappointed that the Society hasn't taken the opportunity to discuss this with us more.