VPIEJ-L Discussion Archives

August 1995

=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Aug 1995 08:18:39 EDT
Reply-To:     Katharine Sharp Review 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Katharine Sharp Review 
Subject:      The Katharine Sharp Review Inaugural Issue
 
 
The Katharine Sharp Review
ISSN 1083-5261
http://edfu.lis.uiuc.edu/review
 
The Katharine Sharp Review, the premiere review of student scholarship in
library and information science, announces the publication of its
inaugural issue!  KSR is published by the Graduate School of Library and
Information Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and
showcases student authors writing about issues that range from those that
affect the core of contemporary librarianship to new concepts in network
administration.  Come take a look!
 
Articles are available in both HTML and PDF formats.
 
http://edfu.lis.uiuc.edu/review
 
 
Table of contents:
 
Louise F. Spiteri - The Classification Research Group and the Theory of
Integrative Levels
 
Peter McCracken - Disaster Planning in Museums and Libraries: A Critical
Literature Review
 
Shannon Crary, Jane Darcovich, Tracy Hull, & Anna Maria Watkin - The
Advances of Technology: A Case Study of Two Midwest Academic Slide Libraries
 
Steven E. Egyhazi - A Study of Interlibrary Loan of Video at Indiana
University, Bloomington
 
Michele Freed, Arthur Hendricks, Robert Sandusky, & Jian Wang - A Higher
Level Information Tool for Network Administrators
 
Robert Schroeder - Access vs. Ownership in Academic Libraries
 
David Saia - Advocacy for Bibliographic Instruction: A Challenge for the
Future
 
 
 
                 +                                   +
                               Kevin Ward
                                 Editor
                       The Katharine Sharp Review
                        review@edfu.lis.uiuc.edu
                    http://edfu.lis.uiuc.edu/review
                 +                                   +
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 Aug 1995 14:16:22 EDT
Reply-To:     Brian Gaines 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Brian Gaines 
Subject:      Archiving mailing lists
 
There has been some discussion on this list of archiving EJs.
 
However, much scholarly discussion is now taking place through mailing
lists, and does not get transferred to any form of journal.
 
Unfortunately, most mailing list servers are set up to destroy their
archives after 1 year. This was probably necessary in the days of
expensive storage, but now that a 4G drive is under $1,000 it is
a great pity that the primary list maintainer is not also maintaining
a full record of the list.
 
The KSI has been archiving some lists for research purposes, but has
recently discovered that some lists of major historic importance
apparently archived by others have been neglected, and substantial
parts of the list archives have been lost.
 
The Internet is so anarchic that it is difficult to conceive of a
solution to the problem. One possibility would be a national archive
where lists could be registered and mirrored.
 
I believe the destruction of list archives may be even more significant
than EJ archiving problems. By the time knowledge has been structured
for a journal article it is often widely known, and the article's
content can be regenerated fairly easily. Lists, however, capture the
process of knowledge formation and what is in them is often surprising
even to the contributors -- human memory continually reconstructs the past
and the actual historic record is not regenerable.
 
b.
 
Dr Brian R Gaines               Knowledge Science Institute
                                University of Calgary
gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca         Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
403-220-5901  Fax:403-284-4707  http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/KSI
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 Aug 1995 14:16:54 EDT
Reply-To:     Scott Gillies 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Scott Gillies 
Subject:      preservation of electronic information
 
Dear Group (Please forgive the cross-posting),
 
I am doing some research on the long-term dependability of access to
electronic text and other types of electronic information and
resources.  As part of this study, I would greatly appreciate it if
the subscribers to this discussion would give some attention to the
following questions and return their answers to me.  You need not
identify yourself or your institution, but you may if you would like.
You may answer any, all or none of the questions below (or volunteer
any other information!!).
 
I am greatly concerned with the dependability of access to electronic
information - particularly of the Internet variety.  The results of my
queries will become part of a more or less impressionistic report on
the subject to be shared at the annual conference of the AAASS this
fall.
 
There is practically no literature available on this subject, and any
replies will be VERY valuable to me and greatly appreciated.
 
Thank you in advance, and PLEASE REPLY DIRECTLY TO ME RATHER THAN THE
GROUP!
 
Scott Gillies
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
gillies@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
 
1.  What type of institution are you, or are you an individual?
 
2.  Do you or does your institution mount files which are accessible
through a network?
 
3.  Are these files produced by you or your institution or do they
originate elsewhere (i.e. archived journals)?
 
4.  Do you depend on renewable funding to maintain these files?
 
5.  What would you do with the files if the funding were no longer
available?
 
6.  How do you maintain access to files if they need to be moved to a
different location?
 
7.  Do you keep tape or other type of backups of your files?
 
8.  Does your institution have a written policy regarding preservation
of access to these files in some form or other?
 
9.  Do you maintain a Web site?
 
10.  What types of information do you provide there?
 
11.   What types of services/information do you provide links to?
 
12.  If and when sites to which you point move or disappear, do you
record this information for users of your site?
 
13.  If you could no longer maintain your Web site, what would you do?
 
14.  Do you or does your institution engage in publication of
electronic journals or other type of periodical?
 
15.  How are they made available?
 
16.  Is there a written policy regarding continued access to your
publication across the network?
 
17.  Do you maintain backups of your publication on tape?  disk?
print?
 
18.  Do you archive back copies of your publications or make them
available electronically in some way?
 
19.  Do you provide access to electronic resources from an online
catalogue?
 
20.  Are these resources catalogued and classified (do they have a
call number)?
 
Please add anything else that you feel is important or might be
pertinent to the discussion.
 
Thanks again.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 Aug 1995 14:17:51 EDT
Reply-To:     David Hill 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         David Hill 
Organization: Sage Publications
Subject:      Electronic journals and tenure
 
Does anyone know of any review of the policy of US universities
and research funding bodies in regard to the status given in tenure
decisions and research applications to refereed articles which
have been published in an electronic journal?
 
If there is no single source for such information, I'd appreciate
any information on the policy of particular universities or
funding bodies.
 
My interest is to be able to counter author's unwillingness to
submit papers to electronic journals because of fears of lack
of recognition of their status.
 
Thanks
 
David Hill, Sage Publications, 6 Bonhill Street, London EC2A 4PU
hill@sageltd.co.uk
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 Aug 1995 08:50:41 EDT
Reply-To:     "Charles W. Bailey, Jr." 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         "Charles W. Bailey, Jr." 
Organization: University of Houston
Subject:      Re: Electronic journals and tenure
 
David Hill  wrote:
>Does anyone know of any review of the policy of US universities
>and research funding bodies in regard to the status given in tenure
>decisions and research applications to refereed articles which
>have been published in an electronic journal?
>
>If there is no single source for such information, I'd appreciate
>any information on the policy of particular universities or
>funding bodies.
>
>My interest is to be able to counter author's unwillingness to
>submit papers to electronic journals because of fears of lack
>of recognition of their status.
>
>Thanks
>
>David Hill, Sage Publications, 6 Bonhill Street, London EC2A 4PU
>hill@sageltd.co.uk
>
See the  section on electronic serials research in my scholarly electronic
publishing
bibliography: http://info.lib.uh.edu/pr/v6/n1/sres.htm.
 
Best Regards,
Charles Bailey
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 Aug 1995 08:51:03 EDT
Reply-To:     weibel@oclc.org
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         weibel@oclc.org
Subject:      Re: Archiving mailing lists
 
Brian  Gaines writes:
 
> I believe the destruction of list archives may be even more significant
> than EJ archiving problems. By the time knowledge has been structured
> for a journal article it is often widely known, and the article's
> content can be regenerated fairly easily. Lists, however, capture the
> process of knowledge formation and what is in them is often surprising
> even to the contributors -- human memory continually reconstructs the past
> and the actual historic record is not regenerable.
 
Is this REALLY such a serious problem?
 
- the contents of many lists are of marginal historical value.  They are
  little more than electronic conversations.
 
- there are, of course, many other lists that ARE of significant value
  to the communities that support them.  Is it likely that the maintainers
  of these lists are not keeping them?  In some cases, probably.  But the
  technical aspect of the problem is precisely the same as it is for
  electronic journals: URNs, URCs, and formal collection repositories.
 
  The other part of the problem is selection.  Keep in mind that
  archivists have always discarded 99 % of materials.  My guess is that
  most mailing lists -- good, the bad, and the ugly -- will get what they
  deserve ;-)
 
stu
 
Stuart Weibel
Senior Research Scientist
OCLC Office of Research
weibel@oclc.org
(614) 764-6081 (v)
(614) 764-2344 (f)
http://www.oclc.org:5046/~weibel
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 Aug 1995 08:58:30 EDT
Reply-To:     Robert Kerstens 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Robert Kerstens 
Subject:      Nieuw!: InfoLink's Ondernemersdisk Online,
              Webtijdschrift voor MKB-ondernemers
X-cc:         Newslib@gibbs.oit.unc.edu, carr-l@ulkyvm.louisville.edu
 
InfoLink's Ondernemersdisk Online: Nederlands eerste Web-magazine voor
ondernemers in het midden- en kleinbedrijf
 
Onlangs is het tweede nummer van InfoLink's Ondernemersdisk Online verschenen,
Nederlands eerste Internet-tijdschrift met nieuws en informatie voor moderne
ondernemers in
het midden- en kleinbedrijf. InfoLink's Ondernemersdisk Online is een gratis
online versie van InfoLink's Ondernemersdisk, een diskettetijdschrift voor
MKB-ondernemers, uitgegeven door InfoLink Information Services uit Eindhoven
(NL).
 
In dit nummer o.a.:
 
Personeel:
DE LERENDE ORGANISATIE: WAARIN EEN GROTE ONDERNEMING OOK KLEIN KAN ZIJN
Marketing:
Marketing goeroe Paul Postma:
"MIJN SYSTEEM HOUDT VERKOPERS EEN SPIEGEL VAN HUN EIGENAARDIGHEDEN VOOR"
Fiscaal/juridisch:
BESLOTEN OF BUITENLANDSE VENNOOTSCHAP? EEN DISCUSSIE OVER DE VOOR- EN
NADELEN VOOR HET MKB!
Innovatie:
Innovatie-adviseur Wouter Pijzel:
"INNOVATIE IS SPRONGEN MAKEN"
Internet business:
NVI PUBLICEERT GIDS OVER JURIDISCHE ASPECTEN VAN ELEKTRONISCH UITGEVEN
 
Small business NetNews:
STUDY SAYS THERE IS REAL SHOPPING ON THE INTERNET
US GOVERNMENT STARTS SMALL BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICE ON WEB
INFORMATION HIGHWAY NOT A SAFE PLACE TO CONDUCT BUSINESS
 
 
InfoLink's Ondernemersdisk Online verschijnt tweemaandelijks en bevat zowel
Nederlands- als
Engelstalige nieuws- en informatie-items voor ondernemers en starters.
 Het nieuwe augustus/september-nummer bevat praktijkgerichte nieuwsberichten
en achtergrondinformatie over
de volgende thema's:
- Internet business: geld verdienen met/via Internet
- Management
- Personeelszaken
- MKB-Beleid : overheidsbeleid voor het midden- en kleinbedrijf
- Automatisering
- Internationaal: import/export door het MKB
- Innovatie
- Marketing
- Agenda: nationale en internationale beurzen- en congressenkalender voor
het MKB
- Fiscaal/juridisch: informatie over fiscale en juridische aspecten van
ondernemen
- Milieu: informatie over ontwikkelingen op het gebied van milieuwet en
-regelgeving voor bedrijven
- Cybersurf!: tips op het gebied van "netsurfen" voor het verzamelen van
zakelijke informatie
- Redactioneel
- MKB-adressen: adressenoverzicht van Nederlandse MKB-organisaties
- Small business Netnews: internationaal Engelstalig nieuws voor kleine
ondernemingen, verspreid via Internet
 
U vindt InfoLink's Ondernemersdisk Online op het World Wide Web, via
http://iaehv.nl/users/kerstens/ildisk.htm.
 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
 
Robert Kerstens
InfoLink Information Services
kerstens@iaehv.nl
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Robert  Kerstens
 
InfoLink Information Services        Tel.: +31-(0)40-424019
Echternachlaan 186                         Fax: +31-(0)40-424019
5625 JC  Eindhoven                      E-mail: kerstens@iaehv.nl
The Netherlands                            WorldWide Web:
http://iaehv.nl/users/kerstens/ildisk.htm
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 Aug 1995 08:58:42 EDT
Reply-To:     Robert Kerstens 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Robert Kerstens 
Subject:      Introducing: InfoLink's Business Disk Online,
              Holland's first Web magazine for small business owners
X-cc:         Newslib@gibbs.oit.unc.edu, carr-l@ulkyvm.louisville.edu
 
InfoLink's Business Disk Online: Holland's first Web-magazine for
owners of SME's
 
The new august/september-issue of InfoLink's Business Disk Online
(InfoLink's Ondernemersdisk Online) is now available online.
InfoLink's Business Disk Online is a free online digest version
of InfoLink's Ondernemersdisk, a Dutch diskmagazine for owners of
SME's, published by InfoLink Information Services in Eindhoven,
The Netherlands.
 
InfoLink's Business Disk is a bilingual Dutch/English online
publication and is updated bimonthly. The august/september-issue
contains business news and information for small business owners
on topics ranging from advertising to tax matters. An
international agenda and a special "netsurf"-section listing
small business information-sites on the Net, are included in the
publication. The "Small business NetNews"-section of the magazine
is exclusively dedicated to international English-language small
business news found on the Net.
 
You will find InfoLink's Business Disk by pointing you Web-
browser to http://iaehv.nl/users/kerstens/ildisk.htm.
 
Regards,
 
Robert Kerstens
InfoLink Information Services
kerstens@iaehv.nl
================================================================
In this issue:
 
Small business NetNews:
STUDY SAYS THERE IS REAL SHOPPING ON THE INTERNET
US GOVERNMENT STARTS SMALL BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICE ON WEB
INFORMATION HIGHWAY NOT A SAFE PLACE TO CONDUCT BUSINESS
 
Personeel:
DE LERENDE ORGANISATIE: WAARIN EEN GROTE ONDERNEMING OOK KLEIN
KAN ZIJN
Marketing:
Marketing goeroe Paul Postma:
"MIJN SYSTEEM HOUDT VERKOPERS EEN SPIEGEL VAN HUN
EIGENAARDIGHEDEN VOOR"
Fiscaal/juridisch:
BESLOTEN OF BUITENLANDSE VENNOOTSCHAP? EEN DISCUSSIE OVER DE
VOOR- EN NADELEN VOOR HET MKB!
Innovatie:
Innovatie-adviseur Wouter Pijzel:
"INNOVATIE IS SPRONGEN MAKEN"
Internet business:
NVI PUBLICEERT GIDS OVER JURIDISCHE ASPECTEN VAN ELEKTRONISCH
UITGEVEN
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Robert  Kerstens
 
InfoLink Information Services        Tel.: +31-(0)40-424019
Echternachlaan 186                         Fax: +31-(0)40-424019
5625 JC  Eindhoven                      E-mail: kerstens@iaehv.nl
The Netherlands                            WorldWide Web:
http://iaehv.nl/users/kerstens/ildisk.htm
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 Aug 1995 11:36:43 EDT
Reply-To:     Brian Gaines 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Brian Gaines 
Subject:      Re: Archiving mailing lists
 
>Tom Leonhardt remarks
>Saving (archiving, if you will) listserv list postings would be a waste of
>resources and tantamount to an archivist/manuscript librarian saving shopping
>lists, envelopes, and a host of other things that people leave behind. One
>might occasionally make a case for saving some of the truly ephemeral waste
>paper, etc. of famous people, but on the whole, critical decisions need to be
>made. No matter how cheap storage space, it is not free and it eventually
>fills up. Sorry, but most (99%) of the postings on the Internet should be
>saved only if you can use them as liners for electronic, virtual bird cages.
 
This is an example of the lack of knowledge of what is taking place on many
lists which is leading to the loss of valuable information.
 
For example, CSG-L has for many years had an intensive scientific
discussion of perceptual-motor psychology which has developed a major
field of research. When offered special issues in journals the group
has decided that the discourse on the list is more valuable. Several
members have published books but none reflect more than a slight part
of the list archives.
 
The cg list has been similar with in-depth discussions of deep logical
issues that are not replicated elewhere.
 
The www-talk list is a treasure-trove of both the history of the
development of a significant technology, and many ideas that have
yet to be implemented.
 
What is happening is that the old jornal format is being by-passed
on the Internet by a new form of scientific activity and record.
 
Tom's comments do seem to apply to newsgroups -- they, for the most
part, are ephemeral -- but many list servers are the primary scholarly
output of significant communities. Dismissing them from the viewpoint
above is a major error.
 
b.
 
 
Dr Brian R Gaines               Knowledge Science Institute
                                University of Calgary
gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca         Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
403-220-5901  Fax:403-284-4707  http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/KSI
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 Aug 1995 11:37:05 EDT
Reply-To:     Brian Gaines 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Brian Gaines 
Subject:      Re: Archiving mailing lists
 
>Stuart Weibel writes:
 
>Is this REALLY such a serious problem?
>
>- the contents of many lists are of marginal historical value.  They are
>  little more than electronic conversations.
>
>- there are, of course, many other lists that ARE of significant value
>  to the communities that support them.  Is it likely that the maintainers
>  of these lists are not keeping them?  In some cases, probably.  But the
>  technical aspect of the problem is precisely the same as it is for
>  electronic journals: URNs, URCs, and formal collection repositories.
>
 
The problem is that the judgement of the list owners as to what is valuable,
particularly for the historic record, is not always correct. Through analysis
of some lists we have been able to trace the detailed dynamics of the growth
of ideas and technologies in significant areas of scholarship. That may not
be particularly relevant to the list maintainer.
 
Also, if one looks at the social dynamics of scholarship, the "reward
system" for knowledge dissemination is highly artificial. Scholars have
no intrinsic need to contribute to the "public good". The pay-off for
joining in discourse on a list is the critical discussion with peers.
There may be no deep interest in making that discussion available to
others. There is a related phenomenon with journals where many authors
have no concern about whether their papers are read -- they have
"paid their dues" by publishing.
 
When I became involved in research in the 1950s I noticed that the most
valuable research information was in the recorded discussion at the end
of conference papers. It was honest, speculative, often contradicted the
conclusions of papers, gave insights into anomalies, and was a great source
of research ideas. It is rare to see recorded discussion in today's
conference proceedings. List servers are now providing such a record
of the "real" research issues in many domains. For a young researcher
entering a field, access to list server archives may greatly accelerate
productivity.
 
b.
 
Dr Brian R Gaines               Knowledge Science Institute
                                University of Calgary
gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca         Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
403-220-5901  Fax:403-284-4707  http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/KSI
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 Aug 1995 11:38:33 EDT
Reply-To:     Julene Butler 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Julene Butler 
Subject:      Re: Electronic journals and tenure
 
My research may be of interest here.
 
I have been collecting data regarding the electronic journal as a channel
for formal scholarly communication.  One dimension of my research was a
survey distributed to authors and editors of ten electronic-only journals
from science and social science disciplines.  They were asked whether
the promotion/tenure policy statements at their institution made specific
reference to electronic journals.  Of the 186 individuals who responded
to that question, 75% responded  No,  23% did not know,  and only 2%
(4 individuals) responded Yes.  I am unable to identify the institutional
affiliation of those individuals, though they were all associated with
universities.  Three were from the US, the fourth from Australia.
 
I went on to ask questions regarding rewards received (or NOT received)
since the time of the individual's involvement with the electronic journal.
The data revealed interesting patterns regarding INFORMAL rewards and
recognition received by contributors to e-journals.
 
Unfortunately, however, the data revealed less about FORMAL rewards such
as tenure and promotion.  It does seem safe to conclude from the data
that, at this point in time, electronic publication has NOT led to a
failure to receive rewards.  Additionally, although there is a strong
perception that colleagues see e-publication as less significant than
print publication, very few contributors have actually been challenged
regarding their e-publication or asked to justify it through formal
review channels.
 
For more detail see:
 
Butler, J. (1995).  Research into the reward system of scholarship;
     Where does scholarly electronic publishing get you?  In A.
     Okerson (Ed.), Filling the Pipeline and Paying the Piper;
     Proceedings of the 4th Symposium (pp. 167-178).  Washington,
     DC:  Association of Research Libraries.
 
This is also due to be published in the July '95 issue of the Journal of
Scholarly Publishing.
 
Julene Butler
Ph.D. Candidate
Rutgers University
 
jbutler@zodiac.rutgers.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 Aug 1995 11:38:46 EDT
Reply-To:     Scott Gillies 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Scott Gillies 
Subject:      preservation of electronic information
 
Hello Group,
 
I have been getting a very enthusiastic response to my questionnaire
regarding electronic information and how institutions and individuals
are dealing with the preservation issues involved.
 
In order to acquire some context for my study, I would like to find
out which resources users use the most or depend on the most.
 
I am interested in which _types_ of resources you use the most
(listservs, e-mail, electronic journals, online databases, etc.) as
well as any specific resources that you consider to be the most useful
or important.  If you are a librarian, I would be interested in how
various patrons (faculty, grads, undergrads, general public, grade
schoolers) use the electronic resources, particularly networked
resources, that you provide.
 
Thanks for the enthusiasm regarding my questionnaire, and keep them
coming in!  They are very useful!  And be sure to tell me how you and
your patrons (when applicable) use electronic resources.  I really
appreciate this.
 
Please reply directly to me!
 
Thanks in advance,
 
Scott Gillies
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
gillies@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 Aug 1995 11:39:06 EDT
Reply-To:     Brian Gaines 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Brian Gaines 
Subject:      Re: Archiving mailing lists
 
Bob Jansen says
>
>an interesting notion. DO you see the analogue of Ginsparg's server for
>lists?
 
yes
 
>How should this be funded, since the cost is more than  just the
>hardware?
 
system could be largely automatic mirroring, so cost is incremental
hardware plus use of net both to mirror and to serve
 
most effective way would be for one of the sunsites with good connectivity
to provide this as an additional service -- archives would be registered
for mirroring and the rest would be automatic
 
b.
 
Dr Brian R Gaines               Knowledge Science Institute
                                University of Calgary
gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca         Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
403-220-5901  Fax:403-284-4707  http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/KSI
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 Aug 1995 11:39:23 EDT
Reply-To:     Brian Gaines 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Brian Gaines 
Subject:      Re: Archiving mailing lists
 
Bob Jansen writes:
>
>what about the editorial content. Surely, most of a current list is of
>interest only to current members. Future access misses the context of the
>current entries, a context that would be difficult to reproduce later on.
>well as getting rid of garbage.
>
 
I think one needs to classify list usage. There are some lists with totally
schlalrly content where the entire record is of domain interest. There are
others doing something so significant that the entire list is of historic
interest.
 
Some of the truly ephemeral lists are still of immense psychological,
linguistic and sociological interest as research data. We have the opportunity
to study a variety of human discourse activities at a very low cost in data
capture. We may feel we don't need all the data currently, but once
detailed models are developed we may be data thirsty as usual.
 
I live in a town of terabytes of seismic data where huge datasets are
kept for decades on the basis that the cost is low and someday, some
of it MAY be useful. The Internet is small beer cf satellite imaging
and seismic data.
 
Probably, a library list was the wrong place for this posting. Only the
scientific discourse lists fall within the same province as EJ's. However,
it is interesting that there seems little awareness that such lists
exist, the number is growing, and they present a mode of discourse that
bypasses any form of journal.
 
The larger issue of scientific data capture is one for the science
community at large -- that is, where the list is to be studied rather than
just indexed.
 
b.
 
Dr Brian R Gaines               Knowledge Science Institute
                                University of Calgary
gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca         Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
403-220-5901  Fax:403-284-4707  http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/KSI
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Aug 1995 12:35:00 EDT
Reply-To:     Brian Gaines 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Brian Gaines 
Subject:      Re: Archiving mailing lists
X-cc:         weibel@oclc.org
 
>> The www-talk list is a treasure-trove of both the history of the
>> development of a significant technology, and many ideas that have
>> yet to be implemented.
>
Stu Weibel replies
>I grudgingly admit that your point may be valid, but
>PUHLEEEEEASE!!!  www-talk?  I can imagine no surer route to perplexity
>and a belief that Netscape stock is a good value than to take seriously
>the unmoderated ramblings of a list such as www-talk.  Brian, this
>example trivializes your argument.  Good heavens... the mind boggles.
>
 
I mentioned www-talk because we have been micro-analyzing the 1991/92
archives and I was astonished to what extent they provide deep insights
into the development of WWW, and raise a range of major research issues.
Go back to the hypermail archives which Jay Glicksman maintains at Stanford:-
 
  http://gummo.stanford.edu/hypermail/
 
and look at the early material. We are using this both to plot the
"learning curve" for web development (filling in the detail for a
model, see http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/articles/BRETAM/FCS_IT/), and
to classify the components of the WWW architecture, their origins and
development.
 
I agree with you that if you take the deluge of www-talk hour by hour
it lacks coherence. However, it is not at all without interest. Through
the 1960s the role of IBM imperialism in standards committees was much
discussed, but very difficult to model and quantify. Now we have a wealth
of detailed data on the interplay between market forces and non-proprietary
standardization through the html-wg and html-talk lists. We can begin to
build detailed quantitative models of the dynamics of technological
development.
 
I think the hypermail archives make a big difference to ones perception
of a list because they sort the mail by topic, and index the streams of
discussion (the "by subject" index for the 1994 archives on -- hypermail
itself was developing over the same period). Hypermail is supporting
"selective attention" in a way that is difficult for us when a stream
of related mail arrives over several days interspersed with many other
streams of discussion.
 
I believe the html-wg archives are updated automatically every 4 hours
so they can be monitored in hypermail form. Maybe that is a much better
way of following a list than receiving an unstructured mail stream.
Unfortunately, in the short term, there is a bug in hypermail whereby
the 1995 www-talk archives are not being properly indexed. So one cannot
follow www-talk through the hypermail archives currently. That
should be fixed shortly.
 
Hopefully, the mind now boggles less, or, at least, with a different
boggational frequency, b.
 
Dr Brian R Gaines               Knowledge Science Institute
                                University of Calgary
gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca         Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
403-220-5901  Fax:403-284-4707  http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/KSI
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Aug 1995 12:36:18 EDT
Reply-To:     Archie Zariski 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Archie Zariski 
Subject:      Re: Archiving mailing lists
In-Reply-To:  
 
Something like what Brian Gaines suggests regarding mirroring is going on
for law courtesy of the Chicago-Kent Law School.
 
Take a look at The Legal Domain:
 
http://www.kentlaw.edu/lawnet/lawnet.html
 
(But I don't know whether they have a long-term archiving plan.)
 
Cheers!
 
      Archie Zariski                     *
        * *     Technical Editor, E Law -
Senior Lecturer and Program Chair      * * *       Murdoch University
School of Law, Murdoch University     *  *  *   Electronic Journal of Law
Murdoch, Western Australia 6150      * *     *
Ph +619 360 2979 Fax +619 310 6671  * * * * * *
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Aug 1995 12:39:39 EDT
Reply-To:     Tom 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Tom 
Subject:      Archiving mailing lists
 
If you want an argument against archiving the postings on mailing lists, just
look at this particular discussion. I rest my case. It deserves no better
future than your personal daily newspaper that you use to line the cage of a
bird, hamster,  rat, etc. When we have virtual bird cages that need liners,
we can take the content of ANY list serv and it will do just fine.
As to the notion that cutting edge thinking, research, collaboration, and
other such things, where is the proof? I have tried scholarly lists and find
that only occasionally does a posting rise above the level one would expect
of a graduate student bull session.
Lists have their place but merely posting our opinion does not make it
informed or profound.
Good archivists make decisions every day about what is worth keeping and what
is not. Those who are unsure and inexperienced will want to keep everything
but everything, including ideas, is not equal. Those old envelopes, receipts,
shopping lists, etc. in a personal archive probably have more value for the
cancelled stamps and letterheads than for understanding the intellectual or
historical value of the subject. And if all of the papers of your local
congressman were saved, it would take up more space than the complete files
are worth. Good archivists have to make tough decisions.
We may as well argue, when suggesting that we save all of this STUFF on
listservs, that we all record our conversations and save our interoffice
memos so that future generations won't be deprived of our wisdom, individual
and collective. There ain't enough room on this good earth for such a refuse
heap and there is too much to sift through already. What we need is
discrimination, discipline, and the ruthlessness to throw out the trash.
Tom Leonhardt
University of Oklahoma
tom@libadm.lib.uoknor.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Aug 1995 12:40:28 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      Re: Electronic journals and tenure
 
Further to Dave Hill's query about credit for electronic publication in
the US, he probably knows it already, but I here repost for vpiej-l
readers the message I posted on Jul 25: the UK seems to be ahead of the
US on this:
 
From harnad Tue Jul 25 21:52:40 1995
To: psyc@pucc.bitnet (PSYCOLOQUY)
Subject: Credit for Electronic Journal Publication in the UK
Cc: serialst@uvmvm.bitnet (Lib Serials list), vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet
    (Pub-EJournals)
 
http://www.gold.ac.uk/history/hyperjournal/rae.htm> ]
Research Assessment Exercise 1996
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Research Assessment Exercise and Electronic Journals
>
> HEFCE Circular RAE96 1/94 para 25c states:
>
> In the light of the recommendations of the Joint Funding Councils'
> Libraries Review Group Report (published in December 1993) refereed
> journal articles published through electronic means will be treated
> on the same basis as those appearing in printed journals.
>
> This is the result of adopting the following recommendation in
> Librev Chapter 7:
>
> 289. To help promote the status and acceptability of electronic
> journals, the Review Group also recommends that the funding councils
> should make it clear that refereed articles published electronically
> will be accepted in the next Research Assessment Exercise on the
> same basis as those appearing in printed journals.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Aug 1995 12:40:49 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      Premature Polls
 
As I suggested in my response to Julene Butler's questionnaire on
October 20 1993 (see below), though polls are, I suppose, always
welcome, the kinds of questions she was asking were so premature that
the responses they elicited could hardly be taken as representative of
anything. Try the same questionnaire in a few more years. For now, all
such a study can show is the massive inertia of the status quo against
which the first hints of movement are being made. It is even possible
that premature polling of a system that is only beginning to flirt with
the first movements away from an entrenched status quo will have a
retardant effect, like regression on the mean. It's rather like polling
worldwide users of horse-drawn transport at the time when only a
hundred motor cars have appeared, as to whether they are have taken
steps to stop ordering hay and instead purchase gasoline... Imagine if
any conclusions about whether or not to proceed with cars had been made
on the basis of the results of such a poll!
 
(The disanalogy is that we might just have been better off ecologically
now if automotive technology HAD been throttled by a premature
faint-hearted poll; but to pass from the paper medium to the electronic
one is, fortuntately, to move in the opposite ecological direction...)
 
----------------------------------------------------------------
    Stevan Harnad, Editor
    PSYCOLOQUY (sci.psychology.journals.psycoloquy)
    Sponsored by the American Psychological Association
 
    Department of Psychology
    University of Southampton
    Highfield, Southampton
    SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM
 
    psyc@pucc.princeton.edu
    phone: +44 1703 594-583
    fax:   +44 1703 593-281
--------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/psyc
    http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/psyc.html
    gopher://gopher.princeton.edu:70/11/.libraries/.pujournals
    ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy
    ftp://cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy
    news:sci.psychology.journals.psycoloquy
 
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 00:17:01 EDT
From: "Stevan Harnad" 
To: JBUTLER@zodiac.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re:  Questions about Psycoloquy
 
Dear Julene, here is your questionnaire, filled out. The trade-off for
the quick turn-around on such a long questionnaire is that I have not
taken time to fix typos. Chrs, Stevan
 
> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 21:43:53 -0400 (EDT)
> From: JBUTLER@zodiac.rutgers.edu
>       Julene Butler Rutgers University, School of Communication,
>       Information & Library Studies
> Subject: Questions about Psycoloquy
>
> My objective is to examine publication in electronic journals
> within the context of the reward system of scholarly
> communication.  To that end I hope to study ten electronic
> journals by interviewing editors and authors regarding their
> experiences and perceptions.   Later I will gather information
> from the readership (both actual and potential) of those same
> journals, and finally I will attempt some early citation
> analysis.
>
> Let me say at the outset that I have read many of your writings.
> I believe those writings include the answers you would give to
> several of the questions below.  In light of this, I have decided
> to include here my full list of questions, but will highlight
> those which seem to be answered through your publications.  If
> you send no further response to these questions I will assume
> that your answer is indeed available elsewhere.
>
> The questions .....
>      (As I would have posed them to you in a verbal interview,
>      hence, the occasional wordiness/lack of precision.)
>
> 1.   What was the impetus for start-up of your journal?  Was
>      there a perceived need for the journal?  Would you have
>      started it as a print journal if electronic channels were
>      unavailable?  Was it primarily viewed as an experiment in
>      electronic publication?
> **Answered by your publications.
 
I have edited a paper journal for 16 years: Behavioral and Brain
Sciences. It is unusual in that it specializes in Open Peer Commentary.
It became apparent to me almost immediately that THIS VERY FEATURE
represented the most revolutionary dimension of electronic publication
("Scholarly Skywriting") and that that medium was in a position to
implement it in a way that the paper medium never could, because of the
latter's constraints on time, space, globality, accessibility, and
interactivity.
 
It's certainly an experiment in electronic publication, but, although I
know the need is great and the outcome inevitable, I would NOT have been
inspired to start an electronic journal if the only possibility were to
emulate conventional paper journals in this medium (with the only
"value-added" features being in the area of speed and cost -- extremely
important, but not enough to draw ME into the arena). In fact, as
described in my papers, it was my OWN personal taste of the potential
power and productivity to be derived from Scholarly Skywriting that
really impelled me to start my experiment in peer-reviewed interactive
publication: because life is short, and I wanted to entice my peers onto
the medium before I was too old to sky-joust with them!
 
>      Do you believe that you launched publication of your journal
>      at the appropriate time?  Why do you feel that way?  What
>      factors led you to begin when you did?
 
The time is/was ripe because not only is the Net in place, but access
has reached a threshold in the academic community: In principle, just
about any scholar just about anywhere in the world can get a login.
Of course, it will take time before the peers are enticed onto the net
sufficiently to entrust their best work to it, and that is why the
sooner the convincing demo's of the net's potential power in
peer-reviewed publication start appearing, the better. That's the
purpose of PSYCOLOQUY, both within it's own spectrum of disciplines
(psychology, neuroscience, behavioral biology, cognitive science,
linguistics, philosophy) and as a model for other disciplines as they
contemplate taking to the skies.
 
> 2.   Do you believe that your journal is widely/adequately/
>      scarcely known among its potential subscribers; the
>      scholarly community to whom it is addressed?  What leads you
>      to believe that?
 
With 3500 direct subscribers and redistribution lists on
Bitnet/Listserv, 20,000 readers (based on arbitron statistics) on
Usenet, and who knows how many accessing it through anonymous ftp,
archie, gopher, veronica, WAIS, WWW, CIC-Net, etc. PSYCOLOQUY is
certainly widely known. The objective now is to get high quality
material to appear on this high visibility channel. This is the real
challenge, because fears about the initial career-promoting value of
electronic publications as well as hesitations about posting on what
looks like an anarchic and evanescent medium combine to create powerful
inertial conditions that have to be overcome by dazzling displays of the
power and value of Skywriting for scholars and scientists.
 
>      What have you done to inform the scholarly community of the
>      existence of your journal?
 
My paper journal, BBS is a very high profile, high prestige one (it has
the highest [adjusted] impact factor in psychology and the 3rd highest
of all 1500 journals indexed in SSCI (Drake 1986). I regularly run
notices in that journal about PSYCOLOQUY. Our sponsor, the
American Psychological Association, has also run many ads in its
publications for it's over 100,000 members. And of course the Net
itself keeps bringing it to the attention to more and more people.
I also give talks at many conferences, and write papers on the subject.
 
Drake, R.A. (1986) Citations to articles and commentaries: A
reassessment. American Psychologist 41: 324 - 325.
 
>      Do you have plans for further activities to publicize the
>      journal?
 
No need. That's not the problem. The problem is convincing good authors
to begin to entrust their best work to this brave new medium. That will
come, but that's what takes the most effort. People know about it, and
are quite willing to READ it. Now they must be convinced to PUBLISH in
it -- and publish their BEST work (because I don't want to start with
the wrong stereotype that the electronic medium is for second-rate
work).
>
> 3.   What steps have you taken to encourage authors to submit to
>      your journal?
 
That's a more pertinent question. Calls for papers appear all the time,
in paper and print, in the places I mention. The Editorial Board
approaches authors. Papers are redirected from BBS where appropriate.
But active efforts like this (and more) will be needed for a good while,
until a collective threshold in scholarly credibility is passed by the
Net, once and for all.
 
>      Have you intentionally solicited submissions from any
>      particular group/category of authors?
 
From all the disciplines covered, both electronically and in paper.
Results are so far still not strong enough, but the time will come.
 
>      How does your experience with this journal [in terms of
>      submissions] differ from experiences you've had with print
>      journals?
 
I started BBS in 1978 and PSYCOLOQUY in 1989. BBS was a new kind of
journal (Open Peer Commentary), but in a tried and tested medium, paper.
PSYCOLOQUY is still fighting an uphill battle, purely because the medium
itself is not yet tried and tested. It will be.
 
> 4.   Does your policy impose any restrictions regarding prior or
>      simultaneous submission/publication in other channels?
>           **Answered by your publications.
 
Authors of accepted manuscripts assign to PSYCOLOQUY the right to
publish and distribute their text electronically and to archive and
make it permanently retrievable electronically, but they retain the
copyright, and after it has appeared in PSYCOLOQUY authors may
republish their text in any way they wish -- electronic or print -- as
long as they clearly acknowledge PSYCOLOQUY as its original locus of
publication. However, except in very special cases, agreed upon in
advance, contributions that have already been published or are being
considered for publication elsewhere are not eligible to be considered
for publication in PSYCOLOQUY,
 
>      Does prior discussion of article contents on an electronic
>      list alter the publication pattern in any way?
>           **Answered by your publications.
 
Prior discussion, formal or informal, is permitted, but not prior
publication in a refereed journal -- whether electronic or print.
Even unrefereed journal publication is grounds for disqualification as,
besides not wanting to give the false impression that electronic
journals are for lesser work, we want to make it clear that it offers
MORE, not LESS than other forms of publication, hence should not be
treated as a means of RE-publishing already published work, even the
highest quality work.
 
>      Does your policy impose any restrictions on future
>      publication of articles in other channels?
>           **Answered by your publications.
 
None apart from citing the original locus in the republication. On the
other hand, the second journal's policy might have something to say
about PRIOR publication.
 
> 5.   Please describe your review procedures in detail.
>
>      How were reviewers initially selected for your Board of
>      Reviewers?
 
There is no Board of Reviewers, but an Editorial Board of over 80,
representing the many subspecialties in the biobehavioral/cognitive
science spectrum (the Board is still growing). In consultation with
them, I choose referees for particular submissions. The initial Board was
selected by my co-editor and myself and new members are approved by the
current Board.
 
All of this is roughly standard procedure for peer review (except for
the question of scale and speed). Peer review is medium-independent.
 
>      How do you determine which reviewers will receive a given
>      submission?
 
Standard peer review. Please familiarize yourself with this or you will
make it seem as if refereed electronic journals are inventing the wheel:
Editor consults with Action Editor for specialty, in-house lists of
specialists on particular topics are maintained and searched, the
general literature may be searched, etc. Referees are selected. They
submit their reports. Then Editor or Action Editor decides what to do on
their basis.
 
>      How many reviewers per article?
 
3-5. (Usual number is 1-3.)
 
>      Do you have written guidelines for your reviewers?  May I
>      obtain a copy of those guidelines?
 
We use an adapted version of BBS's Instructions which follow below:
 
INSTRUCTIONS TO BBS REFEREES
 
 
NAME OF REFEREE___________________________
 
AUTHOR/TITLE OF SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT__________________
 
______________________________________________________
 
 
Please find enclosed a manuscript that has been submitted to
BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES.  Papers are accepted for
publication in BBS only if they are judged by our referees to be
appropriate for Open Peer Commentary, the special service
provided by BBS to researchers in psychology, neuroscience,
behavioral biology, and cognitive science who wish to solicit
multiple responses, from fellow specialists within and across BBS
disciplines, to a particularly significant and controversial
piece of work.
 
We would be very grateful if you would referee this manuscript
for BBS.  The criteria for accepting manuscripts are described in
the enclosed Instructions for Authors and Commentators.  In
brief, a judgment must be made not only as to quality but also as
to whether the material merits Commentary.  If a high quality
manuscript is not found to have a convincing rationale for
soliciting Commentary, one that promises a scientifically
productive service for author, commentators and the behavioral
and brain science community, then the author should be advised to
submit the manuscript to a conventional journal.
 
One of the surest indices of appropriateness for Commentary of an
otherwise high quality manuscript is that it readily calls to
mind a number of researchers who could provide substantive
criticism, interpretation, elaboration or pertinent complementary
or supplementary material.  It would be extremely helpful if,
together with your report, you would list all such potential
commentators.  If the article is accepted for publication, they
will be approached by BBS to submit formal commentary.  Enclosed
is a current list of BBS Associates, but please do not hesitate
to recommend unaffiliated commentators as well.
 
In addition to providing commentary from the pertinent
specialists in a particular article's subject matter, one of the
most important functions of the BBS service is to provide input
from specialists across the entire spectrum of behavioral and
brain sciences.  with this object in mind, please also include in
your list of potential commentators representatives from those
BBS disciplines that are external to the subject matter of the
manuscript.  It is also particularly important that BBS
Commentaries be fully international.  The names of qualified
overseas, Eastern European and Far Eastern investigators would be
especially helpful.
 
Your refereeing will be anonymous unless you specify otherwise.
In your report please separate clearly those of your
recommendations that should be forwarded to the author from those
that could profitably be incorporated into your own formal
commentary later, should the article be accepted for publication.
Of course, the quality of an article should never be compromised
by withholding any remarks that could be helpful to the author in
preparing the final revised draft.
 
The service of Open Peer Commentary is provided for current
controversial material.  It is critically important that it be
made available with a minimum of delay.  Referees are asked to
respond as soon as possible so that the elaborate and complicated
second-round Commentary process can be promptly initiated should
the article be accepted.
 
We require your referee's report by___________________.
 
>      What percentage of articles submitted are actually
>      published?
 
10-20%
 
>      What is the average turn-around time from submission to
>      publication?  (Is it possible to obtain detailed stats
>      regarding this?)
 
Manuscript flow is still too low for stable stats, but it is about 2-3
weeks till referee reports are in and the disposition letter is sent.
Next there is some naivete on the questioner's part:  The author now
has to REVISE and it is unpredictable how long this will take; when
done, the revised draft may have to be refereed, re-revised, etc.
Averages at this early stage of PSYCOLOQUY's existence would be
meaningless (even in BBS's case they don't say much, since they
collapse together the near-ship-shape ms's that receive fast review,
need little revision, and are revised fast, vs. the ms's that require
major revision, lots of time, and one or more round of re-refereeing.
The final accepted draft may be of equal quality in both cases,
so what do the averaged figures tell you?)
 
Best case: Publication within 4 weeks of initial submission.
Worst case: Publication after 6-8 months.
 
> 6.   Is your journal indexed anywhere?
 
WWW and CICnet, of course. And APA have asked to evaluate it for
indexing and abstracting in Psychological Abstracts, but I have asked
them to hold off till we reach a higher quality threshold and a
healthier spontaneous submission rate. No use in raising the profile
until there is more product.
 
>      If so, were there ever any obstacles/objections to its
>      inclusion in the index(es)?  How did you overcome them?
 
No, as I said, I have taken the strategic step of focusing on
manuscript quality and flow rather than alerting services. Others have
focussed instead on raising their alerting profile through paper
abstracts and indexing publications IN ORDER to increase their
manuscript flow. We'll see who gets there faster.
 
Current Contents has done a major editorial on skywriting and PSYCOLOQUY
and have reprinted my own article on Skywriting.
 
Garfield, E. (1991) Electronic journals and skywriting: A complementary
medium for scientific communication? Current Contents 45: 9-11,
November 11 1991
 
Harnad, S. (1990) Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum
of Scientific Inquiry. Invited Commentary on: William Gardner:  The
Electronic Archive: Scientific Publishing for the 90s Psychological
Science 1: 342 - 343 (reprinted in Current Contents 45: 9-13, November
11 1991).
 
>      If not, have you made any attempts to have it included in an
>      index?  What were the factors which led to its rejection by
>      the index?
 
See above. I have made no efforts. My efforts go elsewhere.
 
> 7.   How would you describe your subscription base?  As expected?
>      Hope for more?  Institutional vs Individual subscrips
 
Partly meaningless, because medium-dependent question: Which is the
better indicator, the 3500 Listserv subscribership, the 20,000 reader
arbitron-monitored Usenet readership, or the uncounted access through
archie, gopher, veronica, etc.? I would say the citation statistics
(impact factor) several years down the road, supplemented by some
peculiarly electronic data -- like arbitron samples of "hit rates" on
archives, and even citations in unrefereed electronic discussion lists
-- are better measures than conventional library/institution
subscription rates. (Many libraries, by the way, are doing a wonderful
job making PSYCOLOQUY accessible -- especially University of Michigan,
WWW, Illinois, Ohio, etc.)
 
>      Do you offer copies of the journal in non-electronic
>      format(s)?
 
ABSOLUTELY NOT. I don't want to win reader/author confidence in
electronic publication by capitulating and providing a parallel print
channel. (Individuals/Institutions  are free to run it off on paper if
they feel the urge...)
 
>      Why?  At whose initiation?
 
No. none
 
>      Are they being requested regularly?  By whom?  For what
>      reasons?
 
Yes, they are requested, and (gently) discouraged regularly. I even
discourage SUBSCRIPTIONS! I urge people to access PSYCOLOQUY instead
through Usenet and/or gopher.
 
> 8.   Are you aware of any sector of the scholarly community that
>      is unable to access your journal?
 
Only those who have no email accounts, and that is not a systematic
community, since in principle everyone can get it. Those with no
institutional affiliation can get it cheaply through compuserv etc.
Europe, eastern europe and parts of the middle and far east are fine
(though some have to pay telephone and access time, alas). The third
world still needs help, though this could be a great boon to them, since
they can afford paper journals even less,
 
>      What are the obstacles preventing their access?
 
Money in the third world; unawareness or silly prejudices (based
on centuries of experience only with paper) in the 1st and
2nd world.
 
> 9.   Do you distribute Table of Contents information to any who
>      are not formally subscribed to your journal?  If so, through
>      what channels?
 
Many lists (including BBS's list) receive annual tables of contents and
Calls for authors, commentators on particular articles.
 
> 10.  Do any libraries subscribe to your journal?
 
Yes many, but why call it "subscription" since there's no charge? Some
store a version of their own of the archive, some provide a friendly,
transparent access to a remote archive.
 
>      Have they made any special requests of you regarding
>      distribution/storage/retrieval of the journal?
 
Sometimes, and I always tell them to help themselves.
 
>
> 11.  Regarding AUTHORS WHO SUBMIT articles to your journal:
>
>      Do they come from any noticeable sub-group/strata within the
>      population?
 
No. These questions are premature! Ask again in 3-4 years and I'll be
able to tell you.
 
>           Tenured, known, well-respected
>           Young, seeking tenure, lesser-known
 
Too early to tell. The best scholars/scientists are still not publishing
on the net.
 
>      Why do they wish to publish in your journal?
>           Eager to use electronic channel?
>           Most relevant channel; electronic dimension is only a
>                sidelight?
>           Only place that will have them?
 
It's peer-reviewed. If it does not pass refereeing elsewhere, it won't
pass in PSYCOLOQUY either. I would say those who are already turning to
PSYCOLOQUY are wanting to draw wide immediate attention and peer
feedback (in the form of Open Peer Commentary) to their work.
>
>      Do they express feedback regarding whether contacts with
>      others have resulted from publication in your journal?
>           **The answer here seems obvious, based on your format,
>           but please add any comments you feel are relevant.
 
The sample is TOO SMALL for any reliable generalizations at this point.
The variation is still too big. A survey like yours was done a year ago
and could find no pattern because there was simply not enough data yet.
 
>      Do they express feedback regarding any rewards or
>      recognition they have received as a result of publication in
>      your journal?
 
TOO EARLY (except where the commentaries themselves were their own
reward).
 
>      Do they express feedback regarding any rewards or
>      recognition they have failed to receive as a result of
>      publication in your journal?
 
There was a disgruntled author who asked me to testify to his tenure
committee that PSYCOLOQUY is an APA journal. It isn't, and I refused. I
am not interested in careerists now, but people who want to increase
the influence of and feedback about their work among their peers -- the
ones who want to use Scholarly Skywriting to increase their productivity
and their contribution to knowledge. The careerists can climb aboard
later in the game.
 
It is also useful to remind ourselves now and again why scholars and
scientists do what they do, rather than going straight into the junk
bond market: They presumably want to contribute to mankind's cumulative
knowledge. They have to make a living too, of course, but if doing that
as comfortably and prosperously as possible were their primary motive
they could surely find better ways. Prestige no doubt matters too, but
here again there are less rigororous roads one might have taken than
that of learned inquiry. So scholars publish not primarily to pad
their CVs or to earn royalties on their words, but to inform their peers
of their findings, and to be informed by them in turn, in that
collaborative, interactive spiral whereby mankind's knowledge
increases. My own estimate is that the new medium has the potential to
extend individual scholars' intellectual life-lines (i.e., the
size of their lifelong contribution) by an order of magnitude.
 
> 12.  Regarding AUTHORS WHO REFUSE TO SUBMIT to your journal:
>
>      Can you categorize them in any way?
 
No, except that so far they are still the vast majority, and include the
very best in the field. (But your question is not a good or insightful
one, if you don't mind my saying so: The answer, at this early embryonic
stage is obvious: It's like asking whether you have noticed anything
about human height in the first trimester of pregnancy: Yes, everyone
is pretty short!)
 
>      Do they indicate why they refuse?
 
No, but I can guess:
                     (1) I won't get publication credit.
                     (2) The electronic medium is not for serious
                     scholarship
                     (2) My work is for the highest prestige journals
                     (currently all paper)
 
>      Have they indicated what factors would need to be in place
>      before they would be willing to submit for publication?
 
No, but I can guess: High quality, highly cited articles and
commentaries that appeared in electronic journals. That's what we are
working to give them, but it takes time, and must overcome the initial
hurdle that, once overcome, of course becomes self-sustaining and
self-validating.
 
>      Could you supply me with names of individuals who refuse to
>      submit to your journal?  [In addition to interviewing
>      published authors, I hope to get further feedback from
>      "refusers".]
 
One prominent one is Noam Chomsky, one of the best scholars alive, who,
though he is willing to engage in extensive scholarly e-mail, told me he
would not even post to a list because (paraphrasing in my own words) it
would be like casting pearls before swine -- and would invite a lot of
unwanted net junk mail from unqualified dilettantes, Translation: there
is not yet a tried-and-true peer-reviewed quality control mechanism on
the Net. (NB He said this in 1988-89, before PSYCOLOQUY existed, and it
was part of the reason I founded PSYCOLOQUY.)
 
> 13.  Is the journal an economically viable entity?
>           Meeting expectations?
>
>           Holding its own?
 
The journal is subsidized (about $15,000 per year) and free to all
subscribers. Subsidy -- a 3-year "start-up" grant from the APA -- ends
this year and I am looking for other sources of support. There are
several potential takers. The price is tiny, and the service it provides
is huge. I am determined to keep it free for readers and subscribers,
and keep the subsidy up front.
 
> 14.  Does the electronic format allow you to do things that would
>      be impossible/difficult if it were a print publication?
> **Answered by your publications.
 
Yes, besides the obvious (speed, capacity, global scale, accessibility)
there is the all important interactive dimension: Scholarly Skywriting
-- at speeds that are not as hopelessly out of synch with the speed of
thought as print is.
 
>      What sorts of things?
> **Answered by your publications.
 
See above.
 
>      Does the format limit you in any noticeable way?
>
 
Yes, there are still problems about graphics, but these will be solved.
 
> 15.  On the day you sent Issue 1 out over the network, you
>      undoubtedly had certain hopes/expectations for the journal
>      in terms of its size, frequency of publication.
>
>      Has reality met those expectations?  Exceeded them?  Failed
>      to meet them?
 
It's perhaps slower going than I had hoped, but not than I had expected.
 
>      What are the factors contributing to any differences between
>      reality and expectations?
 
This is not just a new journal, but a new MEDIUM. Its acceptance will
take time because it affects the scholar's way of life in all its
aspects.
 
> 16.  What changes/improvements do you hope to implement in the
>      future?
 
Mostly I will continue to focus on quality and manuscript flow, plus
whatever can be done about graphics and tagging.
 
>      Is there anything you would do differently regarding
>      publication of your journal, if you had it all to do again?
>
Not really.
 
> 17.  Do you foresee a time when electronic publications will
>      outnumber print publications?
 
It's a foregone conclusion.
 
>      When will that be?
 
Not as soon as I'd like, but it's inevitable.
 
>      What elements/factors must be in place in order for that to
>      occur?
 
The elements are in place. Now the best authors must be persuaded to
avail themselves of them, and then enough time must be given for their
products to trickle down into the consciousness of academe (mostly
through citations and other influences on the literature -- still
virtually all paper).
 
> As I mentioned earlier, if this lengthy list of questions seems
> daunting and you prefer verbal response, please let me know.
> Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to
> provide.
 
No problem, I prefer this medium.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
     ON SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION, THE NET, AND MORTALITY
 
                    Stevan Harnad
  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
 
A scholar's or scientist's lifetime contribution to knowledge is fated
to be finite, but the dimensions of that potential life-long chunk are
not fixed; they have been radically extended by past evolutionary and
technological developments in the media of human communication. Speech
(a biological adaptation), writing and printing (technological
adaptations) have generated dramatic changes of scale in cognitive
productivity, but the revolutionary potential of the newest medium is
only beginning to be appreciated and explored: Electronic networked
communication has made it possible to increase the tempo and
interactiveness of scholarly communication almost to the speed of
thought, to which our speaking brains are organically adapted, while
preserving all the desirable constraints of writing (allowing scholars
to reflect and revise their texts before finalizing them, and then to
preserve them as a permanent, public record for posterity). My own
estimate is that this new medium increases a scholar's potential
intellectual productivity by an order of magnitude. I will support and
illustrate this by contrasting "open peer commentary" in the paper
medium (Behavioral and Brain Sciences journal) with "scholarly
skywriting" in the electronic medium (PSYCOLOQUY journal). I will also
discuss electronic peer review and some of the objections and obstacles
the new medium faces.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 
    (Most papers as of 1987 are retrievable by anonymous
    ftp from host princeton.edu, directory pub/harnad/Harnad)
 
Harnad, S., Steklis, H. D. & Lancaster, J. B. (eds.) (1976) Origins and
Evolution of Language and Speech. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences 280.
 
Steklis, H.D. & Harnad, S. (1976) From hand to mouth: Some critical
stages in the evolution of language. In: Harnad et al. 1976, 445 - 455.
 
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) 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.
 
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).
 
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).
 
Hayes, P., Harnad, S., Perlis, D. & Block, N. (1992) Virtual Symposium
on Virtual Mind. Minds and Machines 2: 217-238.
 
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.
 
Harnad, S. (1993, in press) The Origin of Words: A Psychophysical Hypothesis.
In: Durham, W & Velichkovsky B (Eds.) Muenster: Nodus Pub.
 
 
 
 
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 13:58:23 EDT
From: "Stevan Harnad" 
To: JBUTLER@zodiac.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re:  Thank You
 
Hi Julene, you wrote:
 
> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 12:57:43 -0400 (EDT)
> From: JBUTLER@zodiac.rutgers.edu
>
> Dr. Harnad --
>
> Thank you for your prompt reply to my questions.  A couple of follow-ups ...
>
> You refer to another study, similar to mine, conducted last year.  Was this
> the work by Philip Doty, Charles McClure & Ann Bishop?  Or is there another
> study out there that I haven't yet bumped into?
 
I don't remember who it was, but when you contact PSYCOLOQUY authors
(e.g., Bruce Bridgeman, who I know responded to the prior questionnaire
bruceb@cats.UCSC.EDU), they will remember. But I repeat, your polling
and statistics on current author reactions to electronic publication is
premature. You will get their reactions to next to nothing, because
until it has been going for a few years, so the N's get big enough, and
PSYCOLOQUY has had a few years to make its effect felt on the PAPER
literature, such a survey is merely tantamount to increasing the volume
of the white noise between radio stations when you have not yet reached
a station.
 
> Secondly, would you object to my mentioning your name as I contact Noam
> Chomsky?
 
No, I don't object. Go ahead. But he is one of the busiest and most
creative and productive scholars in the world. It would be a miracle if
he found time to respond, so please don't imply that I suggested he
OUGHT to. Just mention that I had mentioned that his reaction to the net
was characteristic of the response of the best scholars today, and the
reaction is that it is too anarchic and generates far too much
dilettante response to be suitable for serious scholarly discussion. The
context for this was when I suggested to him several years ago
(1988-89) that the quality of our joint electronic correspondence on
the subject of "Searle's Chinese Room Argument" had been so high that
we add to widen the discussion from just the two of us to the
400-member Symbol grounding Discussion group -- a closed, moderated
peer discussion group that I maintain and that is exclusively devoted
to the topic we were discussing. He was quite willing to continue
corresponding at length, one on one, with me, but absolutely unwilling
to have our contributions posted to the group as "skywriting." (It was
in fact precisely at that moment that I decided to found PSYCOLOQUY,
because life was short and I wanted to do something to lure scholars of
Chomsky's calibre into the skies once and for all -- and while I was
still compos mentis and able to benefit from it! The other half of the
story is told in my article -- the origin of the Symbol grounding
Discussion Group itself [still in existence, and still not an electronic
journal) in unmoderated "flaming" discussions on comp.ai on that same
topic.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 Aug 1995 11:42:51 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      Re: Electronic journals and tenure
 
>From harnad Tue Jul 25 21:52:40 1995
Subject: Credit for Electronic Journal Publication in the UK
Cc: serialst@uvmvm.bitnet (Lib Serials list), vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet
    (Pub-EJournals)
 
http://www.gold.ac.uk/history/hyperjournal/rae.htm]
Research Assessment Exercise 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The Research Assessment Exercise and Electronic Journals
 
HEFCE Circular RAE96 1/94 para 25c states:
 
In the light of the recommendations of the Joint Funding Councils'
Libraries Review Group Report (published in December 1993) refereed
journal articles published through electronic means will be treated
on the same basis as those appearing in printed journals.
 
This is the result of adopting the following recommendation in
Librev Chapter 7:
 
289. To help promote the status and acceptability of electronic
journals, the Review Group also recommends that the funding councils
should make it clear that refereed articles published electronically
will be accepted in the next Research Assessment Exercise on the
same basis as those appearing in printed journals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 Aug 1995 11:43:37 EDT
Reply-To:     Mr C A Rusbridge 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Mr C A Rusbridge 
Subject:      Re: Version control on-line
In-Reply-To:   from "Jaap Jasperse" at
              Jul 17, 95 10:00:17 am
 
> However, we are seeing (for example in conference proceedings - including
> one I was involved in putting on-line) that contributions are linked through
> the author's server, so the author CAN keep correcting AND updating ideas.
 
I believe this is an important issue to debate. This ability is one of
the liberating features of EJs. We can decline to use it, as suggested by
the quotation:
 
> Ziman's 1965 book "Public Knowledge" is still very relevant here, as is his
> 1991 quote in Science (253: 506) about publishing the traditional paper:
>    "It provides a moment when a piece of scientific knowledge is frozen so
>     that it can be criticised. If you're always trying to hit a moving
>     target you don't get anywhere".
 
But this approach won't work in every case. For example, we expect to see
increasing EJs with links to underlying databases, allowing the reader to
analyse the data for herself; it is unlikely that these can be completely
frozen. And anyway, there are reasonable arguments for allowing some
corrections; easier and better than later published errata.
 
We are used to changes in books, usually (though not always?) identified
as later editions. I suggest we should be open to the idea of changes in
scholarly articles, but that care _must_ be taken to identify everything
with version or edition numbers, or at the very least, a date.
 
This is just plain good practice anyway. Most complex writings these days
go through multiple versions; I have experienced many problems with two
respondents arguing futilely becaues they did not realise they were
dealing with different versions of the same document.
 
Moving to EJs will increase choice; nearly every possible form will
occur, including extremely variable articles (mutating on a spectrum from
pre-prints to finished to re-worked). This problem must be addressed.
 
--
Chris Rusbridge
 
Programme Director, Electronic Libraries Programme
The Library, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
Phone 01203 524979      Fax 01203 524981
Email C.A.Rusbridge@Warwick.ac.uk
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 18 Aug 1995 09:28:17 EDT
Reply-To:     Julene Butler 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Julene Butler 
Organization: Harold B. Lee Library
Subject:      Electronic Journal Research
 
I would like to respond to several questions which have come my way
regarding the nature and scope of my research into electronic
journals.  I would also like to respond to Stevan Harnad's comment
that the research is premature.
 
The project addresses the question of whether electronic journals are
viable channels for formal scholarly communication and evaluates them
against sociological criteria which have emerged in the realm of
print publication over centuries of time.
 
Data regarding ten electronic journals was collected through a
variety of channels.  Early in the study the editor(s) of each of the
e-journals in the study were interviewed.  (Some, including Mr.
Harnad, chose to be "interviewed" electronically.)  Also, where
available, archival material related to the history and devlopment of
each journal was examined.  All this information was used to develop
two surveys, one of which was distributed to e-journal controbutors
(authors and members of editorial boards) and another which went out
to e-journal readers.
 
As I developed the research design for this project, I initially
questioned the wisdom of researching a phenomenon as young as
electronic publishing.  Upon further thought, however, I concluded
that, early as it was (and still IS) in the development of electronic
journals, the study had strong merit.  This research does not pretend
to be predictive in nature.  There is no attempt to outguess the
ultimate outcome of scholarly electronic publication nor its place in
the academic environment.  The study does, however, attempt to survey
the scene, to take a snapshot of the current state of electronic
publishing and of the attitudes held by participants in the
electronic scholarly communication process.  If for no other reason,
such a snapshot has merit historically.  If data is not collected
during the early stages of a technological/sociological innovation,
we are left with a blot on the landscape that can never be filled in.
But, more importantly, that snapshot also has long-term value.
It will ultimately allow for comparison of attitudes and practices
over time and will certainly suggest avenues for more elegant
sociological studies in the future.
 
Based on initial observations, I readily acknowledge that it is too
early to draw conclusions regarding formal rewards and recognition
resulting from involvement with electronic journals.  However, data
regarding informal recognition (such as increased contact with
individuals involved in related research and substantive feedback
regarding one's own research) is very telling.  The data also suggests
that people see the potential for increased dialogue as one of the
strongest benefits of electronic publication
 
It seems to me that any effort we can make, either singly or jointly, to
further our collective awareness of the use and impact of this dynamic
phenomenon is a positive contribution.
 
Julene Butler
Ph.D. Candidate
Rutgers University
 
jbutler@zodiac.rutgers.edu
    OR
hjb@hbll1.byu.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 18 Aug 1995 09:29:45 EDT
Reply-To:     "Dr. Bob Jansen" 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         "Dr. Bob Jansen" 
Subject:      Re: Version control on-line
 
Mr C A Rusbridge  wrote:
 
>> However, we are seeing (for example in conference proceedings - including
>> one I was involved in putting on-line) that contributions are linked through
>> the author's server, so the author CAN keep correcting AND updating ideas.
>
>I believe this is an important issue to debate. This ability is one of
>the liberating features of EJs. We can decline to use it, as suggested by
>the quotation:
>
>> Ziman's 1965 book "Public Knowledge" is still very relevant here, as is his
>> 1991 quote in Science (253: 506) about publishing the traditional paper:
>>    "It provides a moment when a piece of scientific knowledge is frozen so
>>     that it can be criticised. If you're always trying to hit a moving
>>     target you don't get anywhere".
>
>But this approach won't work in every case. For example, we expect to see
>increasing EJs with links to underlying databases, allowing the reader to
>analyse the data for herself; it is unlikely that these can be completely
>frozen. And anyway, there are reasonable arguments for allowing some
>corrections; easier and better than later published errata.
>
>We are used to changes in books, usually (though not always?) identified
>as later editions. I suggest we should be open to the idea of changes in
>scholarly articles, but that care _must_ be taken to identify everything
>with version or edition numbers, or at the very least, a date.
>
>This is just plain good practice anyway. Most complex writings these days
>go through multiple versions; I have experienced many problems with two
>respondents arguing futilely becaues they did not realise they were
>dealing with different versions of the same document.
>
>Moving to EJs will increase choice; nearly every possible form will
>occur, including extremely variable articles (mutating on a spectrum from
>pre-prints to finished to re-worked). This problem must be addressed.
 
The problem, as I see it, is not whether to allow changes or not, but how
to reflect those changes to a reader AND to the navigation network. As you
say, changes have always been with us, but when we publish something, that
instance becomes frozen because the substrate can not handle in-situ
changes. Changes to that instance come out as new instances, also frozen on
publication, with in somecases, the changes identifiable.
 
Thus, the scenario of an 'active' instance, wherein a reader can follow
links to underlying databases to try out things, investigate experimental
data, critique the data abstraction process etc., is not the issue, because
the published instance is not changed, the reader merely has more
information associated with the creation of the instance to explore and
gain a better understanding of what the authors are trying to say.
 
From a navigation network perspective, however, we can not allow changes to
a published instance with the current semantic power of markup languages
(eg. HTML) and browsers.
 
Take the following example:
 
Reader R has read  a page from author A's web site and found it to be of
interest because of the phrase 'venetian blinds'. Subsequently reader R has
pasted the URL of this page into his/her own information.
 
Author A decides to change that page and to change the phrase in question
to 'blind venetians', because the article is in fact about the cleanliness
of  blind venetians as they continually fall into canals and the original
phrase was a typo.
 
The link created by reader R is now invalid. The problem is that author A
has no way of knowing the fan-in to their page, ie. who is linked to this
chunk of information AND WHY. It is the WHY that is important here, because
if a reader of the web follows one dangling pointer it is forgiven, but too
many and they leave the web altogether. It has ceased to support their
needs. It is not good enough to express, 'why reader R should have looked
at the publication and realised that it was not about venetian blinds', but
in reality  irrespective of what the author's intention of the publication
was, the page was linked into reader R's conceptual view of the web because
it was interesting to him/her.
 
Thus, before we provide in-situ alterations to published chunks of
information, there needs to be a mechanism for determining the effect of
such a change to the network. Otherwise, we end up with a logically
inconsistent and un-trustworthy network.
 
(For write up of some work I have done in this area, see:
 
Colomb RM, Robertson J & Jansen B, CSIRO Hypertext Research Project, in
Proceedings of the Australian Database-Information Systems Conference 1991
URL=http://mac145.syd.dit.csiro.au/BobJ_HTML_Documents/TR_FD_90_09/TR-FD-90-
09.html
 
Jansen B & Ferrer D, IntelliText: An Environment for Electronic
Manuscripts, Intelligent Environments, Droege P (ed), Elsevier Science
Publishers, 1995, in press,
URL=http://mac145.syd.dit.csiro.au/BobJ_HTML_Documents/4Rs_Conference_Paper/
4Rs_Conference_Paper.html
 
Jansen B & Robertson J, Management of Wool Dark Fibre Risk Knowledge Using
Hypertext, CSIRO Division of Information Technology, Technical Report
TR-FD-89-05, May 1989,
URL=http://mac145.syd.dit.csiro.au/BobJ_HTML_Documents/TR_FD_89_05/tr-fd-89-
05.html)
 
Hope this makes sense, it does to me, but well you know.......
 
bobj
 
 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bob Jansen                             Principal Research Scientist
CSIRO Division of Information Technology   Phone: +61-2-325 3100
Physical: Building E6B,                    Mobile: 041 115 0037
          Macquarie University Campus,     Fax: +61-2-325 3101
          North Ryde NSW 2113,             Email: bob.jansen@dit.csiro.au
          AUSTRALIA                        URL: http://mac145.syd.dit.csiro.au/
Postal:   Locked Bag 17,
          North Ryde NSW 2113,
          AUSTRALIA
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 Aug 1995 08:58:13 EDT
Reply-To:     psgraham@gandalf.rutgers.edu
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         "Peter Graham,
              Rutgers University Libraries" 
Subject:      Re: Archiving mailing lists
In-Reply-To:  Your message of Fri, 11 Aug 1995 11:39:23 EDT
 
From:  Peter Graham, Rutgers University Libraries
 
Two points on BGaines' interesting series of postings:
 
>Probably, a library list was the wrong place for this posting. Only the
scientific discourse lists fall within the same province as EJ's. However,
it is interesting that there seems little awareness that such lists
exist, the number is growing, and they present a mode of discourse that
bypasses any form of journal.<
 
1.  I disagree that only scientific lists are of interest.  Humanist,
Psycoloquy, and the whole range of 30+ History lists, and the Milton-L list,
are examples in humanities and social sciences of dense and interesting
lists.
 
2.  BG's second quoted sentence:  isn't one difference, though, the citation
issue?  One reason to archive journals is that they are explicitly
constructed for cross reference.  Lists aren't.  That doesn't mean they are
not valuable, but their value (pound for pound) may be less.   --pg
 
Peter Graham    psgraham@gandalf.rutgers.edu    Rutgers University Libraries
169 College Ave., New Brunswick, NJ 08903   (908)445-5908; fax (908)445-5888
              
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 Aug 1995 08:58:47 EDT
Reply-To:     Manny Ratafia 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Manny Ratafia 
Organization: Yale University
Subject:      Text Search & Info Retrieval for Word for Windows
 
 
I thought that members of this list would be interested in our new
text search and information retrieval shareware.
 
CommTech PowerSearch 4.0 for Word for Windows is now available. This
release of our text-search and information retrieval shareware adds
searching across multiple files, automatic writing of reports, and
multiple replacements in one pass. Other features include Boolean
(AND/OR/NOT) search and replace, use of a thesaurus, combination
searches, and editing of previous searches.
 
After you have tried it, I would be very interested to hear what
you think about it.
 
Feel free to forward this message to any appropriate lists.
 
                                   Manny Ratafia
                                   tmgmail@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
 
CommTech PowerSearch can be downloaded by ftp from
oak.oakland.edu (look for the file called SEARCHW4.ZIP under the
directory \SimTel\win3\winword\).
 
SEARCHW4.ZIP is also available for download from America Online
and CompuServe. Or, you can use CommTech's BBS at 203/ 495-8604.
 
For more information, send e-mail with
"CommTech PowerSearch 4.0 Info" in the SUBJECT to
tmgmail@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 Aug 1995 08:59:12 EDT
Reply-To:     Francis Barba 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Francis Barba 
Organization: Rechenzentrum Universitaet Hohenheim
Subject:      FINAL ANNOUNCE: The EUSIDIC Annual Conference 1995
 
The HTML version : http://www.crpcu.lu/eusidic/conference.html
 
                    *----------------------------------------*
 
                              EVOLVING or REVOLVING
                        25 years of Electronic Information
 
 
                        The Eusidic Annual Conference 1995
                               October 17, 18, 19
 
 
                      Huis ter Duin Hotel, Noordwijk aan Zee
                                 The Netherlands
 
                    *----------------------------------------*
 
On April 20th 1970 a small group of organisations set up an Association to
"further the interests of operators of data tapes"
 
hus was founded EUSIDIC, the European Association of Information Services.
Over the last 25 years Eusidic has grown to include a unique mixture of
major players
 
from all branches of Information, including major users, publishers and
distributors from virtually every country in Europe - West and East, and
beyond.
 
Eusidic is the largest association of its kind in Europe and can claim to be
the representative of the widest set of interests in what is prospected as the
21st century's major industry.
 
The 25th Anniversary Conference will review the state of the art and introduce
new ideas, a still valid formula which was at the heart of the founders
requirements.
 
 
Topics Include:-
 
Overcoming Barriers - Automatic payment, Intellectual Property Management, etc.
Mergers & Acquisitions - an overconcentration of power?
The Information Chain - a paradigm lost?
Who manages information (in organisations)?
The mass market(s) for Information
 
The Programme and the registration form can be found at the following URL:
http://www.crpcu.lu/eusidic/conference.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 Aug 1995 12:04:58 -0400
Reply-To:     Rowland999 
Sender:       Electronic Journal Publishing List 
From:         Rowland999 
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Subject:      Freelance Jobs
 
Looking for freelance work?
 
If you are a freelance writer, photographer, graphic designers, DTP,
illustrator, multimedia specialist, composer, art director, video/audio
producer, PR consultant, print/radio/TV ad copywriter, check out:
 
http://www.oasysnet.com
 
That's the home page of OASYS Network, Inc., which offers completely FREE
electronic advertising space to freelancers for display of credentials and
graphic images of work. You can download an entry file from the Web site
and can update or change your "ad" at any time.
 
OASYS Network, Ind. sells this serviceworldwide (at a very low annual fee)
to companies that hire freelancers. Companies and supply firms interested
in OASYS can also find out about this online network from its Web site.