VPIEJ-L 10/93
VPIEJ-L Discussion Archives
October 1993
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 09:43:27 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Debby Morley <dgm@ecsvax.bitnet>
Subject: Ejournal Index
How does one determine if and where a particular ejournal is indexed? Please
respond to me directly and I'll post a summary of responses to the list.
Thanks in advance,
--
- Debby
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Debby Morley
Information Resources Consultant
University of North Carolina - Educational Computing Service
UNC Educational Computing Service voice (919) 549-0671
P.O. Box 12035 - 2 Davis Drive in NC 1-800-672-8244
State Courier 59-01-02 FAX (919) 549-0777
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2035 dgm@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 09:44:32 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: andy2@violet.berkeley.edu
Subject: on-line editing
At the University of California Press we've been editing books
on-line for a couple of years. We're now starting to edit journals
on-line as well.
Why? For one thing, we save very large amounts of money in composition.
For another, we're getting into electronic publishing and we need
the kinds of files we can get this way.
How? We get authors' disks, translate them to our word processor
of choice (currently XyWrite for DOS, Word for Mac; WordPerfect
and Word for Windows are on the agenda); strip out all the garbage
and translate non-ASCII characters to ASCII codes; and globally
insert generic coding/keymarking. Freelance copy editors edit
on-line. We print out (in colors) and send the hard copy to the
author. (Sending the disk is almost always a BIG BIG mistake. The
author will make silent changes that undermine your editing.) The copy
editor inputs the author's changes and gives us a clean set of files,
which can be used either by conventional compositors or desktop
publishers.
We use redlining with XyWrite, the DocuComp compare function with
Mac Word.
We get low composition costs, cleaner proofs, less work in-house
= lower overhead, and archivable/reusable ASCII and PostScript
files.
Try it; you'll like it.
Jane-Ellen Long
University of California Press
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 09:45:30 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "EDWARD M. (TED) JENNINGS" <jennings@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Re: onscreen editing
About editing electronically -- We don't worry about seeing the
"original" and the changes at the same time. Put the e-mailed file on
the screen, edit it, send it back to the author for further
modifications. Keep "negotiating" until the satisfaction and fatigue
vectors cross. Stop. Publish. I wouldn't dare assert that this
approach is absolutely satisfactory to all authors and readers, but
there has been no rebellion yet. Ted Jennings, _EJournal_
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 08:32:06 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Prentiss Riddle <riddle@is.rice.edu>
Subject: Software for automated e-print submissions?
[Apologies if you've seen this elsewhere.]
A professor here at Rice is putting together an electronic preprint or
"e-print" service in his field, and he's looking for software with
which to automate submissions.
The only model we've run across is the software developed by Paul
Ginsparg of LANL and used as the basis of a number of ground-breaking
e-print services. Unfortunately, the LANL software is undergoing
revision prior to being more widely released and the professor is not
sure he can wait for it.
Has anyone else put together a good package for automating e-print
submissions? Our "wish list" of features is rather extensive (but we'd
probably settle for a subset of these):
-- Fully automated (human intervention only when there's trouble)
-- Submissions by either mail or anonymous FTP
-- Puts submissions into an archive suitable for retrieval by
mail, FTP, Gopher and possibly WAIS
-- Multiple categories of submissions: papers, software and "data"
-- Requires papers to be submitted with an accompanying template
containing author, title, abstract, etc.
-- Enforces some sort of reasonable naming convention as files are
added to the archive
-- Accepts papers in PostScript, TeX, and/or other formats
-- Handles submissions and retrievals which require compression,
uuencoding, and/or splitting into multiple pieces
If nothing is readily available to do most of this, we may be forced to
roll our own, which is almost certainly going to be expensive and
time-consuming. Pointers to any reasonable solution gratefully
accepted.
Please reply by *MAIL* and I will summarize. Thanks.
-- Prentiss Riddle ("aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada") riddle@rice.edu
-- Systems Programmer, Office of Networking Services
-- Rice University, POB 1892, Houston, TX 77251 / Mudd 208 / 713-285-5327
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 08:33:38 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Rich Wiggins <wiggins@msu.bitnet>
Subject: Re: onscreen editing
In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 1 Oct 1993 09:45:30 EDT from <jennings@albnyvms>
>About editing electronically -- We don't worry about seeing the
>"original" and the changes at the same time. Put the e-mailed file on
>the screen, edit it, send it back to the author for further
>modifications. Keep "negotiating" until the satisfaction and fatigue
>vectors cross. Stop. Publish. I wouldn't dare assert that this approach
>is absolutely satisfactory to all authors and readers, but there has
>been no rebellion yet. Ted Jennings, _EJournal_
Have any of you online editing pioneers used any form of multimedia
e-mail for this function? Earlier this year I wrote a paper on Gopher
which I submitted to a few folks for review. Since one of my
correspondents also uses a Next workstation, I asked him to comment
using voice. His first message was "Gee I feel uncomfortable doing this"
but his later remarks were just fine -- they appear right in context
next to the passage in question, and you get the friendliness of
inflection instead of the coldness of bold red ink.
I have heard of other examples of this -- a college that uses Nextmail
in its legal office. Lawyers dictate their briefs via Nextmail, and
amend drafts with inline voice annotations. And in some places
apparently college professors are using inline annotation to send
comments with graded term papers, in place of illegible marginalia.
Does this sound practical to any editors out there? I realize a lot of
editing is technical (and uses its own markup) but this seems very
appealing for the "negotiating" model described above. With MIME coming
to a desktop near you this could revolutionize the process it seems.
/Rich Wiggins, Gopher Coordinator, Michigan State U
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 08:34:40 EDT
Reply-To: "David H. Rothman" <drothman@access.digex.net>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "David H. Rothman" <drothman@access.digex.net>
Subject: Of Trolleys and Savage Inequalities (Re: Ken Dowlin Paper)
In-Reply-To: <199310021403.AA04186@access.digex.net>
My thanks to Katherine Wingerson (katew@info.berkeley.edu) for sharing
with me Ken Dowlin's interesting new paper, "Global Village
Library/Community Electronic Information Infrastructure." I agree with
much of what he says. Even so, he may want to reconsider a few of the
statements he has made, especially his *possible* skepticism toward a
central national library online. As one of the country's top
librarians--he is city librarian for the city and county of San
Francisco--he has a wonderful chance to fight for a virtual national
library for rich and poor alike. Do we really want to replicate online the
"savage inequalities" of America's schools? Without a central library of
the kind that I've described, we indeed will. Just as important,
regardless of current fads, some good technical and legal arguments exist
for a virtual central approach (combined with, yes, the opportunity for
servers to operate independently on a sister network). I hope that Kenneth
Dowlin will clarify his thoughts, distinguish between national and
international central databases and endorse the concept of a *national*
library online--full of free or low-cost books and educational software,
and perhaps other media as well.
>...The local libraries inter-connected with a sophisticated
>navigation system will become a Global Village Library. This is in
>contrast to the view of some technologists who believe that there is
>need for one gigantic electronic library in a central location. Not only is
>the one gigantic electronic library impractical, it is undesirable. The
>world is not homogeneous and we should not wish it so.
I myself favor a mix of Internet-style servers and a powerful, easy-to-use
*national* library--a form of electronic federalism. The big library could
pick up the best technology and some content from the servers. We could
replicate the virtual central library at different locations for
security's sake, and also to reduce communications costs. Remember how
many Americans once could go a good distance by following one trolley line
to the next? It was a fine system, but no replacement for express trains.
We need both trolleys and trains. Alas, much of the time, when I board a
trolley on today's Internet, it goes nowhere. I may get a message saying
that a server is down, or that the material is not available to me
(perhaps for copyright-related reasons). I'm also irked by slow-responding
servers. A virtual central database, on the other hand, could maintain
standards better and be more easily upgraded as technology progressed.
Response time is important to computer professionals and civilians alike.
Please note that I haven't the slightest problem with the central database
using distributed technology if that leads to more speed; I'm not as
doctrinaire as some of the more zealous of the boosters of autonomous,
servers. Let's pick up the best of both approaches!
As for the cultural question, who says that central libraries can be only
at the international level? What if they are national instead? And
suppose that local and university librarians, using federal money, but
working within their own allotments, can help choose books qualifying for
royalties from the national database. If anything, local authors in San
Francisco and other cities would fare much better than now. They could get
published more easily than under the present system, in which so many
houses are fixated on best-seller lists and national and international
markets. Isn't *content* one of the best ways of reflecting local
sensibilities? And couldn't this system give San Francisco authors a
better shot at a truly national market (and perhaps a global one, too,
since interested nations could exchange books and whole libraries)?
Moreover, with a giant central library for rich and poor alike, we'll
stand less chance of replicating online the "savage inequalities" of the
American school system. Otherwise the middle and upper classes will favor
their own private alternatives and neglect the poor. If nothing else,
libraries in Bethesda and Beverly Hills might enjoy better funding for
online acquisitions and services than those in Anacostia and Watts.
Those problems are not abstract to me. I see what the world of paper books
is like. I live in Alexandria, Va., where the public libraries have a
horribly limited selection of books, and where many on high-tech topics
are obsolete. I pity the students here without easy transportation to
better-off suburban libraries. Unless libraries could freely share online
holdings without copyright worries, Ken Dowlin's approach just would not
work. The Alexandria kids couldn't dial up the same material as those in
Fairfax County.
That leads to the issue of just how authors and publishers be compensated
and protected? To Ken Dowlin's credit, he admits that his vision does not
include "a system to deal with copyright and dissemination that protects
the ownership of information and knowledge in an electronic display." Hold
on a moment. As the author of six books, you can bet I have a slight
interest in the above. Other people do, too--Random House, Time Warner,
Knight-Ridder and the rest.
Certainly piracy of electronic books will be rampant, especially as net
bandwidths increase, unless we reduce the financial incentive for
bootlegging. That means a central database funded by general revenue.
Encryption alone won't work, since bootleggers can make illegal copies of
legal copies; never underestimate human ingenuity, even with precautions.
Just look at the copies spread of a recent novel that was supposed to
self-destruct when read off a disk. Technology is too quirky and
unpredictable to base intellectual protection on hardware or software
exclusively. Already some hackers are talking about digital collectives to
systematically break copyright laws; how could this *not* happen? I'm a
little baffled: Some "free market" zealots build their system around a
faith in human greed, but trust booklovers to overcome the natural
tendency to share books with friends. I hope that people influencing the
NII won't be so naive when they discuss protection.
Meanwhile I notice that an online bookstore wants readers to pay $5 to
download a 25-page short story from Stephen King, and I suspect that
bootlegging could be one reason for this outrageous price. I don't blame
the bookstore; how frustrating it is that honest customers must subsidize
bootleggers. We return, too, to those pesky "savage inequalities." When
trying to get children to enjoy books, do we really want the meter running
at 20 cents a page? Stephen King just might be the author whose works most
excited a young reader, and I know I don't have to tell Ken Dowlin about
the relationship between recreational reading and reading skills in
general. Without the central database, we'll have more of this.
An aside: The existence of a central library wouldn't rule out vendors'
publishing paper books or setting up their own databases. I suspect,
however, that in most cases, companies would make more money by focusing
on the big national library. If censorship problems arose, some Lyle
Stuart-style publishers could do very well with their own networks. I
myself, however, suspect that with a system of many librarians involved
with the central library, there would be more diversity and freedom of
expression than today. Presently the marketers reign supreme, and many
publishers won't publish an idea-focused book unless the author is a
politician or talk-show host. Rush Limbaugh is the publishing world's gift
to itself.
>He directs twenty-seven facilities with a $21 million operating budget.
>Projects currently in progress include the supervision of the building of
>a $140 milllion New Main Library and $20 million in capital improvement
>in the branch libraries. The New Main Library will be a 370,000 square
>foot building, doubling the size of the current Main...
While the $140-million building may be necessary today (given the
*current* state of technology), it should not be a source of pride but
rather a source of frustration. The $140 million could have bought more
than 140,000 portable computers even at today's prices. It could have paid
the advances on at least 20,000 first novels or have purchased tens of
thousands of new paper books, magazines and professional journals.
Attention, NPR folks and local equivalents: Are you tuned in?
I can see the need for $140-million libraries now; I don't know about the
future. Much of the money might better go toward small neighborhood branch
libraries--offering in-person advice and encouragement to children and
other people who want to dial up books from home. Talk about the need for
decentralization!
****************************************************************************
Anyone interested in my own views on electronic books and the rest may
e-mail me for a copy of teleread.txt (150K); I can send it in a flash.
Expanded from articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere, TeleRead
reflects my perspective as both a former poverty beat reporter and the
author of a book on portable computer technology. Although written for
American readers, TeleRead should also be of interest outside the U.S.,
especially in this era of international copyright law.
TeleRead addresses not only copyright issues, but also some nasty fiscal
ones. I tell how to work toward universal availability of powerful,
sharp-screened computers fit for reading, writing and other serious work.
Among other things, I note that the widespread use of intelligent electronic
forms could reduce the hundreds of billions of dollars in time and money
that Americans spend on paperwork for local, state and federal governments.
We could thereby cost-justify the database. I suggest that we all remember
an old principle of information management: multiple apps often make more
sense than individual ones considered alone. E-books could help justify
e-forms and vice versa. Isn't it time for the library community to link the
two issues together and associate electronic libraries with more efficient
government? What better way to build bridges to small business people and
others who on occasion question library spending?
____________________________________________________________________________
David H. Rothman "So we beat on, boats against
drothman@digex.net the current...."
805 N. Howard St., #240
Alexandria, Va. 22304
703-370-6540(o)(h)
____________________________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 08:10:49 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Regina R. Reynolds" <rrey@seq1.loc.gov>
Subject: Posting for VPIEJ-L
As head of the U.S. ISSN center (the National Serials Data Program at the
Library of Congress), I want to respond to some recent queries about the
ISSN application form. The simplest answer I can give is that anyone with
questions is always welcome to call us at (202) 707-6452. But I'll try to
provide a few more details in response to the specific questions.
In the box marked, "publisher," please supply the name of the organization
(commercial or otherwise) responsible for publishing the serial. If there is
no organization, the name of an individual, or the name of the journal can
be supplied. In the space marked, "subscription address," please indicate
where one could write in order to place a subscription. For e-serials,
please give us a mailing address as well as an electronic address.
For ISSN requests made prior to the publication of the first issue of a
serial, we suggest that a mock-up accompany your application form. For an
e-serial, a useful mock-up would consist of the title screen, the screen
that includes the serial's numberic or chronologic designation (i.e., date
or issue number) and any screens that give general information about how
to subscribe, frequency, publisher, etc. After publication, we need to
receive a sample issue. In the case of e-serials, you may send us a
printout of an issue or of the screens of an issue that provide the same
information outlined about for the mock-up. If your serial is available
over the Internet, you may send us instructions for accessing the serial
in order that we may confirm your assignment and complete a catalog
record for your title.
Although I have an Internet account and am happy to answer e-mail questions,
at present the logistics of our workflow and office situation are such that
we prefer not to receive ISSN applications or sample issues directly over
the Internet. If that situation changes in the future I'll post a message
to this and other appropriate lists.
Hope this is helpful. Keep those e-serials coming!
Regina Reynolds
Head, National Serials Data Program
Library of Congress
rrey@seq1.loc.gov
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 08:13:05 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: andy2@violet.berkeley.edu
Subject: on-screen editing
At the University of California Press we've been editing books
on-line for a couple of years. We're now starting to edit journals
on-line as well.
Why? For one thing, we save very large amounts of money in composition.
For another, we're getting into electronic publishing and we need
the kinds of files we can get this way.
How? We get authors' disks, translate them to our word processor
of choice (currently XyWrite for DOS, Word for Mac; WordPerfect
and Word for Windows are on the agenda); strip out all the garbage
and translate non-ASCII characters to ASCII codes; and globally
insert generic coding/keymarking. Freelance copy editors edit
on-line. We print out (in colors) and send the hard copy to the
author. (Sending the disk is almost always a BIG BIG mistake. The
author will make silent changes that undermine your editing.) The copy
editor inputs the author's changes and gives us a clean set of files,
which can be used either by conventional compositors or desktop
publishers.
We use redlining with XyWrite, the DocuComp compare function with
Mac Word.
We get low composition costs, cleaner proofs, less work in-house
= lower overhead, and archivable/reusable ASCII and PostScript
files.
Try it; you'll like it.
Jane-Ellen Long
University of California Press
andy2@violet.berkeley.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 08:38:51 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Ken Laws <laws@ai.sri.com>
Subject: Re: on-screen editing
In-Reply-To: <9310051232.AA17043@Sunset.AI.SRI.COM>
Someone mentioned that it would be nice if there were a Mac
word processor with redlining capability. I don't know about
that, but FullWrite Professional can mark edited lines with
change bars. It's a solid program with good outlining and
layout tools, quite adequate for simple desktop publishing.
and even book publishing. Unfortunately, it never achieved
much market share and is no longer sold through the discount
mail-order houses. The editor requires a fast Mac -- Mac II
or better -- with at least 2MB of RAM. It's also fairly
expensive.
-- Ken Laws
-------
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 08:21:07 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Elliott Parker <3ZLUFUR@CMUVM.BITNET>
Organization: Central Michigan University
Subject: Re: onscreen editing
In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 4 Oct 1993 08:33:38 EDT from <wiggins@msu>
On Mon, 4 Oct 1993 08:33:38 EDT Rich Wiggins said:
>
>Have any of you online editing pioneers used any form of multimedia
>e-mail for this function? Earlier this year I wrote a paper on Gopher
>which I submitted to a few folks for review. Since one of my
>correspondents also uses a Next workstation, I asked him to comment
>using voice. His first message was "Gee I feel uncomfortable doing this"
>but his later remarks were just fine -- they appear right in context
>next to the passage in question, and you get the friendliness of
>inflection instead of the coldness of bold red ink.
>
>
>Does this sound practical to any editors out there? I realize a lot of
>editing is technical (and uses its own markup) but this seems very
>appealing for the "negotiating" model described above. With MIME coming
>to a desktop near you this could revolutionize the process it seems.
>
Has anybody tried this with WordPerfect 6.0? Sound capability is
included, but I don't have the sound hardware to try it. I'm
assuming it would be transmittable just like any other WordPerfect
formatted file (as binary).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott Parker BITNET: 3ZLUFUR@CMUVM
Journalism Dept. Internet: 3zlufur@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu
Central Michigan University Compuserve: 70701,520
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859 USA The WELL: eparker@well.sf.ca.us
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 08:22:22 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Paula Presley <ad15%nemomus.bitnet@mizzou1.missouri.edu>
Subject: Re: on-screen editing
In-Reply-To: In reply to your message of WED 06 OCT 1993 06:38:51 CST
I may be coming in onthe tail end ofsomething... but I use FrameMaker
for desktop publishing. It has change bars... works great... I love it.
I use it with Mac system 7.0.1
Paula Presley
Assoc. Editor, The Thomas Jefferson University Press
Copy Editor, The Sixteenth Century Journal
Northeast Missouri State University
McClain Hall 111L
Kirksville, MO 63501
(816) 785-4525 FAX (816) 785-4181
Bitnet: AD15@NEMOMUS Internet: AD15%NEMOMUS@Academic.NEMOState.EDU
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 15:48:15 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Natalie S. King" <nking@wam.umd.edu>
Subject: OJCCT
There is currently a discussion on MEDLIB-L (a list for medical librarians)
about the Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials (OJCCT--a joint
publication of AAAS and OCLC). Overwhelmingly, respondents are
expressing disappointment with the product--both in use by patrons and
ease of use of the product itself. A number of librarians have indicated
that they will probably not re-subscribe. Since this is one of the only
e-journals with which I have direct experience, I'm wondering what success
other e-journals are having in libraries or out. In addition, (and I'm
*really* exposing my ignorance here) are most e-journals set up like
OJCCT (i.e., rather like a print journal with discreet peer-reviewed
articles published in a regular cycle; housed in a central location (OCLC)
which provides document delivery for a fee; subscription fee over $100)?
You can respond to me directly. Thanks. Natalie nk28@umail.umd.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 08:31:04 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: simpson@agnes.gsfc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: OJCCT
Can someone please explain what is disappointing about the electronic
journal on clinical trials? Why do not authors and subscribers like it?
What specific problems have been encountered other than excessive cost?
We in the earth sciences are desperately concerned to know because
four sister societies (American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological
Society, The Oceanography Society and the Ecological Society of America)
are joining forces to produce an all ejournal in earth sciences. This will
cost money from our funding agencies and our societies. We most surely do
not want to start prematurely or in a wrong direction. We need to learn
from other groups' experience. Please tell us what has gone awry? Joanne
Simpson, Publications Commissioner, American Meteorlogical Society
*****************************************************************
** Joanne Simpson Phone: (301) 286-8569
** Code 912 FAX: (301) 286-1762
** NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
** Greenbelt, MD 20771
** E-Mail: simpson@agnes.gsfc.nasa.gov
** gsfcmail: JSIMPSON
** Omnet: J.SIMPSON.GSFC
******************************************************************
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 08:31:46 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@princeton.edu>
Subject: Re: OJCCT
> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 15:48:15 EDT
> From: "Natalie S. King" <nking@wam.umd.edu>
>
> There is currently a discussion on MEDLIB-L (a list for medical librarians)
> about the Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials (OJCCT--a joint
> publication of AAAS and OCLC). Overwhelmingly, respondents are
> expressing disappointment with the product--both in use by patrons and
> ease of use of the product itself. A number of librarians have indicated
> that they will probably not re-subscribe. Since this is one of the only
> e-journals with which I have direct experience, I'm wondering what success
> other e-journals are having in libraries or out. In addition, (and I'm
> *really* exposing my ignorance here) are most e-journals set up like
> OJCCT (i.e., rather like a print journal with discreet peer-reviewed
> articles published in a regular cycle; housed in a central location (OCLC)
> which provides document delivery for a fee; subscription fee over $100)?
>
> You can respond to me directly. Thanks. Natalie nk28@umail.umd.edu
I'm responding to the list as a whole, because some of these issues are
of general interest. There have been different approaches to
implementing electronic journals. OCLC/AAAS consciously took one path
with OJCCT, and this was the path of making the journal emulate as many
of the features of paper journals as possible with current technology.
This they did admirably, but at a price (which is why it costs $100+),
and with only as much success as current technology allows.
PSYCOLOQUY, has taken the other path, not making any special effort to
emulate the features of paper (though psychology has the admitted
advantage of subject matter that is mainly textual). As a consequence,
the costs (generously subsidized for the first three years by the
American Psychological Association) are low enough so subscription is
free. Access (using the remarkable new search/retrieval tools that are
being perfected daily, such as gopher, archie, wais, veronica) is so
simple and convenient that more and more libraries (e.g., University of
Michigan, CICnet, WWW) are developing platforms for making PSYCOLOQUY
and the other free electronic scientific and scholarly journals
available to their readers for free.
It is too early to say yet which model -- paid/paper-like vs.
free/non-paper-like -- will prevail. The libraries' reaction to OJCCT,
if it is indeed as described here (I have not yet heard anything like
this elsewhere), may be a temporary one, part of the uncertainty and
indirection with which many are first reacting to this new medium.
Hybrid models are also on the way: MIT Press is beginning to publish an
electronic journal of computation whose papyrosimilitude is intermediate
between PSYCOLOQUY's and OJCCT's and its intermediate cost is being
borne by a consortium of libraries, while individual subscribers can
access it for free. Meanwhile, more free journals, such as the new
differential equations journal from University of North Texas, are being
born every few weeks.
The advantage of free journals, of course, is that they are much less
of a gamble for a library to keep subscribing to, and hence to carry the
experiment through long enough for it to catch on (this may require
several years). But there is also something to be said for emulating
paper as a means of attracting a readership and authorship, at least in
the initial transitional period, when the scholarly community has not
yet been weened from paper.
My advice: Don't draw any premature conclusions. It's too early to say
which way things are going and where they will end up.
Stevan Harnad
Editor, Behavioral & Brain Sciences, PSYCOLOQUY
Cognitive Science Laboratory | Laboratoire Cognition et Mouvement
Princeton University | URA CNRS 1166 I.B.H.O.P.
221 Nassau Street | Universite d'Aix Marseille II
Princeton NJ 08544-2093 | 13388 Marseille cedex 13, France
harnad@princeton.edu | harnad@riluminy.univ-mrs.fr
609-921-7771 | 33-91-66-00-69
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 08:32:47 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@spiff.carleton.ca>
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Subject: Re: onscreen editing
In article <931006.094837.EDT.3ZLUFUR@cmuvm> you write:
>Has anybody tried this with WordPerfect 6.0? Sound capability is
>included, but I don't have the sound hardware to try it. I'm
>assuming it would be transmittable just like any other WordPerfect
>formatted file (as binary).
A caution, from someone involved in putting together
submitter/editor/reviewer and reader packages for a yet-to-be
published journal:
The biggest problem with doing it with WordPerfect or any other
commercial package, is that unless you have the ability to *buy* a
copy of that for all your editors, reviewers and authors, you have a
problem.
The World Wide Web has annotation capability, including audio
annotation, and uses well defined, open standards, with
redistributable software available. [Yes, the group annotation server has
been shut down. It was an experiment, and group annotation capability
should be work very well once the proposed standard gets wide
implementation in clients and servers. This shouldn't take too long
though]
My biggest problem, however, is getting non-technical users to tell
me precisely what they've got, so I can tailor the installation script
right. As expected, PCs give me the most headaches :-)
It seems really dumb to deliver straight ascii to someone's 486/40
with SVGA card and 19" colour monitor [hey, they aren't that uncommon],
just because we can't figure out what interrupt vector their ethernet
card happens to be configured to, and there isn't anyone their that
can swap the Novell dedicated driver for the CRWYN packet driver version.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 10:40:43 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Jan Potharst <j.potharst@elsevier.nl>
Subject: Re: OJCCT
Personally I think there is not much wrong at all
with the OJCCT (and I did evaluate it).
The fact that subscribers are not renewing could at least
partially be caused by the fact that many of the initial
subscribers were mainly interested in the unique and new
technology, rather than in the clinical articles.
So a shake-out of subscribers was to be expected and in fact,
predicted.
Personally I think the OJCCT is a great product with its fast
publishing of articles with scanned images, tables, equations,
and nice extra's like the alerting facilities, etc., although
you need a fast communication line to OCLC. The only major
drawback seems to be the fact that the special user interface
(Guidon) is needed on the PC where you want to read the journal.
This software must be installed, and once it is on a PC
the journal must be read at that particular PC, and the software
can only be used for that journal. But OCLC has already added
a few other journals, and is no doubt planning to add more,
to make the system more worthwhile for real users.
Jan Potharst, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 10:42:25 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Chuck Bacon <crtb@helix.nih.gov>
Subject: Papyrosimilitude !?
Why the Medium Blunts the Message
Why should one feel disappointment about an electronic journal?
Perhaps for the same reason that one would feel disappointment at
hearing a symphony concert over a telephone. In either case, a
wondrous experience is blunted by an inferior medium.
Very few PCs will support anything as easy to read as a piece of
paper. As an example, I have a Sun workstation with 900 x 1100 pixel
(I think) color monitor. I can put up multiple X windows with 60 or
more lines of legible text (up to 120 marginably legible), but my
enjoyment of subject matter is tempered by eyestrain. So I settle for
a screen of 42 x 80, in a fairly large size.
When I was first assigned this Sun, I was fascinated by its graphical
features, and by how much text it could display, compared to the old
persistent VT100 standard (24 x 80). Nowadays I'm rather annoyed at
the continual eyestrain, and often print out mail and news files rather
than try to read them on the screen. And on screen, there's no place
to scribble!
Every morning, I spend a half hour with the daily newspaper. I can
touch perhaps 5-10% of its news content, and cheerfully discard the
rest. The price is right, and it's the easiest medium for reading
voluminous text I can think of. It has no index nor table of contents,
but it's not a reference work anyway.
People have enjoyed television because the message is not textual, but
visual (and aural). You don't have to focus intently on the screen to
know what's going on. Just listen, for the most part. Good quality
electronic sound today seems to be far more advanced than good quality
electronic imagery.
Eventually, flat panel displays should reach the point where one may
have an 8.5" x 11" display with text quality equal to print. But I
wonder if even that's good enough.
Why Electronic Journals are Attractive
Electronic journals have two principal advantages, based on questionable
perceptions. First, the marginal cost of production is near zero,
there is a wide perception of subsidization of the Net, and one expects
to be able to afford many more subscriptions than one could on paper (I
subscribe to over a hundred Usenet news groups and twenty or so mailing
lists, for example). Second, with very short production times, there
is the illusion of being on the cutting edge. EJs, email and Usenet
news can reach me as fast as gossip among my colleagues.
What To Do About It
I have no solution to the dilemma of the technical bottleneck, of an
inferior medium. For the near term, the publishing community should
accept the human factors of their end product. Perhaps scholarly
authors will have to learn pictorial exposition, animation and television
production!
Language for electronic distribution must be terse. Although
production cost per word is irrelevant, the electronic reader's
aggravation with unnecessary language induces a virtual cost which may
be ruinous. Every article a precis!
What I Did About It
I'm not a regular writer (does it show?), but here I've tried to hack
my thoughts down to a minimum. For argument's sake, have I made a point?
Chuck Bacon - crtb@helix.nih.gov
"After all, computers have rights too!" - Ernst Bacon, 1898-1990
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 10:43:08 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Lucia Ruedenberg <ruednbrg@nyuacf.bitnet>
Subject: ARL directory of jrnls and lists
Date sent: 10-OCT-1993
I am looking for a copy of the ARL directory of electronic journals and
lists. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
I tried to send e-mail to the Association of Research Libraries which
bounced.
-Lucia
ruednbrg@ACFcluster.NYU.EDU
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 08:57:56 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Comments: W: FROM field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained.
From: Frank Harris <fharri@osa.org>
Subject: Re: Papyrosimilitude !?
In-Reply-To: <9310121500.AA01721@aip.org>; from "Chuck Bacon" at Oct 12,
93 10:4
Dear Dr Bacon:
I agree with all your points for the displays widely available at the
present, but that is about to change. I have been working with
programmers to develop an easy to use interface that can be browsed,
searched, or scanned more easily than a paper journal, and approximately
100 people who have seen it agree that we have succeeded. Our other
requirements were that complex mathematics and figures in several
electronic formats must display within the text, as they did on the
printed page.
The demonstration CD-ROM was a smashing success, but we still have to
solve several problems before distribution through the Internet can
be accomplished. Work continues on these hurdles.
\begin{diatribe}
It is important to note that tagging the electronic files so they
will display on screen with quality equal to that of a printed journal
takes just as much work as typesetting a paper journal. Then there are
the added costs of mastering and pressing CD-ROMs, if CD-ROM distribution
for archival purposes is intended. Add to this the cost of licensing
the best display software available, and _quality_ e-journals cost about
the same to produce as paper journals today.
The quality possible today is about 10 times better (subjective units)
than one year ago. Most people have not seen what can be done today.
Costs are about 20% of what they were three years ago. We have reached the
point where e-journals (as opposed to e-newsletters) can fly.
\end{diatribe}
Sincerely,
Frank E. Harris fharri@ursa.osa.org
Optical Society of America fharris@aip.org
2010 Massachusetts AVE NW
Washington, DC 20036-1023 Phone - 202-416-1904
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 08:58:27 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: simpson@agnes.gsfc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: OJCCT
Dear Stevan Harnad:
Thanks for sending me your response concerning existing electronic
journals. The four Earth science societies I mentioned yesterday plan to
use techniques that are not accessible to paper journals, such as
four-dimensional color display of cloud models and observations (animated
three D movies), extensive data sets etc. We need 3 D displays of both data
analyses and numerical models that change with time to understand the earth
system.
We have been planning to seek subsidy from a funding agency for the
start up and work into making the journal self supporting within a few
years time. We had planned a fully referreed journal. The authors would pay
"publishing" costs and at least nominal subscription fees would be charged,
because we are not wealthy societies and our journals have to be self
supporting. Our situation is quite different from those disciplines for
which text only is adequate. Should the fate of OCLC be telling us
something to do or not to do?
Please expose our dilemma to some of your many experts on
electronic publishing, we are all a little frightened of making a serious
mistake at a big cost in money and personal efforts. Thanks very much,
Joanne Simpson, American Meteorological Society
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 15:48:15 EDT
>> From: "Natalie S. King" <nking@wam.umd.edu>
>>
>> There is currently a discussion on MEDLIB-L (a list for medical librarians)
>> about the Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials (OJCCT--a joint
>> publication of AAAS and OCLC). Overwhelmingly, respondents are
>> expressing disappointment with the product--both in use by patrons and
>> ease of use of the product itself. A number of librarians have indicated
>> that they will probably not re-subscribe. Since this is one of the only
>> e-journals with which I have direct experience, I'm wondering what success
>> other e-journals are having in libraries or out. In addition, (and I'm
>> *really* exposing my ignorance here) are most e-journals set up like
>> OJCCT (i.e., rather like a print journal with discreet peer-reviewed
>> articles published in a regular cycle; housed in a central location (OCLC)
>> which provides document delivery for a fee; subscription fee over $100)?
>>
>> You can respond to me directly. Thanks. Natalie nk28@umail.umd.edu
>
>I'm responding to the list as a whole, because some of these issues are
>of general interest. There have been different approaches to
>implementing electronic journals. OCLC/AAAS consciously took one path
>with OJCCT, and this was the path of making the journal emulate as many
>of the features of paper journals as possible with current technology.
>This they did admirably, but at a price (which is why it costs $100+),
>and with only as much success as current technology allows.
>
>PSYCOLOQUY, has taken the other path, not making any special effort to
>emulate the features of paper (though psychology has the admitted
>advantage of subject matter that is mainly textual). As a consequence,
>the costs (generously subsidized for the first three years by the
>American Psychological Association) are low enough so subscription is
>free. Access (using the remarkable new search/retrieval tools that are
>being perfected daily, such as gopher, archie, wais, veronica) is so
>simple and convenient that more and more libraries (e.g., University of
>Michigan, CICnet, WWW) are developing platforms for making PSYCOLOQUY
>and the other free electronic scientific and scholarly journals
>available to their readers for free.
>
>It is too early to say yet which model -- paid/paper-like vs.
>free/non-paper-like -- will prevail. The libraries' reaction to OJCCT,
>if it is indeed as described here (I have not yet heard anything like
>this elsewhere), may be a temporary one, part of the uncertainty and
>indirection with which many are first reacting to this new medium.
>Hybrid models are also on the way: MIT Press is beginning to publish an
>electronic journal of computation whose papyrosimilitude is intermediate
>between PSYCOLOQUY's and OJCCT's and its intermediate cost is being
>borne by a consortium of libraries, while individual subscribers can
>access it for free. Meanwhile, more free journals, such as the new
>differential equations journal from University of North Texas, are being
>born every few weeks.
>
>The advantage of free journals, of course, is that they are much less
>of a gamble for a library to keep subscribing to, and hence to carry the
>experiment through long enough for it to catch on (this may require
>several years). But there is also something to be said for emulating
>paper as a means of attracting a readership and authorship, at least in
>the initial transitional period, when the scholarly community has not
>yet been weened from paper.
>
>My advice: Don't draw any premature conclusions. It's too early to say
>which way things are going and where they will end up.
>
>Stevan Harnad
>Editor, Behavioral & Brain Sciences, PSYCOLOQUY
>
>Cognitive Science Laboratory | Laboratoire Cognition et Mouvement
>Princeton University | URA CNRS 1166 I.B.H.O.P.
>221 Nassau Street | Universite d'Aix Marseille II
>Princeton NJ 08544-2093 | 13388 Marseille cedex 13, France
>harnad@princeton.edu | harnad@riluminy.univ-mrs.fr
>609-921-7771 | 33-91-66-00-69
*****************************************************************
** Joanne Simpson Phone: (301) 286-8569
** Code 912 FAX: (301) 286-1762
** NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
** Greenbelt, MD 20771
** E-Mail: simpson@agnes.gsfc.nasa.gov
** gsfcmail: JSIMPSON
** Omnet: J.SIMPSON.GSFC
******************************************************************
*****************************************************************
** Joanne Simpson Phone: (301) 286-8569
** Code 912 FAX: (301) 286-1762
** NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
** Greenbelt, MD 20771
** E-Mail: simpson@agnes.gsfc.nasa.gov
** gsfcmail: JSIMPSON
** Omnet: J.SIMPSON.GSFC
******************************************************************
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 08:58:54 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: John Black <jbb@uoguelph.ca>
Subject: Re: ARL directory of jrnls and lists
On Tue, 12 Oct 1993, Lucia Ruedenberg wrote:
> Date sent: 10-OCT-1993
>
>
>
> I am looking for a copy of the ARL directory of electronic journals and
> lists. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
>
Send a message to ann@cni.org
john b. black
jbb@uoguelph.ca
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 08:10:04 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Richard W Meyer <rmeyer@trinity.edu>
Subject: Re: Papyrosimilitude !?
In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 12 Oct 1993 10:42:25 EDT from <crtb@helix.nih.gov>
On Tue, 12 Oct 1993, Chuck Bacon said:
>Why should one feel disappointment about an electronic journal?
>Perhaps for the same reason that one would feel disappointment at
>hearing a symphony concert over a telephone. In either case, a
>wondrous experience is blunted by an inferior medium....
Bacon makes some very good points, the electronic medium is inferior
for display. Edward Tufte's books on this issue make his point in detail.
But, the medium appears to be superior for ease of access to content,
timeliness, and speed of communication. As a result, there is a dramatic
shift of communications to this medium, but much less dramatic a shift
in other roles played by traditional scholarly works. Human capital
assessment, archiving, and gatekeeping roles remain largely fixed in
the print domain and will probably stay there for a long time. The
change needed to effect a transfer of these roles does not relate to
the display. They will only shift as political positions related to
the measurement of scholarly contributions change and as technical
(library organizational) processes improve.
In the meantime, these electronic tools sure do help me stay in touch.
========================================================================
RICHARD W. MEYER TELEPHONE: 210/736-8121
DIRECTOR OF THE LIBRARY
TRINITY UNIVERSITY
715 STADIUM DR INTERNET: RMEYER@TRINITY.EDU
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78212 OR: RICHARD_MEYER@LIBRARY.TRINITY.EDU
========================================================================
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 15:12:42 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Ken Laws <laws@ai.sri.com>
Subject: Reader Involvement
In-Reply-To: <9310141220.AA23434@Sunset.AI.SRI.COM>
> ... these electronic tools sure do help me stay in touch.
Right on! If electronic journals are seen as imitations, they
will never be popular. If they are seen as enhancements, they will
appeal only to those for whom the original media are inadequate.
But seen as communities, electronic forums fill a gaping hole
in American life. The really successful electronic publications
will _involve_ participants rather than just inform them.
A simple example: Peer review and the imprimatur of publication
are designed to produce archival-quality technical papers. With a
bit of editing, many of these papers are even readable. But is it
really necessary to have a prestigious editorial board or a
blue-ribbon reviewer panel decide what I will be allowed to read?
An alternative is to permit readers (members, subscribers) access
to all submitted works, and to titles and abstracts of proposed
papers. Various ways of appending or responding to reader
feedback are possible. Then have a sort of "best paper" vote
each month to determine which papers will receive the journal's
sanction as being "ready for prime time." A larger audience
will then choose to read the papers, and might be involved in
a best-paper-of-the-year competition.
-- Ken Laws
-------
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 10:50:20 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Guedon Jean-Claude <guedon@ere.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: Reader Involvement
In-Reply-To: <199310141920.AA05186@condor.CC.UMontreal.CA> from "Ken Laws" at
Oct 14, 93 03:12:42 pm
Ken Laws is right in principle and wrong in the real world.
If technical shifts could take place without any regard to
the sociology of their reception, he would be quite right, but
as sociology retains all of its rights, thinking as he does
is utopian in the strictest meaning of the term.
Being utopian is not useless as it opens up conceptual horizons.
However, it does not help to find the road toward the desired
end. Controlling a technical shift requires both vision (be it
utopian or otherwise) and charting a socio-political path
toward that vision. The latter, incidentally is generally
a lot tougher than the former.
I have appended Ken Laws' comments below.
Jean-Claude Guedon
Universite de Montreal
guedon@ere.umontreal.ca
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > ... these electronic tools sure do help me stay in touch.
>
> Right on! If electronic journals are seen as imitations, they
> will never be popular. If they are seen as enhancements, they will
> appeal only to those for whom the original media are inadequate.
> But seen as communities, electronic forums fill a gaping hole
> in American life. The really successful electronic publications
> will _involve_ participants rather than just inform them.
>
> A simple example: Peer review and the imprimatur of publication
> are designed to produce archival-quality technical papers. With a
> bit of editing, many of these papers are even readable. But is it
> really necessary to have a prestigious editorial board or a
> blue-ribbon reviewer panel decide what I will be allowed to read?
> An alternative is to permit readers (members, subscribers) access
> to all submitted works, and to titles and abstracts of proposed
> papers. Various ways of appending or responding to reader
> feedback are possible. Then have a sort of "best paper" vote
> each month to determine which papers will receive the journal's
> sanction as being "ready for prime time." A larger audience
> will then choose to read the papers, and might be involved in
> a best-paper-of-the-year competition.
>
> -- Ken Laws
> -------
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 11:20:02 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Richard Reiner <rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca>
Subject: IPPE one-month status report
Since our opening (one month ago this week), the International
Philosophical Preprint Exchange has handled a total of 3131 requests for
the working papers and other documents available on the system. These
requests came from a total of 845 distinct users, in dozens of
countries. We find this level of usage very encouraging, and we thank
all of those who have supported our fledgling effort.
We have plenty of room for growth, and we encourage all to browse the
papers available on the IPPE, and to submit their own working papers for
instant, free distribution to colleagues worldwide.
To get started using the IPPE, try the command "gopher apa.oxy.edu" on
your host computer. If that doesn't work (presumably because your host
system doesn't yet have Gopher software--ask your system adminstrator to
install it!), send a piece of email containing the following four lines:
begin
send getting-started
send INDEX
end
to the address phil-preprints-service@phil-preprints.l.chiba-u.ac.jp,
and a beginner's guide will be sent to you by email.
We are now in the process of preparing a short document explaining how
to place a working paper on the International Philosophical Preprint
Exchange, and explaining other factors relevant to submitting a paper
(that copyright remains with the author,that the paper remains
publishable, etc.). This guide is not yet ready, but we strongly
encourage submissions. Please contact me by email at the address
rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca if you have a paper you'd like to make available
through the International Philosophical Preprint Exchange, and I or one
of our volunteers will be happy to guide you through the submission
process.
Richard Reiner, Coordinator
International Philosophical Preprint Exchange
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 15:32:13 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@princeton.edu>
Subject: Peer Review, Open Peer Commentary, and Plebiscite...
PEER REVIEW, OPEN PEER COMMENTARY AND PLEBISCITE
Ken Laws wrote:
> Peer review and the imprimatur of publication
> are designed to produce archival-quality technical papers. With a
> bit of editing, many of these papers are even readable. But is it
> really necessary to have a prestigious editorial board or a
> blue-ribbon reviewer panel decide what I will be allowed to read?
> An alternative is to permit readers (members, subscribers) access
> to all submitted works, and to titles and abstracts of proposed
> papers. Various ways of appending or responding to reader
> feedback are possible. Then have a sort of "best paper" vote
> each month to determine which papers will receive the journal's
> sanction as being "ready for prime time." A larger audience
> will then choose to read the papers, and might be involved in
> a best-paper-of-the-year competition. -- Ken Laws
Ken Laws's vision and resourcefulness are commendable. I think, however,
that he conflates two relatively independent desiderata in the
following: Peer Review and Open Peer Commentary. I have some experience
with both, and they assuredly do NOT perform the same function, nor can
one replace the other.
The Net should be open, and should allow open discussion, all the
way down to the unmoderated vanity press. But it should ALSO allow those
who wish to filter their information more DISCRIMINATINGLY (and do not
have the time or inclination to sample everything) to systematically
restrict their reading (and writing) to peer reviewed material (and
even here there is a hierarchy of rigor with which peer review can be
implemented, and readers/authors should have their choice).
Open Peer Commentary is splendid, indeed, in my opinion, it represents
the truly revolutionary dimension of electronic scholarly communication
("Scholarly Skywriting"). I've devoted over a decade and a half of my
life to it, in paper and on the Net. But it is no SUBSTITUTE for Peer
Review. It is a COMPLEMENT to it. Indeed, Peer Commentary itself, at
the higher levels of the quality-control hierarchy, itself needs to be
peer-reviewed.
The value of ideas and findings is not ascertained by a box score!
Otherwise scholarly inquiry will devolve to the level of the beauty
contests and opinion/consumer polls of the mass media. Let the vanity press
thrive, but please allow for the option of a more disciplined,
constrained and answerable medium too -- and answerable to something
other than a head count! Democracy is for people. Ideas require that the
best be judged by the best; if they are judged by all, you will simply
get regression onto the mean. The emphasis in peer reviw is on PEER, not
PLEBS.
Some references (retrievable by anonymous ftp) follow
Stevan Harnad
Editor, Behavioral & Brain Sciences, PSYCOLOQUY
Cognitive Science Laboratory | Laboratoire Cognition et Mouvement
Princeton University | URA CNRS 1166 I.B.H.O.P.
221 Nassau Street | Universite d'Aix Marseille II
Princeton NJ 08544-2093 | 13388 Marseille cedex 13, France
harnad@princeton.edu | harnad@riluminy.univ-mrs.fr
609-921-7771 | 33-91-66-00-69
The following three files are retrievable from directory pub/harnad/Harnad on
host princeton.edu
Harnad, S. (1990) Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum
of Scientific Inquiry. Psychological Science 1: 342 - 343 (reprinted in
Current Contents 45: 9-13, November 11 1991).
FILENAME: harnad90.skwriting
Harnad, S. (1991) Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the
Means of Production of Knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems Review
2 (1): 39 - 53 (also reprinted in PACS Annual Review Volume 2
1992; and in R. D. Mason (ed.) Computer Conferencing: The Last Word. Beach
Holme Publishers, 1992; and in: M. Strangelove & D. Kovacs: Directory of
Electronic Journals, Newsletters, and Academic Discussion Lists (A.
Okerson, ed), 2nd edition. Washington, DC, Association of Research
Libraries, Office of Scientific & Academic Publishing, 1992).
FILENAME: harnad91.postgutenberg
Harnad, S. (1992) Interactive Publication: Extending the
American Physical Society's Discipline-Specific Model for Electronic
Publishing. Serials Review, Special Issue on Economics Models for
Electronic Publishing, pp. 58 - 61.
FILENAME: harnad92.interactivpub
------------------------------------------------------------
The following are available only in paper:
Harnad, S. (1979) Creative disagreement. The Sciences 19: 18 - 20.
Harnad, S. (ed.) (1982) Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in
scientific quality control, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harnad, S. (1984) Commentary on Garfield: Anthropology journals: What
they cite and what cites them. Current Anthropology 25: 521 - 522.
Harnad, S. (1984) Commentaries, opinions and the growth of scientific
knowledge. American Psychologist 39: 1497 - 1498.
Harnad, S. (1985) Rational disagreement in peer review. Science,
Technology and Human Values 10: 55 - 62.
Harnad, S. (1986) Policing the Paper Chase. (Review of S. Lock, A
difficult balance: Peer review in biomedical publication.)
Nature 322: 24 - 5.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 09:23:55 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Paula Presley <ad15%nemomus.bitnet@mizzou1.missouri.edu>
Subject: Re: Peer Review, Open Peer Commentary, and Plebiscite...
In-Reply-To: In reply to your message of FRI 15 OCT 1993 13:32:13 CST
Hooray for S. Harnad's comments on peer commentary, peer review. I wish
I could zap them off to everybody on every net that has crusaders
wanting to do away with peer review altogether. Stevan is "right on," as
"they" say.
Paula Presley
Assoc. Editor, The Thomas Jefferson University Press
Copy Editor, The Sixteenth Century Journal
Northeast Missouri State University
McClain Hall 111L
Kirksville, MO 63501
(816) 785-4525 FAX (816) 785-4181
Bitnet: AD15@NEMOMUS Internet: AD15%NEMOMUS@Academic.NEMOState.EDU
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 09:06:53 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: phil-preprints-admin@cogsci.l.chiba-u.ac.jp
Subject: New preprints on the IPPE
The International Philosophical Preprint Exchange
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abstracts of recent submissions, as of Sat Oct 16 06:33:37 JST 1993:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stevan Harnad : Princeton University : harnad@princeton.edu
Artificial Life: Synthetic vs. Virtual
preprints/Phil_of_Mind
Artificial Life III (Santa Fe, June 1992) (to appear)
Artificial life can take two forms: synthetic and virtual. In
principle, the materials and properties of synthetic living systems
could differ radically from those of natural living systems yet still
resemble them enough to be really alive if they are grounded in the
relevant causal interactions with the real world. Virtual (purely
computational) "living" systems, in contrast, are just ungrounded
symbol systems that are systematically interpretable as if they were
alive; in reality they are no more alive than a virtual furnace is hot.
Virtual systems are better viewed as "symbolic oracles" that can be
used (interpreted) to predict and explain real systems, but not to
instantiate them. The vitalistic overinterpretation of virtual life is
related to the animistic overinterpretation of virtual minds and is
probably based on an implicit (and possibly erroneous) intuition
that living things have actual or potential mental lives.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bernhardt Lieberman : University of Pittsburgh : Bernie1@vms.cis.pitt.edu
What the Controversies Over the Health Effects of Exposure to
Environmental Tobacco Smoke Tell Us About the Debates Between
Objectivists and Social Constructionists
preprints/Phil_of_Science
Some social analyses of scientific knowledge are based on objectivist
assumptions, while others assume that scientific knowledge is social
constructed. The condemnation of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) by
the antismoking movement affects the life of virtually every American
and uncounted millions of others throughout the world. Investigators
who argue that ETS causes lung cancer claim the influence, objectivity,
and authority of scientific inquiry, while critics of the results of
the investigations argue that the conclusion that ETS causes lung
cancer is unwarranted. The present study uses this fascinating and
important sociotechnical controversy to shed light on the debate
between objectivists and social constructionists and reaches the
conclusion that the condemnation of environmental tobacco smoke is a
deliberate social construction of an elite social movement which mixes
advocacy and alleged objective inquiry so that the actual relationship
between ETS and lung cancer will probably never be determined.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THEORIES
By
GEORGE GALE
University of Missouri
Kansas City MO 64110
ggale @vax1.umkc.edu
It is useful to hybridize some of Steven Toulmin's and Rom Harre's ideas
about theories. Toulmin thinks that maps provided an informative
analogy for the structure and function of theories in science. So do I.
Harre thinks that icons and propositions fit together to make of theories
statement-picture complexes. So do I. The first two sections of this paper
show how the two sets of notions might be put together. In the next
section I show how Harre's ideas about models can be used to trace out
the progress of Robert Boyle toward his theory of pneumatics. Finally,
these ideas are joined by some ideas of Ron Giere about how Mendel's
theory is structured; in the end I produce a fairly full picture of the
scheme of neo-Mendelian genetics.
Unfortunately, the picture itself isn't included in this special internet
version of the paper. If anyone manages to slog through the paper to the
end, and STILL would like to see the figures, I'll be glad to snailmail
them to you. Request them either via e-mail or snailmail.
By the way, this material was prepared for my sophomore/junior level
scientific methods class, and as a possible candidate for a new chapter in
my imagined revised edition of _Theory of Science_, McGraw-Hill, 1979.
I'd sure appreciate your comments on this essay.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gregory R. Mulhauser : University of Edinburgh : <scarab@ed.ac.uk>
Materialism and the "Problem" of Quantum Measurement
preprints/Phil_of_Mind
Forthcoming in _Minds and Machines_
For nearly six decades, the conscious observer has played a
central and essential role in quantum measurement theory. I
outline some difficulties which the traditional account of
measurement presents for material theories of mind before
introducing a new development which promises to exorcise the
ghost of consciousness from physics and relieve the cognitive
scientist of the burden of explaining why certain material
structures reduce wavefunctions by virtue of being conscious
while others do not. The interactive decoherence of complex
quantum systems reveals that the oddities and complexities of
linear superposition and state vector reduction are irrelevant
to computational aspects of the philosophy of mind and that
many conclusions in related fields are ill founded.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stevan Harnad : Princeton University : harnad@princeton.edu
Does the Mind Piggy-Back on Robotic and Symbolic Capacity?
preprints/Phil_of_Mind
To appear in: H. Morowitz (ed.) "The Mind, the Brain, and Complex
Adaptive Systems.
Cognitive science is a form of "reverse engineering" (as Dennett has
dubbed it). We are trying to explain the mind by building (or
explaining the functional principles of) systems that have minds. A
"Turing" hierarchy of empirical constraints can be applied to this
task, from t1, toy models that capture only an arbitrary fragment of
our performance capacity, to T2, the standard "pen-pal" Turing Test
(total symbolic capacity), to T3, the Total Turing Test (total symbolic
plus robotic capacity), to T4 (T3 plus internal [neuromolecular]
indistinguishability). All scientific theories are underdetermined by
data. What is the right level of empirical constraint for cognitive
theory? I will argue that T2 is underconstrained (because of the Symbol
Grounding Problem and Searle's Chinese Room Argument) and that T4 is
overconstrained (because we don't know what neural data, if any, are
relevant). T3 is the level at which we solve the "other minds" problem
in everyday life, the one at which evolution operates (the Blind
Watchmaker is no mind-reader either) and the one at which symbol
systems can be grounded in the robotic capacity to name and manipulate
the objects their symbols are about. I will illustrate this with a toy
model for an important component of T3 -- categorization -- using
neural nets that learn category invariance by "warping" similarity
space the way it is warped in human categorical perception:
within-category similarities are amplified and between-category
similarities are attenuated. This analog "shape" constraint is the
grounding inherited by the arbitrarily shaped symbol that names the
category and by all the symbol combinations it enters into. No matter
how tightly one constrains any such model, however, it will always be
more underdetermined than normal scientific and engineering theory.
This will remain the ineliminable legacy of the mind/body problem.
Those attending this conference and those reading the published
volume of papers arising from it will be struck by the radical shifts
in focus and content among the various categories of contribution.
Immediately preceding mine, you have heard the two most neurobiological
of the papers. Pat Goldman-Rakic discussed internal representation in
the brains of animals and Larry Squire discussed the brain basis of
human memory. Others are presenting data about human behavior, others
about computational models, and still others about general classes of
physical systems that might share the relevant properties of these
three domains -- brain, behavior, and computation -- plus, one hopes, a
further property as well, namely, conscious experience: this is the
property that, as our brains do whatever they do, as our behavior is
generated, as whatever gets computed gets computed, there's somebody
home in there, experiencing experiences during most of the time the
rest of it is all happening.
It's the status of this last property that I'm going to discuss first.
Traditionally, this topic is the purview of the philosopher,
particularly in the form of the so-called "mind/body" problem, but these days
I find that philosophers, especially those who have become very closely
associated with cognitive science and its actual practice,
seem to be more dedicated to minimizing this problem (or even declaring
it solved or nonexistent) than to giving it its full due, with all the
perplexity and dissatisfaction that this inevitably leads to. So
although I am not a philosopher, I feel it is my duty to arouse in you
some of this perplexity and dissatisfaction -- if only to have it
assuaged by the true philosophers who will also be addressing you here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sule H. Elkatip : Bosphorus University : elkatip@trboun.bitnet
Individuation and Scotus
preprints/History_of_Phil/
INDIVIDUATION AND SCOTUS
Dr. Sule H. Elkatip
Dept. of Philosophy
Bosphorus University
Istanbul
In the texts written by Scotus the most striking philosophical
achievement is his method of analysis. It is perhaps surprising to see
that he is often unwilling to adopt the philosophical analyses of his
predecessors. The major reason for this probably was that Scotus had not
found Aristotle's treatment of philosophical problems such as "substance",
"individuation", "being" ultimate.
For Scotus individuation applies to entities which in general give us
our predicates such as quality and quantity and so forth. One of his arguments
is to the effect that these predicates enjoying being are where we should
start our philosophical analyzing rather than with substance. A second
argument considers the alternative of beginning with substance and
after criticizing it rejects it. This second argument points out that
starting with predicates the principle for individualizing is attained
not by introducing things in addition to predicates but through further
analysis. The case for the substance theory is of course different. It does
not begin with predication. It sets out with substances. These substances
are both particular and universal entities and are spoken of as primary
and secondary by Aristotle. The task, then, is to explain how this happens
to be so. Scotus indicates that there is a logical difficulty in this
procedure: not an outright contradiction perhaps but still some inconsistency.
In Aristotle's framework the problem of substance presents itself as the
central question to be addressed. In Scotus' philosophical texts the need
to explain what substance is or what substances are is not felt as the
most urgent question of philosophy. He concentrates not on the criteria for
calling something "a substance" but on how in fact we do talk about things.
Parellel to this there is the following difference in the two frameworks.
Aristotle wishes to classify exhaustively the kinds of sentences to be
formed about the substances which he allows for according to his criteria
about categories. Scotus analyzes the inferential relationships of statements
about things. It may be better indeed to mark statements or even sentences
as his starting point instead of predication because the latter is arrived
upon after clarification.
Naming something as "substance" was for Aristotle a way of calling it
"a being". But, normally people do not go around visualizing or describing
things as "substances". Why should they do something like this? They look
to see whether they are there or not. If we talk of something as "a being"
or as "substance" we do this indirectly for Scotus. For him being is a
presupposition. It is not, however, an implicit one because we make this
explicit when we use the verb "to be".
As we use predicates to pick out the determinations of things we
engage in a claim to truth. This claim for truth values, according to
Scotus, necessitated verification so as not to end in a vicious infinite
regress.
It is a fact, according to Scotus, that we use language to make
statements. There are things to begin with although one may not be certain
as to whether they are substances or not. What is interesting for Scotus
are the conditions or requirements which make this fact possible, in other
words, the determinations of so called "substances". In epistemology these
are studied as those things which are present to the five senses. In logic
they are known as predicates. In metaphysics as universals.
It would be incorrect to see in these arguments of Scotus a great
figure in epistemology only because obviously at times they are strictly
logical or at times metaphysical in character. To put it roughly, in a
generally Aristotelian framework it is taught that predicates presuppose
substances and that substances presuppose being. It is possible to come
across this interpretation in Thomist literature, for instance, in an
article by Herbert McCabe, O.P., as well as in Allan Wolter's, O.F.M.,
notes to his translated selections from Scotus. Thomists do add and
emphasize that the being presupposed comes analogically in different
senses. Given a classical understanding of validity, inference and
implication, predicates do not presuppose substances. "Rational" for
instance does not presuppose "human". "Human", on the other hand, would
imply "rational". According to Wolter both "rational" and "human" presuppose
being from Scotus' point of view. But since the notion of being is simple,
there must be univocity. However this can not be the position that Scotus
is arguing for because it requires not only a postulate on the simplicity
of being but also a postulate to insure the being of entities in
addition to substances, namely predicates. Hence according to this Scotist
point of view endorsed for example notably by Wolter and also by
historians of philosophy Scotus is presented as a realist Aristotelian
with various weighty epistemological arguments on the side. The postulate
that is attributed to Scotus in the notes of Wolter in relation to the
being of predicates asserts that all predicamental entities are included
in (or implied by when construed in sentences) at least one substantial
entity. If this postulate were not added univocity of being would not follow
and we would be left with a doctrine that is close to McCabe's standpoint
instead of Scotus' for univocity of being is not reached and analogy
remains. The only significant difference between the two would now be
that Scotists would be reinforcing logical standards by pointing out that
predication does not presuppose substances but substantial statements imply
some truths about predicates.
Hence there are here two problems to be discussed. Does Scotus maintain
substances along with predicates? Does he say that all predicates are
included in some substance or other? The first question addresses Scotus'
treatment of the traditional doctrine of substance. The second question
seems to have a negative answer for it is thought that Scotus' views on
possibility can not tolerate absolutely necessary connections among all
predications. This may be true for mathematics but not for every predication
otherwise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Accessing the International Philosophical Preprint Exchange:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By gopher: "gopher apa.oxy.edu" or "gopher kasey.umkc.edu".
By ftp: "ftp Phil-Preprints.L.Chiba-U.ac.jp"
By email: "mail phil-preprints-service@Phil-Preprints.L.Chiba-U.ac.jp".
To place a paper or comment on the IPPE: see pub/submissions/README.
If you have questions: send mail to <cburke@nexus.yorku.ca>.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 08:43:01 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: IAN.WORTHINGTON@classics.utas.edu.au
Subject: *ELECTRONIC ANTIQUITY* 1, 5
*ELECTRONIC ANTIQUITY:
COMMUNICATING THE CLASSICS*
As a subscriber to the electronic journal you are being contacted to
let you know that Volume 1 Issue 5 (October 1993) is now
available for access. The contents follow.
*ELECTRONIC ANTIQUITY:
COMMUNICATING THE CLASSICS*
ISSN 1320-3606
Peter Toohey (Founding Editor)
Ian Worthington (Editor)
VOL. 1 ISSUE 5 - OCTOBER 1993
(01) LIST OF CONTENTS
(02) FEATURES
Hilton, John, 'Peoples of Azania'
Levis, Richard, 'Allegory and the *Eclogues*'
CASA Directory of Classical Scholars and Research for
Higher Degrees at Universities in Sub-Saharan Africa
Supplied by Bill Dominik
(03) OPINIONS
Goetsch, Sallie R., Euripides' *Electra*
(King's College, London, 24 July 1993)
O'Sullivan, Neil, 'Allusions of Grandeur? Thoughts on Allusion-
Hunting in Latin Poetry'
(04) EMPLOYMENT
New Zealand:
Classicist: Massey University
South Africa:
Classicist: University of Durban-Westville
U.S.A.:
Classicist: University of Oregon
Philosopher (Ancient): Michigan State University
(05) KEEPING IN TOUCH
Conference:
The Creation of Character: Ethos and Ethopoiia in Ancient
Theory and Practice, Case Western Reserve University
(programme)
Conference:
Greek and Roman Antiquity and the Classical Heritage,
University of Kentucky (call for papers)
Conference:
The Personal Voice in Classical Scholarship, A.P.A.
Panel Discussion 1994 (call for papers)
Electronic Forums & Repositories for the Classics
by Ian Worthington
(06) GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS
*Electronic Antiquity* Vol. 1 Issue 5 - October 1993
edited by Peter Toohey and Ian Worthington
antiquity-editor@classics.utas.edu.au
ISSN 1320-3606
------------------------
A general announcement (aimed at non-subscribers) that
the journal is available will be made in approximately 12
hours time over the lists - as a subscriber you will be
automatically contacted in advance when future issues
are available.
Access is via gopher or ftp (instructions below).
Volume 1 Issue 6 will be published in November.
The editors welcome contributions.
HOW TO ACCESS
Access is via gopher or ftp.
The journal file name of this issue is 1,5-October1993;
Volume 1 Issues 1-4 may also be accessed in the same way.
GOPHER:
-- info.utas.edu.au and through gopher:
-- open top level document called Publications
-- open Electronic Antiquity.
-- open 1,5-October1993
-- open (01)contents first for list of contents, then other files as appropriate
FTP:
-- FTP.utas.edu.au (or ftp.info.utas.edu.au)
--> departments --> classics --> antiquity.
-- In Antiquity you will see the files as described above.
Since a few people had problems accessing the journal via ftp,
here are the stages in more detail:
at your system prompt: FTP
at the subsequent prompt: open FTP.utas.edu.au
at login prompt: anonymous
at password: your username (which won't show)
then: cd departments
then: cd classics
then: cd antiquity
then: ls -l
then: cd 1,5-October1993
then: ls -l
You will now have a list of the various directories (the 'd'
beginning each line 'drwx....' indicates you're dealing with
a directory)
then: cd (into whichever directory you want)
then: ls -l
If the first character in the line is not 'd', you've got a file.
Use the 'get' command plus the file name to download. If you're
still in a directory, use the 'ls-l' command to list its contents.
Use 'get' to transfer files.
To move back up the directory tree:
type: cdup
then: ls -l
And repeat the process.
If still having trouble, try, once you have the directory list for
the journal:
Type (for example) cd (01)Contents
Your response should be 'CWD command successful', but no list.
Type ls-l
Your response should be in a form such as:
-rw-rw-r--1 1689 77030 Oct 29 15:30 contents
Type get contents
and you should have a copy.
A final alternative if a space is magically inserted in the parenthesis
of the file number is to specify:
CD ./(01)Contents
Please also be very careful when ftping *not* to leave *any* spaces
in file names or make typos.
Do NOT use Telnet.
The best way to access the journal (in terms of both ease and
time) is by gopher, and we would urge you to do so. The
structure of the journal is also more easily recognisable on gopher.
Please try to access *here* in Tasmania either during the night,
very early morning or at weekends, since during the business
day the lines are crammed. This means you'll need to check
with (e.g.) the international operator for the right time difference,
but at the moment (the following is not an exhaustive list)
Britain is 10 hours behind Tasmania; Europe, west
to east, 9-7 hours; East Coast U.S.A. 15 hours; West
Coast U.S.A. 18 hours; South America, coastal to eastern,
14-16 hours, South Africa 9 hours; Singapore 3 hours;
and Japan 2 hours.
Queries and contributions may be directed to the editors at
:antiquity-editor@classics.utas.edu.au.
Peter Toohey (ptoohey@metz.une.edu.au)
Ian Worthington (ian.worthington@classics.utas.edu.au)
(end)
---------
Ian Worthington,
Department of Classics,
University of Tasmania,
Hobart, Tasmania 7001,
Australia.
Tel. (002) 202294 (direct)
Fax (002) 202186
e-mail: Ian.Worthington@classics.utas.edu.au
</vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></cburke@nexus.yorku.ca></scarab@ed.ac.uk></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></ad15%nemomus.bitnet@mizzou1.missouri.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></harnad@princeton.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></guedon@ere.umontreal.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></laws@ai.sri.com></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></crtb@helix.nih.gov></rmeyer@trinity.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></jbb@uoguelph.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></nking@wam.umd.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></fharri@osa.org> </vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></ruednbrg@nyuacf.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></crtb@helix.nih.gov></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></j.potharst@elsevier.nl></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></mcr@spiff.carleton.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></nking@wam.umd.edu></harnad@princeton.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></nking@wam.umd.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></ad15%nemomus.bitnet@mizzou1.missouri.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></wiggins@msu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></laws@ai.sri.com></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></rrey@seq1.loc.gov></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></drothman@access.digex.net></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></drothman@access.digex.net></jennings@albnyvms></wiggins@msu.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></riddle@is.rice.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></jennings@albnyvms.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></dgm@ecsvax.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
__________________________________________________________________
James Powell