VPIEJ-L 08/93
VPIEJ-L Discussion Archives
August 1993
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 08:28:29 EDT
Reply-To: Brian Gaines <gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Brian Gaines <gaines@fsc.cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: Special Issue on E-Journals?
> I understand that there was a special issue of the Journal of
> Organizational Computing on e-journals; however, I have been unable
> to track this down using local indexes and databases. Anyone have
> further information? Thanks.
>
I have 2 papers in it and am told by the publisher it would be Vol 3 Number 2,
the second issue of this year. Proofs went back about 6 weeks ago. I
guess it will be out shortly. b.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 08:28:40 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Margaret E. Sokolik" <sokolik@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject: Winnipeg Conference
A while back there was a posting regarding the ej-publishing
conference in Winnipeg. I have tried in vain to get a response
to e-mail or to get someone to answer the phone. Does
anyone out there know the story? Has Winnipeg disappeared
into a black hole? I've just joined this list, so if
this is public knowledge, a private message will do.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Maggi Sokolik *
* College Writing Programs *
* UC Berkeley *
* sokolik@well.sf.ca.us *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 13:19:08 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Michael Strangelove <441495@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA>
Subject: Re: Winnipeg Conference
In-Reply-To: Message of Tue,
3 Aug 1993 08:28:40 EDT from <sokolik@well.sf.ca.us>
Try umih@ccu.umanitoba.ca
204-474-9599
204-275-5781
Helga Dyck - coordinator
Note that I have had delayed response from the above address.
Michael Strangelove, Publisher
The Internet Business Journal
The Best of the Internet
Internet: 441495@Acadvm1.Uottawa.CA
Compuserve: 72302,3062
S-Mail: 60 Springfield Road, Suite One
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1M-1C7
Voice: (613) 747-0642
FAX: (613) 564-6641
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 13:20:13 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "S. Norma Godavari" <ngodava@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Subject: Re: Winnipeg Conference
In-Reply-To: <9308031246.AA24611@canopus.CC.UManitoba.CA>
On Tue, 3 Aug 1993, Margaret E. Sokolik wrote:
> A while back there was a posting regarding the ej-publishing
> conference in Winnipeg. I have tried in vain to get a response
> to e-mail or to get someone to answer the phone. Does
> anyone out there know the story? Has Winnipeg disappeared
> into a black hole? I've just joined this list, so if
> this is public knowledge, a private message will do.
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * Maggi Sokolik *
> * College Writing Programs *
> * UC Berkeley *
> * sokolik@well.sf.ca.us *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Hello!
The University of Manitoba is hosting the international conference to
means of promoting & legitimating refereed journals published
electronically on the Internet. It is scheduled for October 1-2, 1993 at
the Delta Winnipeg Hotel. It is sponsored by the Medical Research Council,
Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council, Social Science &
Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the University of Manitoba.
The registration cost is $150 (CAN) before September 1, 1993 and $200
(CAN) after that. Payments are to be made to the University of Manitoba
and may be sent to H. Dyck, Co-ordinator, Institute for the Humanities, U
of Manitoba, Room 108 Isbister Bldg., Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2.
The phone number for registration, inquiries, etc. is (204) 474-9599 or
fax: (204) 275-5781 The e-mail address is umih@ccu.umanitoba.ca
I hope this helps you! Let me know if there is a problem!
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 15:14:16 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Margaret E. Sokolik" <sokolik@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject: Winnipeg conf.
Thanks to everyone who replied to my query about the
Winnipeg conference. The mystery is solved, and the check's
in the mail.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Maggi Sokolik *
* College Writing Programs *
* UC Berkeley *
* sokolik@well.sf.ca.us *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 08:24:45 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Darren McKewen <dmckewen@bna.com>
Subject: Data citation and ownership
Two questions regarding data in electronic publications
for which I would like to solicit the opinions and experiences of
list readers:
1) CITATION: How are specific sections sections of
electronic publications being cited? Citation to print
publications relies on using a page number or page range to
direct readers to specific data; what formats are being used for
electronic publications? Also, are there
widely accepted formats for citing the source (e.g. cites to
print periodicals generally identify a volume and issue number
and publication name, but no publisher; citations to books
generally include publisher and city of publication)?
2) DATA OWNERSHIP: What rights does a publisher have over
re-use of public domain data that publisher includes on an
electronic publication? For example, if a CD includes the
text of a law--which is a public document in its original
form--can anyone use that electronic data without restriction?
What if the publisher has enhanced the value of that data by
tagging its content, e.g. with SGML tags? What if original
public-domain material was only available in print form and the
publisher has scanned and keyed it to put it in electronic form;
is the electronic text now proprietary?
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 15:37:41 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Brian Gaines <gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: Special Issue on E-Journals?
Further to the earlier inquiry:
> I understand that there was a special issue of the Journal of
> Organizational Computing on e-journals; however, I have been unable
> to track this down using local indexes and databases. Anyone have
> further information? Thanks.
>
We have just received Vol 3 Number 2 and it has our two papers on EJs and
collaborative editing. However, it looks as if the original special issue
on Digital Journals to which we submitted failed to materialize since 3(2)
is not a special isuue on DJ and our two papers are the only ones on the
topic - a disappointment, we were looking forward to to reading the others!
The two papers are also available for anonymous ftp from cpsc.ucalgary.ca
in the directory pub/KSI - see the README file for abstracts.
By the way, the book Digital Word by Landow and Delaney, MIT Press 93, has
some really excellent papers on scholarly activities on the Internet.
b.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 17:00:01 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Marilyn Geller <mgeller@athena.mit.edu>
Subject: Complete ejournal archives
Recently, the LISTSERV Administrator at my site suggested to me that he
would like to do a partial purge of the archive of my electronic index,
Citations for Serial Literature. The entire run of the index is
currently available in gophers at CICNet and NCSU, but I have always
thought of the LISTSERV archive as the primary, complete and
authoritative archive for CSL.
As a "publisher" and a librarian, I'm concerned about the permanence of
archives over which I have no control. Earlier this year, we discussed
the issue of authoritative archives of ejournals/. The issue of
permanence is closely related. How are others working to guarantee the
existence of or access to historically complete archives? What options
do we have as publishers and as librarians?
Marilyn Geller
MIT Libraries
Internet: mgeller@athena.mit.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 17:31:07 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Richard W Wiggins <wiggins@msu.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed,
11 Aug 1993 17:00:01 EDT from <mgeller@athena.mit.edu>
>Recently, the LISTSERV Administrator at my site suggested to me that he
>would like to do a partial purge of the archive of my electronic index,
>Citations for Serial Literature. The entire run of the index is
>currently available in gophers at CICNet and NCSU, but I have always
>thought of the LISTSERV archive as the primary, complete and
>authoritative archive for CSL.
>
>As a "publisher" and a librarian, I'm concerned about the permanence of
>archives over which I have no control. Earlier this year, we discussed
>the issue of authoritative archives of ejournals/. The issue of
>permanence is closely related. How are others working to guarantee the
>existence of or access to historically complete archives? What options
>do we have as publishers and as librarians?
>
>Marilyn Geller
>MIT Libraries
>Internet: mgeller@athena.mit.edu
Seems to me that pruning of online collections is every bit as
necessary as winnowing out old materials in print collections.
It sounds like in this case the conceptual "owner" of the collection
is a different person in a different organization than the person
who's physically managing the collection. In that kind of situation
it'd be up to whatever arrangements you've got between the two of
you, it seems.
As a comparison, other publishers have even less control over their
collections, right? If a library decides not to dedicate shelf
space to back issues of a particular journal, in general is there
any redress? It's up to the library and the patrons, and the
author and publisher are out of the loop.
Of course it's completely understandable that you want a permanent
archive for your collection. The need you express was part of the
inspiration for the CICNet archive project -- so that pioneering
ejournals/ wouldn't be lost for all time. In the long run it seems
we'll need online "depository sites" and clear arrangements between
authors, publishers, and system administrators on archiving.
As a practical matter, I believe there are very sound reasons for
moving what you consider the authoritative, permanent archive to
a Gopher (or WAIS or WWW) server. As it happens, the group I
manage takes care of Listserv and VM as well as Gopher, so hopefully
my biases cancel out. Listserv is great for discussion. For archival
storage I think the other tools win. Here are the advantages I see:
-- It is *far* easier for users to browse a Gopher than a Listserv
list. The users see real titles and can cruise among the titles
smoothly.
-- Your collection will be far more visible to new users. Index
tools will only improve over time, and my guess is that files
within a Listserv will never be as visible as files on a Gopher.
-- From the point of view of MIT, moving this to a workstation is
a better use of resources. SCSI disk prices are approaching $1
per megabyte. Mainframe disk is still far more expensive.
-- For ultimate control, you or your systems office could set up
your own Gopher, organized your own way, archived as long as you
choose. Or work out a deal with another Gopher site, at MIT
or elsewhere, to be your authoritative collection.
/Rich Wiggins, Gopher Coordinator, Michigan State U
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 17:31:35 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Michael Strangelove <441495@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed,
11 Aug 1993 17:00:01 EDT from <mgeller@athena.mit.edu>
I suggest that you attempt to go over this persons head and see if you
can have your archive recognized on the same level as the library stacks.
I am not a librarian, but I wonder how your colleagues would react if
a request was made to have a large number of books removed due to space
problems. I know this is not a very helpful suggestion, but I hope you
are able to gain the correct status for your work.
Trust all else is well with you Marilyn.
BTW -- I just spoke with Helga Dyck and was told that there are still
many seats available at Intnl Conference on Refereed Electronic Journals
in Manitoba this October. Price goes up in Sept...
Michael Strangelove, Publisher
The Internet Business Journal
Internet: 441495@Acadvm1.Uottawa.CA
Compuserve: 72302,3062
S-Mail: 60 Springfield Road, Suite One
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1M-1C7
Voice: (613) 747-0642
FAX: (613) 564-6641
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 08:32:14 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Joe Raben <jqrqc@cunyvm.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed,
11 Aug 1993 17:00:01 EDT from <mgeller@athena.mit.edu>
Wouldn't some of the searching programs, e.g., Gopher, WWW, provide the
kind of archiving capability that listserv was not designed for?
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 10:32:15 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: James O'Donnell <jod@ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
In-Reply-To: <9308121241.AA04110@mail.sas.upenn.edu> from "Joe Raben" at Aug
12, 93 08:32:14 am
In fact, as Joe Raben surmises, gopher/ftp is what we use at Bryn Mawr
Reviews for archiving, with space provided courtesy of the University of
Virginia. I am about to take the step of making sure there is a mirrored
copy at another site, and could wish that gopher allowed (or perhaps it
does?) automatic fall-back sites, that is, if you cannot connect to the
first site you're pointed to, as not infrequently happens, you get
automatically redirected to the fallback. At any rate, with archiving by
gopher, I need only worry about one site, and only one or two machines
*need* be cluttered with my files, though others are welcome to copy.
Jim O'Donnell
U. of Pennsylvania
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 10:32:41 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Lorre Smith <ls973@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
The question of archives for electronic documents and publications is
quite an important one, and one that deserves a great deal of
attention. The electronic publication that will precipitate the
library paradigm shift from "just in case" to "just in time" brings out
the worry wart in many librarians and archivists. Librarians are on
the verge of designing information retrieval systems for full text
that involve NOT "holding" the publications on site. Pointers will
be created to remote archives. The archives over which they have no
control are indeed big question marks - will it be responsible to
replicate the archives on site in order to assure their preservation
for the duration of their interest to the local community?
More discussion please!!
Lorre Smith
Media, Microforms, Periodicals and Reserves
University at Albany
SUNY
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 15:50:27 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: pmc@unity.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
In-Reply-To: from "James O'Donnell" at Aug 12, 93 10:32:15 am
How do people feel about the idea that was floated some time ago, to
provide archiving space and expertise at a few nodes (eg Albany) where
many journals would be archived, regardless of their geographical origin?
That way, if the journal changes address, it need not change electronic
address; and that way, there is capable staff at the node which minimizes
trouble. There can be mirrored sites too, as Jim O. suggests. There
might be funding problems with such a scheme--it would require a
publishing consortium of the sort advocated by ARL--but it would cut costs
at numerous sites where ejournals/ are produced too.
Eyal Amiran
co-editor, Postmodern Culture
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 15:50:49 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: awright@HUSC.BITNET
Subject: E-journal task force report
Anyone interested in the problems of acquiring and storing electronic journals
might want to take a look at a recent Cornell task force report on the
subject. It's available via anonymous ftp from the server LIBRARY.CORNELL.EDU
(directory: pub/acqnet/misc.reports, filename: ejo.report). Well worth a
look.
Alex Wright
Microcomputer Software Specialist
Cabot Science Library
Harvard University
<awright@husc.harvard.edu>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 15:51:08 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Howard Pasternack <blips15@brownvm.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
The problem with Gopherland is that unless the gopher archive is under
your purview, you have no assurance that the text stored at another site
will exist and/or be accessible tomorrow.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 15:52:07 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "David H. Rothman" <drothman@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
In-Reply-To: <199308121452.AA10372@access.digex.net>
My TeleRead proposal addresses those exact concerns in your message below.
I'm proposing a national database with *lots* of input from local and
university librarians--with acquisition budgets of their own.
BTW, the problem isn't confined to serials. In 1985 a division of Random
House published a book of mine that won good notices in places such as the
Washington Post ("sprightly, thorough reporting on a fast-moving
industry"). But when I dialed up the Library of Congress catalogue
recently, I could not find a trace of The Silicon Jungle (Ballantine,
1985). In fact my Jungle didn't even show up in the copyright listings,
at least not when I looked. Strange. Even the LOC is not preserving
knowledge for all times. Back in the 19th century, in fact, a fire
destroyed most of its main collection (of course we know about the fate of
the Great Library at Alexandria, the end of which obliterated centuries of
learning).
The only true way to make books and periodicals eternal would be a central
database mirrored at a number of sites, and backed up through different
technologies.
TeleRead's latest version--some 20,000 words long--is available from me
through e-mail. Earlier versions have appeared in the Washington Post
Education Review, Computerworld, the Baltimore Sun and on various
networks. William F. Buckley Jr. endorsed the basic TeleRead concept in a
column last May, and Al Gore's office has forwarded the proposal to the
Office of Science and Technology Policy for consideration. I hope that
librarians (and information science types) will take a look. TeleRead would
upgrade the standing of the profession by reducing the scutwork of
librarians and involving them more in acquisition-related matters.
On Thu, 12 Aug 1993, Lorre Smith wrote:
>
> the worry wart in many librarians and archivists. Librarians are on
> the verge of designing information retrieval systems for full text
> that involve NOT "holding" the publications on site. Pointers will
> be created to remote archives. The archives over which they have no
> control are indeed big question marks - will it be responsible to
> replicate the archives on site in order to assure their preservation
> for the duration of their interest to the local community?
>
> More discussion please!!
> Lorre Smith
> Media, Microforms, Periodicals and Reserves
> University at Albany
> SUNY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David H. Rothman "So we beat on, boats against
drothman@digex.net the current...."
805 N. Howard St., #240
Alexandria, Va. 22304
703-370-6540(o)(h)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 08:35:58 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Richard Wiggins <wiggins@msu.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
In-Reply-To: Message of Thu,
12 Aug 1993 10:32:15 EDT from <jod@ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
>In fact, as Joe Raben surmises, gopher/ftp is what we use at Bryn Mawr
>Reviews for archiving, with space provided courtesy of the University of
>Virginia. I am about to take the step of making sure there is a mirrored
>copy at another site, and could wish that gopher allowed (or perhaps it
>does?) automatic fall-back sites, that is, if you cannot connect to the
>first site you're pointed to, as not infrequently happens, you get
>automatically redirected to the fallback. At any rate, with archiving by
>gopher, I need only worry about one site, and only one or two machines
>*need* be cluttered with my files, though others are welcome to copy.
>
>Jim O'Donnell
>U. of Pennsylvania
Gopher does provide in the protocol a feature for a selector string
for a redundant (backup) server. Unfortunately, this hasn't been
widely implemented, if at all. U Minn has a backup server
(gopher.tc.umn.edu is mirrored by gopher2.tc.umn.edu) but menus don't
offer the backup and clients don't know how to handle it.
Wasn't there was an earlier thread about incomplete archives of
your journal? At the time I refrained from commenting, but my thought
then was that the answer to bad archives is better archives -- ie if
something is freely offered to the net, it's up to each library to
decide what issues it wants to mount or retain in its collection.
By working out explicit arrangements as you've done with U Va., you
can ensure long-term archiving in lieu of some net-wide scheme to
address that need. (Hmmm, really just another twist to the collection
management question we're discussing now.)
/Rich Wiggins, Gopher Coordinator, Michigan State U
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 08:36:41 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Michael Spencer <michael=spencer%mis%nps@mis.nps.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
David -- You wrote that the Library of Congress "lost" your book. I must
concur with you, 'cause I couldn't find it there, either. However, my
alma mater seems to be doing better since the UC Melvyl system has TWO
copies of your book:
=================================================================
Search request: F personal author ROTHMAN, DAVID H
Search result: 4 records at all libraries
Type HELP for other display options.
4.
Author: Rothman, David H.
Title: The silicon jungle / David H. Rothman. 1st ed. New York :
Ballantine Books, 1985.
Description: 385 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references and index.
Subjects: Computers.
Call numbers: UCB Moffitt QA76.5 .R638 1985
CSL Main Lib QA76 .R67 1985 General Coll
CAT->
melvyl.ucop.edu 14:26:39
========================================================================
----------------------[Reply - Original Message]----------------------
[...stuff deleted ...]
BTW, the problem isn't confined to serials. In 1985 a division of Random
House published a book of mine that won good notices in places such as the
Washington Post ("sprightly, thorough reporting on a fast-moving
industry"). But when I dialed up the Library of Congress catalogue
recently, I could not find a trace of The Silicon Jungle (Ballantine,
1985). In fact my Jungle didn't even show up in the copyright listings,
at least not when I looked. Strange. Even the LOC is not preserving
knowledge for all times. Back in the 19th century, in fact, a fire
destroyed most of its main collection (of course we know about the fate of
the Great Library at Alexandria, the end of which obliterated centuries of
learning).
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 11:23:09 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "David H. Rothman" <drothman@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives (and TeleRead and the missing
Jungle)
In-Reply-To: <199308131242.AA27315@access.digex.net>
Thanks, Michael. Yes, I know that The Silicon Jungle is at a number of
libraries, including some in the Melvyl system, and some other kind,
diligent people on this E-Journal list point out that the OCLC database
shows The Jungle at many locations. That just proves my point,
however; the Jungle was worth preserving, but LOC messed up in this case.
I realize that the Jungle appeared as a mass market paperback. However, if
there's an LOC rule to ignore books in such a format, then maybe it needs
to be reconsidered, or at least when the fiscal situation allows.
At any rate, you can see why I feel that, as the cost of mass storage
declines and search engines and filters improve, then virtually all book
manuscripts should go online even if they don't all qualify for royalties
(yes, TeleRead addresses the copyright questions and is fair to creators,
who, as a group, would come out far ahead compared to the present system).
Average readers could easily limit their searches to books from
publishers. For details, see the TeleRead proposal itself, available from
me by e-mail.
LOC's treatment of The Silicon Jungle also suggests that if we have a
national database, then we shouldn't rely on Washington or NYC alone to
make decisions. Public and university librarians across the country should
be able to review submissions, too--easy enough in a network age--and also
particate. In fact, working within their individual allotments, they
should be able to authorize a book without approval from Washington.
That's what TeleRead is all about.
A note to any LOC staffers tuning in: I'm not opposed to LOC involvement
in a national database. LOC has many excellent people and fine ideas. But
it's plain that we need to spread authority around, to reinvent LOC, so to
speak. That would actually *help* LOC's institutional standing.
But back to the Jungle: The real mystery is: How come my Jungle doesn't
even show up when I look for the copyright records? I can see my five
other books as well as two unproduced movies scripts (Hotbox, about a
train wreck) and Stormy Genius (about an aviation pioneer); but this
*published* book from a major house is nowhere to be found in the
copyright database. Or at least I can't find the Jungle. I'll be
delighted if someone on the E-Journal list can search the electronic
copyright records at LOC and prove me wrong. For what it's worth, the LOC
card # in the front of the book is 85-90645. Participation from LOC staff
welcomed. A quick phone inquiry to LOC--and a fast search by someone
there--failed to turn up the book. I can understand why a work would
vanish from a list of holdings or never get there in the first place. But
a disappearance from *copyright* records?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David H. Rothman "So we beat on, boats against
drothman@digex.net the current...."
805 N. Howard St., #240
Alexandria, Va. 22304
703-370-6540(o)(h)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 11:23:53 EDT
Reply-To: "David H. Rothman" <drothman@access.digex.net>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "David H. Rothman" <drothman@access.digex.net>
Subject: E-Mail Request for TeleRead Proposal (the Mysterious Requester)
In-Reply-To: <199308131242.AA27189@access.digex.net>
The Silicon Jungle isn't the only thing missing. Some glitch in the system
deleted the name of someone asking me to e-mail the TeleRead proposal (one
of the people noting the OCLC situation). Retransmit your request and I'll
be happy to oblige.
(No conspiracy claimed here. Oliver Stone has not been called in for the
movie.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David H. Rothman "So we beat on, boats against
drothman@digex.net the current...."
805 N. Howard St., #240
Alexandria, Va. 22304
703-370-6540(o)(h)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 08:40:35 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Billy Barron <billy@cic.net>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives (and TeleRead and the missing
In-Reply-To: <199308131539.AA08825@spruce.cic.net>; from "David H. Rothman" at
Aug 13, 93 11:23 am
In reply to David H. Rothman's message:
>
>At any rate, you can see why I feel that, as the cost of mass storage
>declines and search engines and filters improve, then virtually all book
>manuscripts should go online even if they don't all qualify for royalties
>
Before you get too hot on filters, look at a recent (well, in the last
18 months) issue of "Communications of ACM" where they addressed filters
in quite a bit of detail. As a long-time user of filtering systems, they
are not even close to the expectations of most people. I can accept
the filters losing stuff I want, but the major of users I talk to can't.
>Average readers could easily limit their searches to books from
>publishers. For details, see the TeleRead proposal itself, available from
>me by e-mail.
>
Also, it's on ftp.utdallas.edu in /pub/staff/billy though I do not know
if I have the absolute latest version, but it is close.
Billy Barron
billy@utdallas.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 08:41:07 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Marilyn Geller <mgeller@athena.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed,
11 Aug 93 17:00:01 -0400. <9308112114.AA00979@Athena.MIT.EDU>
I'd like to clarify a couple of points and respond to, or perhaps, build
on some comments about complete ejournal archives.
First, I believe that the LISTSERV Administrator at my site is acting
responisbly within the context of his job in asking to partially purge
the archives. It's a basic housekeeping chore along the lines of Rich
Wiggins' "winnowing" comment. It may be a mistake to think of the
LISTSERV archives as the authoritative one. After all, the printer and
the distributor of print publications are not responsible for archiving.
I also believe that credit is due to the staff of CICNet who do appear to
be very committed to the preservation of ejournals/. Their dedication to
this project should be reassuring to publishers and librarians for the
near future.
Rich Wiggins compares the lack of control that print publishers have to
the lack of control electronic publishers have, but I think this point
doesn't take into account the tradition of archiving by libraries that
Gail MacMillan points out. In the print medium, librarians have taken
on the responsibilty for archiving, and publishers count on that.
Because the roles and responsibilities of players with regard to
electronic publications are still being shaped, none of us can count on
anything ... yet.
Some of the ideas for guaranteeing a complete and authoritative archive
include:
1) Striking a deal with a particular library to archive a particular
title (a responsibility of the individual publisher)
2) Creating one or more archival sites for all electronic publications
(a responsibility of a collective group of publishers or another
organization)
3) Creating consortia of libraries which will share responsibility for
archiving an agreed upon group of ejournals/ (a responsiblity of a group
of libraries)
And finally, I want to make one point which is tangential to this
archiving issue -- and probably inflammatory! I find that LDBASE
searching on LISTSERVs is far more satisfying than the searching that is
currently available in gophers and WAIS. It is more elaborate in its
capabilities, including the variety of ways in which one can qualify a
search. And it seems far more reliable to me. However, having done
some Internet training, I know that it is much easier to learn how to
search in a gopher. And I know that things are changing in the area of
information retrieval tools. Tomorrow's gopher will have more powerful
searching capabilities, but in the meantime, I'll miss the LDBASE
searching.
Marilyn Geller
MIT Libraries
Internet: mgeller@athena.mit.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 08:41:29 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Dieke van Wijnen <dieke.vanwijnen@wkap.nl>
Subject: Re: E-Mail Request for TeleRead Proposal (the Mysterious
Requester)
In-Reply-To: <"15528 Fri Aug 13 17:45:15 1993"@relay.surfnet.nl>
Dear David,
The "someone" requesting the Teleread proposal was me:
Ms. drs. Dieke van Wijnen
Wolters Kluwer Academic Publishers
PO Box 989
3300 Az Dordrecht, The Netherlands
email at: vanWijnen@WKAP.nl or
dwkluwer@world.std.com
> The Silicon Jungle isn't the only thing missing. Some glitch in the system
> deleted the name of someone asking me to e-mail the TeleRead proposal (one
> of the people noting the OCLC situation). Retransmit your request and I'll
> be happy to oblige.
>
> (No conspiracy claimed here. Oliver Stone has not been called in for the
> movie.)
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> David H. Rothman "So we beat on, boats
against
> drothman@digex.net the current...."
> 805 N. Howard St., #240
> Alexandria, Va. 22304
> 703-370-6540(o)(h)
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 08:41:55 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Sam Sternberg <samsam@vm1.yorku.ca>
Subject: request for your ideas
Greetings. My name is Sam Stenberg. I am a freelance journalist, and I am
writing a series of articles on the Internet and the future of commercial
publishing in Canada. I would appreciate any relevant material which
I may quote from, or which would be informative. Please consider sending
materials directly to me which you have previously posted to this list.
I have not seen them since I am a new subscriber.
Thanks in advance.
Sam Sternberg samsam@vm1.yorku.ca
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 16:31:06 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "James S. Graber" <jgra@seq1.loc.gov>
Subject: Complete E-Journal Archives
In response to Eyal Amiran's post asking about the idea of a few central
nodes where many E-journals would be archived: I think this is a great
idea! My own PERSONAL, obviously biased opinion is that one such archive
location should be at the Library of Congress. I have been promoting this
idea both inside and outside of LC. My guess is that it will happen
eventually, maybe even soon. What do people think of this idea, especially
E-Journal owners?
Again, this is a personal, i.e. NOT AN OFFICIAL communication.
Jim Graber
jgra@seq1.loc.gov
for identification only:
James S. Graber
Technology Assessment Manager
Information Technology Services
Library of Congress
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 16:31:28 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "David H. Rothman" <drothman@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives (and TeleRead and the missing
In-Reply-To: <199308161242.AA29422@access.digex.net>
On Mon, 16 Aug 1993, Billy Barron wrote:
> In reply to David H. Rothman's message:
> >
> >At any rate, you can see why I feel that, as the cost of mass storage
> >declines and search engines and filters improve, then virtually all book
> >manuscripts should go online even if they don't all qualify for royalties
> >
> Before you get too hot on filters, look at a recent (well, in the last
> 18 months) issue of "Communications of ACM" where they addressed filters
> in quite a bit of detail. As a long-time user of filtering systems, they
> are not even close to the expectations of most people. I can accept
> the filters losing stuff I want, but the major of users I talk to can't.
>
I'm talking about the future. Search engines and mass storage, the other
two elements, are improving but obviously are not there yet. I envision
TeleRead starting out with material of the kind now *published.*
> >Average readers could easily limit their searches to books from
> >publishers. For details, see the TeleRead proposal itself, available from
> >me by e-mail.
> >
> Also, it's on ftp.utdallas.edu in /pub/staff/billy though I do not know
> if I have the absolute latest version, but it is close.
>
> Billy Barron
> billy@utdallas.edu
I'm *delighted* that the proposal is available this way. (I'm also
grateful for the valuable feedback you've offered to help me refine the
proposal!)
However, if anyone wants the very latest version, it's no trouble at all
to e-mail it. Takes all of a minute (I have the file ready to go on the
host system).
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 16:32:20 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "David H. Rothman" <drothman@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives (and TeleRead and the missing
In-Reply-To: <199308161242.AA29422@access.digex.net>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
In TeleRead, I write that as mass storage costs fall and as search
engines improve, virtually all manuscripts should go online. I suggest the
use of filters to keep searches manageable for typical readers. Billy
Barron has noted the limits of present-day filters; and I have pointed out
that we are not talking about *today*.
However, even without the most advanced technology, readers could
conveniently limit the scope of searches--in a way that better rewarded
superior books than our present publishing system does. A major criterion
might be whether a book had won approval from a TeleLibrarian, who, in the
case of nonfiction, would pay close attention to accuracy. In TeleRead I
suggest that if a librarian approved a book, it would start qualifying for
royalties immediately rather than after a minimum number of dialups.
Today hucksters, not librarians, call the shots. They are elbowing out
some fine independent booksellers and preventing many good books from being
published, period (too many publishing houses go for just the big time). We
can do without that kind of filtering, thank you. Money talks too loudly.
Tom Clancy reflected the values of many big publishers and book chains when
said he said that "if $120,000 a year is the best job you've ever had, you
haven't really done very much" ("The Sum of All Cliches," June 27th issue
of the Washington Post Magazine). He told a radio host that he was talking
about politicians who had not worked in private industry. Still, his
mindset was evident; If nothing else, don't count on Mr. Clancy's vote if
you're a writer or librarian planning to run for Congress. :-)
For a change, I would like to see librarians--with easy electronic
access to all the needed facts--gain more power at the expense of hucksters
who could just as well be peddling toys or fertilizer. Yes, librarians have
flaws galore, and the TeleRead proposal suggests ways in which writers and
publishers could bypass them; but good librarians truly care about the
factual content of books. After six published books, I find this concern
much weaker among publishers. We all know about the many errors in history
texts, and I am not surprised. I had to threaten to sue a branch of a major
publisher when it refused to spend a pittance to correct an error in an
illustration in a WordStar book. My technical editor and I screamed and
screamed, and the publisher kept saying, oh, that isn't an error at all.
Mind you, I am not perfect, we all make mistakes, but clearly these people
cared little about theirs. They would not even let me see the edited book
in manuscript form before publication, just in page proofs.
That is one of many outrages. In another, my wife and I had to
abandon a book partly because a publisher was so sloppy with the truth.
Our book was a guide to dialing up recipes via computer, the title was
Tasty Bytes, and we had many hearty Southern favorites among our samples.
*Hearty*, not healthy. The publisher, however, kept insisting that the
book's title had to be the following: "Tasty Bytes: Using the Personal
Computer to Organize Your Kitchen, Cook Healthy Meal, and Share Recipes."
Carly, who is not a nutritionist, but who is passionate on the subject,
was aghast. The publisher promised to be open-minded about the title, but
then the ads in PW kept the misleading one with the word "healthy." Mind
you, the title was not the sole problem. The biggest was that the editor
was aggressively uninterested in the use of computers to dial up recipes;
she really wanted a guide to kitchen organization. Carly and I are baffled
why these people took on Tasty Bytes in the first place; they showed plain
contempt toward our intentions as creators. Our book was an unpretentious
commercial project, not a literary or educational effort, but we did want
to pass on accurate and useful information. Believe me, these experiences
are hardly unique.
So, to return to my main point, we should restructure our publishing
and distribution system so that librarians gained more power and hucksters
ended up with less. That way, conscientious publishers and writers would
fare much better.
Besides the approval of a TeleLibrarian, what about other filtering
techniques? A few more:
--The number of times a book was dialed up, or the number of times
within a certain period. This is often the method that members of
CompuServe, America Online, and similar services employ to decide which
files they should download. American Online, for example, lists both the
number of dialups and the date of the last uploading. Yes, such a criterion
would reflect popularity, not literary taste, but at least readers would no
longer need hucksters to tell them what they wanted.
--Whether a publisher was on a reader's own list of houses to search.
Publisher could advertise in newspapers (paper or electronic) and elsewhere
to keep their names before the public.
--Whether a publisher had been in business X number of years or had
published Y number of titles.
Using those techniques and others, readers could keep their searches
manageable.
I hope that the above is helpful. For a look at the most recent
TeleRead, please e-mail me. Billy Barron (billy@utdallas.edu), a valuable
source of suggestions, has been kind enough to put the proposal on
ftp.utdallas.edu in /pub/staff/billy. However, the proposal has been
constantly evolving, and he either has been on vacation or may be about to
leave, so for the moment it might be better to e-mail me. I log on several
times a day and can transmit the proposal in a flash.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David H. Rothman "So we beat on, boats against
drothman@digex.net the current...."
805 N. Howard St., #240
Alexandria, Va. 22304
703-370-6540(o)(h)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 08:36:42 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "James S. Graber" <jgra@seq1.loc.gov>
Subject: Complete E-Journal Archives
I'm not sure that it is sufficient to have just one main archive. Why not
have regional duplication of collections? If the archive only contains ascii
text then network traffic is not an issue, but I would expect these archives
to contain all sorts of data including images, mpeg video, etc. which could
take a long time to retrieve. So establish a group of libraries that are
charged with maintaining duplicate copies of this archive. If LC is the only
location for this data, what do other libraries holdings consist of ten or
twenty years down the road? Is a library just a place to get free access to
the Internet?
James Powell ... Library Automation, University Libraries, VPI&SU
1-4986 ... JPOWELL@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
... jpowell@borg.lib.vt.edu - NeXTMail welcome here
... Owner of VPIEJ-L, a discussion list for Electronic Journals
Archives: http://borg.lib.vt.edu:80/ gopher://oldborg.lib.vt.edu:70/
file://borg.lib.vt.edu/~ftp
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
In response to Eyal Amiran's post asking about the idea of a few central
nodes where many E-journals would be archived: I think this is a great
idea! My own PERSONAL, obviously biased opinion is that one such archive
location should be at the Library of Congress. I have been promoting this
idea both inside and outside of LC. My guess is that it will happen
eventually, maybe even soon. What do people think of this idea, especially
E-Journal owners?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 08:46:07 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@spiff.carleton.ca>
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Subject: Re: E-journal task force report
In article <01H1NMSSTPV6A8COW8@HUSC3.HARVARD.EDU> awright@HUSC.BITNET writes:
>subject. It's available via anonymous ftp from the server LIBRARY.CORNELL.EDU
>(directory: pub/acqnet/misc.reports, filename: ejo.report). Well worth a
>look.
Thank you for the reference.
I very much hope that these various sub-task-forces will make their
findings available as well, and that they will get a good look at WWW.
(Gee, with Cello being developped over at fatty.law.cornell.edu, it
should be just a short walk)
One thing that I would really like some library organization people
to decide is how to cite articles published electronically. I am
collecting background, and selecting tools for publication of a
refereed journal in conservation biology (good names still needed!)
The National Research Council (of Canada) recently posted a message
concerning some money they want to make available towards building a
"virtual library" --- a Canadian resource like CIC.net's archive would
be invaluable. Are there Canadian researchers on the list who might be
planning on applying for such money?
Most of my collection, btw, is accessible from my bio page via WWW.
:!mcr!: HOME: mcr@sandelman.ocunix.on.ca +1 613 788 2600 3853
Michael Richardson WORK: mcr@spiff.carleton.ca
Here is an HTML
reference to by bio.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 08:46:46 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Margaret E. Sokolik" <sokolik@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject: e-j archives
Re: J. Graber's suggestion of the LC for a central node for
archiving e-journals. I think it's a great idea. We
are just starting a new refereed journal, and have to
grapple with the site issue. Is it going to change each
time the editor changes? Will there be someone willing
to monitor it at a remote site? etc.
Maggi Sokolik, Editor
TESL-EJ
a hypothetical, but nearly formed, journal
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 08:47:44 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Richard Wiggins <wiggins@msu.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
In-Reply-To: Message of Mon,
16 Aug 1993 08:41:07 EDT from <mgeller@athena.mit.edu>
....
>And finally, I want to make one point which is tangential to this
>archiving issue -- and probably inflammatory! I find that LDBASE
>searching on LISTSERVs is far more satisfying than the searching that is
>currently available in gophers and WAIS. It is more elaborate in its
>capabilities, including the variety of ways in which one can qualify a
>search. And it seems far more reliable to me. However, having done
>some Internet training, I know that it is much easier to learn how to
>search in a gopher. And I know that things are changing in the area of
>information retrieval tools. Tomorrow's gopher will have more powerful
>searching capabilities, but in the meantime, I'll miss the LDBASE
>searching.
>
>Marilyn Geller
>MIT Libraries
>Internet: mgeller@athena.mit.edu
I agree -- Listserv's search engine is powerful and allows narrowing
of searches very effectively. However my guess is that very few
end users have mastered it. Maybe when Eric Thomas releases a
true client/server oriented Listserv it'll have something closer
to query-by-example on a simple fill-in-the-blanks screen.
My guess is that for the masses WAIS is more accessible than
Listserv database searches by a long shot. My favorite WAIS
demonstration was done by an econ prof at Michigan who uses
it to index all his email. He typed "Who did I have lunch
with at the economics conference last Thursday?" and the
longest bar on the WAIS graph was a message "Hey Hal, want to
go to lunch at the economics conference next Thursday?" Probably
unusually effective given the small number of documents to sift
through, but natural language has got to be better for the masses.
It would be interesting to do a trial sometime -- Listserv vs
Gopher with simple indexes vs full-blown WAIS. I'm specifically
curious if the "relevance feedback" feature of WAIS is really of
practical value as currently implemented.
By the way, at our site we segment the Listserv minidisks by customer.
As long as the customer is willing to pay the disk charges associated
with his or her mailing list, all data stays online. Control is with
the list owner, not the Listserv owner.
/Rich Wiggins, Gopher Coordinator, Michigan State U
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 08:49:16 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: James Powell <jpowell@vtvm1.bitnet>
Subject: Administrative info
Our local Computing Center abruptly changed both our system mailer and the
version of Listserv software. Hopefully, most of you will not notice the
difference. If you encounter any unusual problems, or hear of anyone who has
suddenly stopped receiving mail from VPIEJ-L, please ask them to contact me
at jpowell@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu. A few userids have suddenly become invalid, and
the listserv software took the liberty of deleting one for me automatically
(much to my surprise!)
Due in part to these problems, I will be accelerating my plans to move VPIEJ-L
to a different system in the near future. Thank you for your patience.
James Powell
Owner VPIEJ-L
James Powell ... Library Automation, University Libraries, VPI&SU
1-4986 ... JPOWELL@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
... jpowell@borg.lib.vt.edu - NeXTMail welcome here
... Owner of VPIEJ-L, a discussion list for Electronic Journals
Archives: http://borg.lib.vt.edu:80/ gopher://oldborg.lib.vt.edu:70/
file://borg.lib.vt.edu/~ftp
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 14:42:45 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Richard Wiggins <wiggins@msu.bitnet>
Subject: Re: e-j archives
In-Reply-To: Message of Tue,
17 Aug 1993 08:46:46 EDT from <sokolik@well.sf.ca.us>
>Re: J. Graber's suggestion of the LC for a central node for archiving
>e-journals. I think it's a great idea. We are just starting a new
>refereed journal, and have to grapple with the site issue. Is it going
>to change each time the editor changes? Will there be someone willing
>to monitor it at a remote site? etc.
>
> Maggi Sokolik, Editor TESL-EJ, a hypothetical, but nearly formed,
> journal
Isn't there a precedent for this in the form of designated Federal
depository libraries for print materials? For electronic archives you'd
want separate locations in the interest of redundancy, backup, and
efficient use of network resources. And for a long time to come it may
be the case that patrons get the richest interaction with online materials
by physically going to the library (higher speed links, fancier
displays, human librarians who can guide you). Besides those concerns,
you'd want to spread the wealth a bit.
/Rich Wiggins, Gopher Coordinator, Michigan State U
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 14:43:29 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Richard W Meyer <rmeyer@trinity.edu>
Subject: Re: Archives of e-journals
The following was stimulated in part by the discussion on the
need for electronic journal archives. This is intended to pose
the question of whether we need to take explicit action or
whether we can rely on the emergence of an efficient infrastructure
to deal with the issue automatically; analogous to what emerged
in the print domain where libraries filled this role without
being asked.
Comments are more than welcome. Thanks.
===================================================================
Do we really need archives? Or, better still, do we even need
electronic journals? If we need them, how come the growth
in the number of lists and newsletters on the Internet has
been approximately 123 percent over the past two years while
e-journals have been added at a rate of only about 65
percent? If you have been involved with editing or publishing
an e-journal over this time period, have you been impressed
with the growth of unsolicited submissions? Or have the
majority of the electronic journals started off strong but
faded? (Who has the numbers?) Is it possible that this slow
growth is indicating that something is going on other than
what we expected?
If we examine the history of journals in the print domain we
find that they have filled four roles. Journals in print have
had to communicate, filter, authenticate, and archive. 1)
Journals play a role in communicating the results of
scholarship in order to keep scholars up to date on progress
and avoid duplication of effort as well as to establish
reputation of scholars in their discipline. 2) By
concentrating the results of their work in specific disciplines
into the narrow areas represented by each journal title,
journals play an important role as filters, which both lower
scholars' costs of information searching and provide
assurance that only acceptable contributions will appear. 3)
Perhaps most importantly, journals play the role of
authenticating the credentials of those who publish in them.
The knowledge, expertise, and skills of the scholar are
captured and displayed in the works her or she publishes. This has
caused journals to play an important part in the tenure and
promotion review process. They provide a low cost measure
of scholarly expertise. 4) Of course, journals play a role in
archiving knowledge. In effect, the print journal is an
institutional artifact created to accomplish these roles. Do
they need to be accomplished in the same way in the
electronic domain?
Consider the following scenario. Suppose the typical scholar
has his or her own computer workstation with substantial
disc space. Suppose every time the scholar reaches the point
of nearing final draft of her or his latest paper, that draft is
loaded to a file publicly available for FTP. Suppose after he
or she loads the paper, the scholar sends a message to a list
in his or her discipline announcing that the full report of the
latest work on a given topic is available for FTP; and suppose
the announcement contains a cogent summary of the paper.
Now suppose also that gopher (read, WAIS, WWW, Veronica,
hypertext, etc., if you care to) technology is more efficient,
and is augmented by the inclusion of a subject descriptor
filed on the original paerr. I'm not sure how librarians will
develop a low cost method of providing classification
numbers to scholars, but lets assume a universal authority
control mechanism(s) emerges in association with scholarly
postings. Better yet, assume gopher is really smart as a
knowbot and can parse out the subject character of papers
as well as good catalogers can. Suppose also that the
scholar makes a habit, since disk space is so cheap, of
downloading and keeping copies of all the papers he finds in
other FTP sites (whether they be individuals or institutions)
that are of interest on his disk in the FTP archive. Now, ask
yourself, does this scenario describe an electronic
environment which accomplishes all the roles described
above for print journals?
Many messages to Internet lists communicate progress in
research and make it possible for readers to get access to full
copy. The discipline specific nature of lists serves to filter
out much of the material not appropriate to the discipline.
Downloading by others serves to authenticate the level of
importance of individual work. And keeping downloaded files
serves to provide an archive (an efficient one) for posterity
and preservation of time stamps on expressions. Sounds
overly simplified, but if I were a journal publisher, I'd be
nervous. What's more, I would be seeking to provide services
to that would accelerate development of this sort of scholarly
communications infrastructure. There could be money in
facilitating this model by asking scholars to pay a fee to load
their material. In the meantime, how do we explain that
what I describe here is actually becoming fairly common?
What is a virtual journal (or even virtual library) if it ins't
the infrastructure on the Internet that systematizes access
to articles by common themes, which are randomly
distributed on FTP sites around the world? This virtual
journal must fulfill all the roles that have been traditionally
fulfilled by journals in the print domain, but isn't this what
is emerging on the Internet right now? You tell me, but be
sure to include an explanation of the relative growth rates of
lists versus journals and the seeming disinterest in
publishing in those e-journals.
Incidentally, if you are interested in the full draft of the
paper which is herein summarized, please send me an e-mail
note, and I'll post a copy to you. In the meantime, I am
looking for a place to publish it.
Oh, wondering what these phenomena mean to librarians?
Well, ask yourself why graduation rate totals from all US
library schools combined have dropped from approximately
8,000 per year to 4,000 per year over the last 20 years.
Cheers,
RICHARD W. MEYER TELEPHONE: 210/736-8121
DIRECTOR OF THE LIBRARY
TRINITY UNIVERSITY
715 STADIUM DR INTERNET: RMEYER@TRINITY.EDU
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78212 OR: RICHARD_MEYER@LIBRARY.TRINITY.EDU
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 08:27:05 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Dirk Herr-Hoyman <hoymand@joe.uwex.edu>
Subject: Re: e-j archives
From: Richard Wiggins <wiggins%msu.bitnet@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: e-j archives
> >Re: J. Graber's suggestion of the LC for a central node for archiving
> >e-journals. I think it's a great idea. We are just starting a new
> >refereed journal, and have to grapple with the site issue. Is it going
> >to change each time the editor changes? Will there be someone willing
> >to monitor it at a remote site? etc.
> >
> > Maggi Sokolik, Editor TESL-EJ, a hypothetical, but nearly formed,
> > journal
>
> Isn't there a precedent for this in the form of designated Federal
> depository libraries for print materials? For electronic archives you'd
> want separate locations in the interest of redundancy, backup, and
> efficient use of network resources. And for a long time to come it may
> be the case that patrons get the richest interaction with online materials
> by physically going to the library (higher speed links, fancier
> displays, human librarians who can guide you). Besides those concerns,
> you'd want to spread the wealth a bit.
>
> /Rich Wiggins, Gopher Coordinator, Michigan State U
>
>
I agree with Rich's comments about redundancy, can't put all of our eggs in
one network basket. I am also looking at the prospect of subject matter
National archives. For example, I know that the National Agricultural Library
is interested in electronically archiving ag related materials.
Rather than a super-Archive, which may happen too, I really see a
proliferation a regional or subject matter archives. This would be in
addition to the archives kept by the original publisher.
---
Dirk Herr-Hoyman |
Internet Publishing Specialist | Practice
Electronic Journal of Extension | random acts of kindness
Project Coordinator | and
University of Wisconsin-Extension | senseless beauty
hoymand@joe.uwex.edu (NeXTmail accepted) |
608-265-3893 (voice) 608-265-2530 (fax) |
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 08:28:32 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Lorre Smith <ls973@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Electronic journal archives
>Isn't there a precedent for this in the form of designated Federal
>depository libraries for print materials? For electronic archives you'd
>want separate locations in the interest of redundancy, backup, and
>efficient use of network resources.
It seems to me that this assumes various sites would be willing to take
up this burden "to the end of time". Being a federal depository is
VERY expensive, in spite of the benefits. But even the the assumption
that sites would want to bear the cost "for the benefit of all" and
so on, could it be required of them that they keep EVERYTHING? What
about deciding how everything's organized and what sort of access would be
"standard"? Would those desiring access have to have representation
in some sort of board of director type structure
so that the needs of their clients would be at least considered? Would
archives sites put up with being bossed around by those they serve?
It seems to me to be terrifically naive to think that this sort of thing
just "happens" without a lot of blood, sweat and tears, not to
mention a few fist fights. Many professionals want control over the
archives in order to assure services to clients will remain viable,
not necessarily out of possessiveness.
> And for a long time to come it may
>be the case that patrons get the richest interaction with online materials
>by physically going to the library (higher speed links, fancier
>displays, human librarians who can guide you).
Still, the library is not necessarily going to be able to offer the
service of having replications of all that is out there. It appears
to be unreasonable to believe that the most efficient way to make
electronic publications available will be to have them on-site. Just
as there is not enough money to buy books, serials and enough staff,
there is not going to be enough money to buy storage and programming
and staff to "keep" or "hold" all electronic publications. We're
going to want to point to things with gophers.
> Besides those concerns,
>you'd want to spread the wealth a bit.
>/Rich Wiggins, Gopher Coordinator, Michigan State U
Yes!! Spreading the wealth throughout the Internet is the idea!! It's
just that we worry about how reliable everyone is going to be. If we
put all our eggs in the basket that says Michigan will be the
archives for publication "a" for the rest of time, what happens when
Michigan decides "the heck with publication 'a' we need the room
for something else that our clients need more"? An archivist needs
to know EXACTLY what will happen if her clients rely heavily on
publication "a".
Lorre Smith
Head of Media, Microforms,
Periodicals and Reserves
University Libraries
University at Albany
State University of New York
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 08:30:42 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Comments: Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2
From: "Martin R. Kalfatovic" <libem071@sivm.bitnet>
Subject: Archiving E-journals
Re: J. Graber's idea of archiving e-journals at the LC; what about the idea of
copyright deposit? When e-journals are registered for copyright (those few
that are); how should/does LC handle this? I remember in the "old days"
(ca.1970s), when LC would request printouts of computer programs that were
being registered for copyright.
Using the copyright deposit rules and regulations might be one way to have the
LC act as, at least one, "archive" of e-journals.
Smithsonian Institution Libraries
LIBEM071 @ SIVM.SI.EDU
LIBEM071 @ SIVM (BITNET)
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 08:33:31 EDT
Reply-To: "David H. Rothman" <drothman@access.digex.net>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "David H. Rothman" <drothman@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: e-j archives--and library vs. at-home access
In-Reply-To: <199308181911.AA11587@access.digex.net>
Jim Graber's idea is exellent. It is time LOC involved itself more with
e-journals, which normally are free. This way, LOC could increase its
electronic presence without all the usual concerns over copyrights and
user fees. Everyone would come out ahead. The journals would reach more
people, more easily, and, as Maggi Sokolik noted, they could better
survive changes of editors.
As for the comments of Richard Wiggins, I very much agree that patrons
*today* can enjoy many advantages by being in the library--for example,
technical assistance and perhaps fancy displays and other amenities.
Certainly that will be the case for the next several years. (During this
time, obviously, it will help if libraries allow patrons to make disk
copies of online material.)
But what about the period beyond the mid-'90s? I'd hope that librarians
would be ready by then for many more patrons to be dialing up material
directly from home. It's inevitable. More patrons are buying and
befriending computers and modems, and networks are no longer limited to
the hard core.
This needn't be a threat to librarians. Quite the contrary. They have
valuable educational and support roles to perform. Also, if public
librarians lobbied well (don't ever be ashamed of the L word), they would be
the main people controlling a database whose contents reflected the varied
taste of thousands of librarians. Brick-and-mortar libraries will always
exist, but librarians need to look beyond the mid-'90s toward the day when
many more patrons will want to retrieve books from home.
Even now, AT&T commercials (and Al Gore) are alluding to the concept of
dial-up books. If librarians do not act quickly enough, then most of their
jobs *will* eventually be in danger.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David H. Rothman "So we beat on, boats against
drothman@digex.net the current...."
805 N. Howard St., #240
Alexandria, Va. 22304
703-370-6540(o)(h)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 18 Aug 1993, Richard Wiggins wrote:
> >Re: J. Graber's suggestion of the LC for a central node for archiving
> >e-journals. I think it's a great idea. We are just starting a new
> >refereed journal, and have to grapple with the site issue. Is it going
> >to change each time the editor changes? Will there be someone willing
> >to monitor it at a remote site? etc.
> >
> > Maggi Sokolik, Editor TESL-EJ, a hypothetical, but nearly formed,
> > journal
>
> Isn't there a precedent for this in the form of designated Federal
> depository libraries for print materials? For electronic archives you'd
> want separate locations in the interest of redundancy, backup, and
> efficient use of network resources. And for a long time to come it may
> be the case that patrons get the richest interaction with online materials
> by physically going to the library (higher speed links, fancier
> displays, human librarians who can guide you). Besides those concerns,
> you'd want to spread the wealth a bit.
>
> /Rich Wiggins, Gopher Coordinator, Michigan State U
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 08:33:58 EDT
Reply-To: Brian Gaines <gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Brian Gaines <gaines@fsc.cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: Archives of e-journals
> disc space. Suppose every time the scholar reaches the point
> of nearing final draft of her or his latest paper, that draft is
> loaded to a file publicly available for FTP. Suppose after he
> or she loads the paper, the scholar sends a message to a list
> in his or her discipline announcing that the full report of the
> latest work on a given topic is available for FTP; and suppose
> the announcement contains a cogent summary of the paper.
> Now suppose also that gopher (read, WAIS, WWW, Veronica,
> hypertext, etc., if you care to) technology is more efficient,
> and is augmented by the inclusion of a subject descriptor
> filed on the original paerr. I'm not sure how librarians will
Richard's model is an important one in characterizing a new pattern
of publication on the net. I have suggested to a number of communities
running list servers and ftp archives how they might extend these to
cover the other functions of journals that he mentions with very little
change to their existing operations -- that is, how to add the status of
respected peer review, and the universality of paper publication, without
losing the immediacy of current internet access to work in progress.
The paragraph below from a paper to appear in Bibliotheca Medica Canadiana
sums up the recommendations. I take Richard's point to be that such
additional formalization may not happen in general, but that many of
the functions of a journal are being emulated nevertheless. My suggestions
emphasize his point by demonstrating the continuity between the informal
and formal. There are many innovative variant ways of supporting scholarly
communities through the Internet.
b.
---
A reference model for a digital journal emulating paper journals
and significantly enhancing their features might be:
1 A community concerned with a sub-discipline founds a digital
journal by defining the publication objectives, establishing a
review board of relevant experts, and negotiating a paper-
based publication arrangement with a book or journal
publisher. It is assumed that the community already operates a
list server and a gopher.
2 Potential contributors routinely put their working articles in
their local archives making the knowledge rapidly available
through ftp and gopher. The appropriate format currently is
postscript since this supports full typography, diagrams and
pictures, can be generated by virtually all word-processors on
all platforms, and can be read and printed using public domain
programs on all common platforms. It is also annotable,
searchable and reusable using Adobe's Acrobat technology.
3 When a contributor wishes an article to be reviewed for the
journal, he or she informs the editor by email of the location
of that article.
4 The editor assigns reviewers, and also makes it known to the
community at large through the list server that the paper is
subject to review so that anyone may comment on it.
5 When the editor has sufficient commissioned and other reviews,
he or she sends them to the author with an editorial decision.
It may also be seen as appropriate to make these reviews
publically available in the journal archives.
6 If the editorial decision is to publish without change, then
the article is moved into the journal archives (it might seem
reasonable to just put a pointer to the article in the journal
directory of the community gopher, but copying the paper to
the archives is intended to create an immutable 'published'
version). If revisions are required, the author makes them and
the process loops back to 3.
7 Annually, or by volume, a paper volume of the digital journal
is published. This may become unnecessary in the long term,
but currently such parallel publication is essential to make
the published material universally available.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 11:11:58 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Natalie S. King" <nking@wam.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: Archives of e-journals
I have a couple of comments/concerns about Richard Meyer's proposal
about whether we need e-journals or archives at all.
First, in the scenario of the scholar disseminating her/his own work
by making it available through FTP, I believe this issue of peer review
would be by-passed. I realise that the current peer review system is
far from perfect but at least it is a concerted effort by the scientific
community to filter out bad/inappropriate/incomplete/misleading work.
Simple downloading of a paper available by FTP does not authenticate a
work. I believe it is important to remember that many readers of
scholarly works are not scholars in that field (they may be beginning
researchers or scholars in another field) and these people rely on
the peer review process to, if not really authenticate, at least provide
some kind of quality filter.
Second, and I may just be showing my ignorance of how these personal
archives will work, I'm concerned about the archiving of these materials.
What is an information creator decides to purge her archives and move to
a cabin in the mountains? Are her archives lost or is the information
available at the archives of the people who downloaded her work? What
is no one downloaded her work? It has not been uncommon, I believe, in
the history of science that a particular idea did not gain popularity
until some years after the initial discovery. In any case, now we rely
on libraries to serve as archives and, although one could argue that
libraries could easily discard their archives at any time, research libraries,
I believe, take the charge of preserving the archives pretty seriously
and do their best to do so given the economic constraints placed on them.
(Rats. I see a mistake in line 3 of this paragraph--What IF an information...
Sorry. Yipes. I did it again in 6--What IF no one downloaded her work?)
Just some thoughts..... Natalie King, nk28@umail.umd.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 11:13:35 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@princeton.edu>
Subject: Re: Archives of e-journals
On Peer Review and Electronic Journals
Richard W Meyer <rmeyer@trinity.edu> wrote:
> Do we really need archives? Or, better still, do we even need
> electronic journals? If we need them, how come the growth
> in the number of lists and newsletters on the Internet has
> been approximately 123 percent over the past two years while
> e-journals have been added at a rate of only about 65
> percent?
Because the unrefereed vanity press always flows more freely than
quality-controlled publication. Peer review takes time to implement on
the net and requires some initiative and innovation. Also, authors have
a lot of prima facie worries about publishing electronically rather than
on paper. All these worries have answers, but making THOSE known and
understood takes time too. Lists and newsletters don't have to prove
themselves on the net; their existence speaks for itself. Refereed
publication does. Hence the 123/65 ratio is meaningless. On the other
hand, the 65% annual growth rate for electronic journals (if accurate)
seems salutary in its own right. The figure represents a much more
significant phenomenon than mere lists and newsletters.
> If you have been involved with editing or publishing
> an e-journal over this time period, have you been impressed
> with the growth of unsolicited submissions? Or have the
> majority of the electronic journals started off strong but
> faded? (Who has the numbers?) Is it possible that this slow
> growth is indicating that something is going on other than
> what we expected?
Submission rate is and continues to be a problem, but predictably so.
Even new paper journals usually go through an initial period of reliance
on invited or encouraged submissions rather than just spontaneous
submission (and even so, many fail). Given the prima facie worries
alluded to earlier (academic credit, readership, permanence, etc.), be
they ever so readily answerable, it is not surprising that manuscript
flow will have to be "subsidized" when not only the journal, but the
medium itself is brand new to everyone.
The article count for PSYCOLOQUY is 15/16/70 for 90/91/92 and at
49 currently, the estimate would be 84 by the end of 93. So growth
continues. Ahead of us is a critical mass (one that will probably
ramify across disciplines) after which the spontaneous submission
rate will pick up on its own. The growing PSYCOLOQUY readership (last
estimated at over 20,000) and the entry of citations to it in the paper
literature will also help with time. But it's no surprise to me that the
first decade requires a lot more encouragement than the first decade of
the paper journal I edit required: The net doesn't have centuries of
precedent and prior habit behind it; rather, it must OVERCOME them.
> If we examine the history of journals in the print domain we
> find that they have filled four roles. Journals in print have
> had to communicate, filter, authenticate, and archive. 1)
> Journals play a role in communicating the results of
> scholarship in order to keep scholars up to date on progress
> and avoid duplication of effort as well as to establish
> reputation of scholars in their discipline. 2) By
> concentrating the results of their work in specific disciplines
> into the narrow areas represented by each journal title,
> journals play an important role as filters, which both lower
> scholars' costs of information searching and provide
> assurance that only acceptable contributions will appear. 3)
> Perhaps most importantly, journals play the role of
> authenticating the credentials of those who publish in them.
> The knowledge, expertise, and skills of the scholar are
> captured and displayed in the works her or she publishes. This has
> caused journals to play an important part in the tenure and
> promotion review process. They provide a low cost measure
> of scholarly expertise. 4) Of course, journals play a role in
> archiving knowledge. In effect, the print journal is an
> institutional artifact created to accomplish these roles. Do
> they need to be accomplished in the same way in the
> electronic domain?
Of course. What is there in the foregoing list that is medium-specific?
All these functions -- including the all-important quality-control
function of peer review -- can and will be performed electronally.
(Your list has implicit in it, indeed in the very fact that it is seen
as being in any way print-specific, several of those readily answered
prima facie objections twice alluded to here.)
> Consider the following scenario. Suppose the typical scholar
> has his or her own computer workstation with substantial
> disc space. Suppose every time the scholar reaches the point
> of nearing final draft of her or his latest paper, that draft is
> loaded to a file publicly available for FTP. Suppose after he
> or she loads the paper, the scholar sends a message to a list
> in his or her discipline announcing that the full report of the
> latest work on a given topic is available for FTP; and suppose
> the announcement contains a cogent summary of the paper.
> Now suppose also that gopher (read, WAIS, WWW, Veronica,
> hypertext, etc., if you care to) technology is more efficient,
> and is augmented by the inclusion of a subject descriptor
> filed on the original paerr. I'm not sure how librarians will
> develop a low cost method of providing classification
> numbers to scholars, but lets assume a universal authority
> control mechanism(s) emerges in association with scholarly
> postings. Better yet, assume gopher is really smart as a
> knowbot and can parse out the subject character of papers
> as well as good catalogers can. Suppose also that the
> scholar makes a habit, since disk space is so cheap, of
> downloading and keeping copies of all the papers he finds in
> other FTP sites (whether they be individuals or institutions)
> that are of interest on his disk in the FTP archive. Now, ask
> yourself, does this scenario describe an electronic
> environment which accomplishes all the roles described
> above for print journals?
You have described an unrefereed manuscript archive or vanity press; it
is no wonder that your point of comparison was lists and newsletters,
as this is very much in that same spirit. But electronic JOURNALS, like
paper ones, have to be peer reviewed -- and peer-reviewed by HUMAN
PEERS, not some automatic content analyzer (no serious scholar or
scientist I know advocates THAT). So you are comparing apples and
oranges. Peer review on the net will have to be implemented EXACTLY the
way it is in paper, with guidance and validation by experts prior to
acceptance and publication. Moreover, there will be, just as in
paper, a qualitative hierarchy of peer-reviewed journals, to help guide
the reader. Though it can be optimized in certain ways electronically,
peer review is not medium-dependent. (See bibliography below.)
> Many messages to Internet lists communicate progress in
> research and make it possible for readers to get access to full
> copy. The discipline specific nature of lists serves to filter
> out much of the material not appropriate to the discipline.
> Downloading by others serves to authenticate the level of
> importance of individual work. And keeping downloaded files
> serves to provide an archive (an efficient one) for posterity
> and preservation of time stamps on expressions. Sounds
> overly simplified, but if I were a journal publisher, I'd be
> nervous. What's more, I would be seeking to provide services
> to that would accelerate development of this sort of scholarly
> communications infrastructure. There could be money in
> facilitating this model by asking scholars to pay a fee to load
> their material. In the meantime, how do we explain that
> what I describe here is actually becoming fairly common?
Sounds like a specialized mechanism for unrefereed manuscripts rather
than the peer-reviewed archive serious scholars and scientists expect,
whether in paper or on the net. Such a prepublication communication
network is certainly a valuable way of sharing not-yet-validated ideas
and findings, as they are already shared by word-of-mouth, phone,
letter, preprint, and unrefereed (paper) conference proceedings, but
those are all apples, and scholarly journal authors, editors, readers
and publishers are interested in oranges.
> What is a virtual journal (or even virtual library) if it ins't
> the infrastructure on the Internet that systematizes access
> to articles by common themes, which are randomly
> distributed on FTP sites around the world? This virtual
> journal must fulfill all the roles that have been traditionally
> fulfilled by journals in the print domain, but isn't this what
> is emerging on the Internet right now? You tell me, but be
> sure to include an explanation of the relative growth rates of
> lists versus journals and the seeming disinterest in
> publishing in those e-journals.
The relevant variable is refereed vs unrefereed, and it cuts across
media.
> Incidentally, if you are interested in the full draft of the
> paper which is herein summarized, please send me an e-mail
> note, and I'll post a copy to you. In the meantime, I am
> looking for a place to publish it.
I hope you will update it to remove some of the prima facie
misunderstandings I've tried to point out here. And see Harnad (1990,
1991, 1992) for some revolutionary new interactive capabilities for
scholars and scientists that ONLY the net affords (refereed scholarly
"skywriting").
> Oh, wondering what these phenomena mean to librarians?
> Well, ask yourself why graduation rate totals from all US
> library schools combined have dropped from approximately
> 8,000 per year to 4,000 per year over the last 20 years.
I hope (scholarly/scientific) librarians will become sophisticated in
these matters, ready not only to perform in the electronic world their
traditional role of selecting, acquiring, classifying, archiving, and
making searchable and retrievable the fruits of scholarly and
scientific research, but also to use this sophistication to inform
those who are new to or worried about the new medium. Unfortunately, your
own analysis here is not one that will enlighten them; rather, it
will help keep them in the darkness of the easily dispelled prima
facie worries that beset everyone after centuries of doing everything
the old way.
REFERENCES
Garfield, E. (1991) Electronic journals and skywriting: A complementary
medium for scientific communication? Current Contents 45: 9-11,
November 11 1991
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. 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).
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 A. L. Okerson (ed.) Directory of
Electronic Journals, Newsletters, and Academic Discussion Lists, 2nd
edition. Washington, DC, Association of Research Libraries, Office of
Scientific & Academic Publishing, 1992).
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 (in press)
Katz, W. (1991) The ten best magazines of 1990.
Library Journal 116: 48 - 51.
Mahoney, M.J. (1985) Open Exchange and Epistemic Progress.
American Psychologist 40: 29 - 39.
Wilson, D. L. (1991) Testing time for electronic journals.
Chronicle of Higher Education September 11 1991: A24 - A25.
Harnad 1990, 1991 and 1992 are retrievable by anonymous ftp from
host: princeton.edu
directory: pub/harnad/Harnad
filenames: harnad90.skywriting harnad91.postgutenberg harnad92.interactivpub
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stevan Harnad
Editor, Behavioral & Brain Sciences, PSYCOLOQUY
Cognitive Science Laboratory | Laboratoire Cognition et Mouvement
Princeton University | URA CNRS 1166 I.B.H.O.P.
221 Nassau Street | Universite d'Aix Marseille II
Princeton NJ 08544-2093 | 13388 Marseille cedex 13, France
harnad@princeton.edu | harnad@riluminy.univ-mrs.fr
609-921-7771 | 33-91-66-00-69
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 16:57:54 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Charles Bailey, University of Houston" <lib3@uhupvm1.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Archives of e-journals
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 18 Aug 1993 14:43:29 EDT from <rmeyer@trinity.edu>
It's important to remember that papers that appear in journals are
copy edited, sometimes extensively. In general, this leads to
higher quality papers being published. I would expect a decline in
paper quality if authors simply put their own papers on network
servers.
Best Regards,
Charles
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 16:58:24 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Charles Bailey, University of Houston" <lib3@uhupvm1.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Archiving E-journals
In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 19 Aug 1993 08:30:42 EDT from <libem071@sivm>
When I first submitted the PACS Review to the Copyright Office in
electronic form, they thought it was a computer program, and requested
that we print out the first and last twenty-five pages.
My reply indicated that it was an electronic journal; however, ultimately,
it was easier to just submit two printed copies. Consequently, I
wonder how many e-journals really submit their issues in electronic
form. Until LC accepts e-journals in electronic form in a way
that is as convenient as submitting a paper version, it will not become
a national archive of e-journals without gathering issues off the Net
itself.
Best Regards,
Charles
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 08:43:19 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Margaret E Sokolik <msokolik@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Legal representation
As we get ready to launch our new ej (in English as
a Second Language) a question has arisen regarding
legal representation. I would like to know if any
editors/publishers of ej's have gotten legal
representation, whether you think it necessary,
etc.
We are not associated with a professional organization
(although we will be refereed), so we do not have that
to fall back on. I personally have legal insurance to
cover me, but I doubt that it will be of much help
should I, as editor, or any of our editorial board
be object of a lawsuit.
Any advice?
Maggi Sokolik, Editor
TESL-EJ
UC Berkeley
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 08:52:31 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Lee Jaffe <jaffe@scilibx.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Re: Archives of e-journals
In-Reply-To: (null)
To validate this, I was at a meeting about electronic publications that
included publishers and editors. One of them said, "You don't want self
publishing. We see what people write before an editor has gotten to it
and you would not want to read material that hasn't been edited."
-- Lee Jaffe, UC Santa Cruz
On Thu, 19 Aug 1993, Charles Bailey, University of Houston wrote:
> It's important to remember that papers that appear in journals are
> copy edited, sometimes extensively. In general, this leads to
> higher quality papers being published. I would expect a decline in
> paper quality if authors simply put their own papers on network
> servers.
>
> Best Regards,
> Charles
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 08:53:32 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Lee Jaffe <jaffe@scilibx.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Re: Archiving E-journals
In-Reply-To: (null)
In line with Charles Bailey's experience with the Copyright Office, I
heard that when motion pictures first came out, the Copyright Office
refused to issue copyrights because they were on film stock. Initially,
in order to receive copyright protection, film makers had to make a paper
print of their films -- long strips wound onto reels -- to satisfy the
Copyright Office's requirements. (Ironically, these prints outlived the
early film stock and allowed some important, lost films to be rediscovered
in the vaults of the Library of Congress.)
-- Lee Jaffe, UC Santa Cruz
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 08:34:49 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Eric Crump <c509379@mizzou1.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Archives of e-journals
In-Reply-To: Message of Fri,
20 Aug 1993 08:52:31 EDT from <jaffe@scilibx.ucsc.edu>
Um, I beg to differ with Lee and Charles re: the quality of
unedited (that is, by a copy editor), unpeered writing.
All that scrutiny and fussy trimming and shaping seems to me
to be a part of the writing process that is located pretty
firmly in print technology (and on the net inasmuch as it
still mimics print). The time and expense involved in printing
makes it imperative that the text be impeccably presented, of
course, so the editing function is necessary. But the editing
function doesn't simply *save* poorly written texts--it contributes
to their creation. It's very nearly impossible to simultaneously
write lively, interesting prose -and- self-edit, and writers who
try (and most do try when they are writing for publication, I would
guess) find themselves in a schizo sort of situation that actually
increases 'error' in their writing. I say this based on observations
made during 5 years as a writing teacher and tutor working with
college undergraduates.
On the net, where volume is less costly (and where what costs there are
often are hidden from the writer) writers sometimes tend to relax and
write. They toss the imaginary editing-monkey off their backs and just
write. And their prose is --in the context of the networked community
they write to and with-- better, more readable, in spite of the fact
that it might contain mechanical and typographical problems that would
make a print copy editor's eyes bug out.
The net is a different writing environment than print (to state the
obvious) but it is taking a while for critical values to adjust to
its characteristics. E-journals should, I think, try to be open to
the new shapes writing is taking.
--Eric Crump
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 08:37:00 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Richard Wiggins <wiggins@msu.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Archives of e-journals
In-Reply-To: Message of Fri,
20 Aug 1993 08:52:31 EDT from <jaffe@scilibx.ucsc.edu>
>
>To validate this, I was at a meeting about electronic publications that
>included publishers and editors. One of them said, "You don't want sel f
>publishing. We see what people write before an editor has gotten to it
>and you would not want to read material that hasn't been edited."
>
>-- Lee Jaffe, UC Santa Cruz
Not only is the editor an important part of the publishing process in
terms of quality control, the act of turning something over to a
separate editor/publisher means that some final form of a document can
exist as a snapshot. Authors otherwise would be tempted to leave works
as "in progress" forever, either letting them lie incomplete, or
constantly tinkering with them forever. I'm greatly in favor of
self-publishing for preprints and informal work, but it seems there is a
real need for separately-maintained journals, even if everyone had the
tools and expertise to do their own e-publishing.
/rich
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 08:37:47 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Peter Graham <psgraham@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Subject: electronic information, archives, and libraries
From: Peter Graham, Rutgers University Libraries
The discussion on archiving e-journals is interesting and fruitful for this
group. I'd like to add a couple of points:
1. many of the suggestions about archiving ignore selectivity. It makes no
more sense for LC to be the archive for "all" electronic journals than for it
to hold "all" books (which it doesn't nor does it try). In fact any serious
library exercises selectivity, and so we should in electronic instances as
well.
2. Archiving needs to be an institutional responsibility. Several commenta-
tors implicitly realized this by referring to the problem of a researcher
shutting down, going west, buying the farm, etc. and losing the archive.
This function sounds very like a library's function. In fact, a number of
serious libraries are looking at these issues and (ponderously, in the way
libraries have) are moving toward action. the Research Libraries Group is
actively thinking about implementing an archiving site. A number of issues
arise: long-term commitments, backup, authentication, software obsolescence
over time, redundancy, and the like.
--pg
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 09:37:31 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Howard Pasternack <blips15@brownvm.bitnet>
Subject: Copyright of Electronic Publications
>From: "Charles Bailey, University of Houston" <lib3@uhupvm1.bitnet>
>
>When I first submitted the PACS Review to the Copyright Office in
>electronic form, they thought it was a computer program, and requested
>that we print out the first and last twenty-five pages.
>
I wonder what the current practice is concerning copyright of electronic
works, particularly databases. In 1984 or so, when OCLC first claimed
copyright of its database, including the archival tapes being sent to
members, we submitted forms to copyright our archival tapes as yearly
compilations. A printout of the beginning and the end of each tape had
to accompany the copyright forms.
Howard Pasternack
Brown University
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 10:36:58 EDT
Reply-To: "David H. Rothman" <drothman@access.digex.net>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "David H. Rothman" <drothman@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: electronic information, archives, and libraries [and trolleys]
In-Reply-To: <199308231244.AA28131@access.digex.net>
On Mon, 23 Aug 1993, Peter Graham wrote:
> From: Peter Graham, Rutgers University Libraries
>
> The discussion on archiving e-journals is interesting and fruitful for this
> group. I'd like to add a couple of points:
>
> 1. many of the suggestions about archiving ignore selectivity. It makes no
> more sense for LC to be the archive for "all" electronic journals than for it
> to hold "all" books (which it doesn't nor does it try). In fact any serious
> library exercises selectivity, and so we should in electronic instances as
> well.
>
I agree that professional peers and librarians should identify e-journals,
articles, books, and other material of special merit. As I've noted in
another posting, there could be ways to limit users' searches to such
material when this is desired.
Having said that, however, I'd add that *after* storage costs decline
sufficiently, then everything intended for formal publication should go on
line in a central database.
I speak from the perspective of an author who, many times, has found what
he needed in obscure publications. Please do not waste my future time by
discouraging LOC or another central repository from working toward the day
when it can store everything.
All this database-hopping may be great fun for library science types, but
it is murder on civilians. I myself enjoy visiting new databases, but I am
hardly a typical user. It's enough of a challenge to accustom many
technophobes just to *one* database. Equally important, sophisticated
users would love the ability to search a big, central database that
employed the fastest CPUs and the best software. If you oppose a central
database, you're interfering with the flow of knowledge. (In case you're
wondering, yes, I use the term "central" loosely. The central database
could be replicated in different regions to reduce telcom costs and
address other technical considerations.)
The present system reminds me of the old trolley lines. You might get
from New York to Boston eventually by following one line into another, but
you could have arrived many hours faster on a express train. It's high
time to work toward the day of the express.
Lest you worry about local control, I'll remind you:
1. Many librarians, at many university libraries and others, in many
cities, could decide what was featured most prominently in the central
database. See my TeleRead proposal (available to innocent and
not-so-innocent bystanders via e-mail to drothman@digex.net) for a
discussion of the mechanism for this in regard to books. A similar concept
could apply to journals.
2. The existence of a central database needn't preclude the continuation
of the present network of independent servers. Would that we have been
able to keep the trolley lines! The central database could carry e-journals
and final versions of individual articles; but everything could also be
available on independent servers. Here's to local autonomy! In an era of
plummeting costs of mass storage, the time has come for electronic
federalism--a central database co-existing with local databases, and able
to pick up the best aspects of each.
> 2. Archiving needs to be an institutional responsibility. Several commenta-
> tors implicitly realized this by referring to the problem of a researcher
> shutting down, going west, buying the farm, etc. and losing the archive.
>
> This function sounds very like a library's function. In fact, a number of
> serious libraries are looking at these issues and (ponderously, in the way
> libraries have) are moving toward action. the Research Libraries Group is
> actively thinking about implementing an archiving site. A number of issues
> arise: long-term commitments, backup, authentication, software obsolescence
> over time, redundancy, and the like.
A central database, at least the one I propose, would address all those
issues--with perhaps one exception: redundancy. But why worry about it? As
I said, I am a local autonomy booster and I'm all in favor of local
databases with oft-overlapping collections. Just please, do not discourage
LOC or others from working toward a central database for the whole
country. Otherwise you'll harm the end user community--everyone from
school children to nuclear scientists.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 08:34:49 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Lee Jaffe <jaffe@scilibx.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Re: Archives of e-journals
In-Reply-To: (null)
I have two responses to the recent characterization of editing as a
paper-based activity, unnecessary in an electronic environment.
First, the term 'editing' covers a lot of ground. Editors look for gaps
in the literature, identify interesting ideas and projects that should be
published and solicit authors. In this, they are instrumental in
developing the literature. Once a manuscript is in hand the editor
assesses its appropriateness for publication, may accept it outright, or
conditionally in order to elicit a better article, may refer it to another
publisher or reject it entirely, thus again shaping the body of
literature. Once accepted, a piece is copy-edited for consistency, style,
spelling, grammar and accuracy in order to bring it up to the publisher's
standards for readability and reliability. While one focus of editing in
some venues may be to save paper, the general outcome of editing is a
better piece of material. This is highly skilled, professional work and I
think it a very great mistake to assert otherwise.
Second, whatever you think of the gatekeeping role of editors, one
consequence is that the material that does come to the fore is better.
All the effort expended at the beginning of the process means less work
and bother for the reader at the other end. Any savings you realize by
not editing work scrupulously is going to cost your readers. How do you
justify that?
-- Lee Jaffe, UC Santa Cruz
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 08:36:18 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Laine Ruus <laine@vm.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: electronic information, archives, and libraries
In-Reply-To: Message of Mon,
23 Aug 1993 08:37:47 EDT from <psgraham@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
On Mon, 23 Aug 1993 08:37:47 EDT Peter Graham said:
>2. Archiving needs to be an institutional responsibility. Several commenta-
>tors implicitly realized this by referring to the problem of a researcher
>shutting down, going west, buying the farm, etc. and losing the archive.
>
>This function sounds very like a library's function. In fact, a number of
>serious libraries are looking at these issues and (ponderously, in the way
Hear, hear! I agree absolutely. Either the library's, or the university
archives', or the two in tandem. I have long been thinking that
each institution should be responsible for the long-term preservation
of its employees/faculty/students/staff, and that electronic publications
should be preserved along the same principles as publications in other
media. Institutions/organizations which are too small, or do not
have the technological expertise to perform this function should
negotiate with other larger institutions in their vicinity to
perform the function for them. The role of the LofC/NARA, in the
US at least, should be to set the standards and provide the training,
or even just to facilitate and coordinate that these things happen,
but should not act as the archive per se.
I am delighted that someone else feels the same.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Laine G.M. Ruus Bitnet : laine@utorvm
Data Library Service Internet : laine@vm.utcc.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 08:36:37 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Laine Ruus <laine@vm.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: electronic information, archives, and libraries
In-Reply-To: Message of Mon,
23 Aug 1993 08:37:47 EDT from <psgraham@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
Sorry - in the previous message, I realize that I had written that
"each institution should be responsible for the long-term preservation
of its employees/faculty/students/staff" - slip of the tongue, so
to speak. Of course, I meant "each institution should be responsible
for the long-term preservation of _the publications of_ its
employees/faculty....etc." 8-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Laine G.M. Ruus Bitnet : laine@utorvm
Data Library Service Internet : laine@vm.utcc.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 08:37:20 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Hannah King." <kingh@snysyrv1.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
Rich Wiggins works as Gopher Coordinator at Michigan State U and suggests
that M Geller archive Sercites at Mich U's or other archvial gopher. What
happens to the Gopher a Michigan U when Rich 1) resigns for a better position
2) is summarily fired or dismissed 3) retires 4) gets sick or takes a
sabbatical? We have no formal agreements signed by top administrators
that protect any of the electronic information now on the nets. Even worse,
what guarantee do we have that 10 years from now the technology on the desk
will be able to accept input from something in a then unstandard perhaps
unknown format? Libraries have a recognized, authorized, funded mandate to
archive printed materials which can be retrieved by physically going to
the stacks and pulling the item off the shelf (if all other methods are
unavailable). Gopher sites have no formally recognized, authorized, or
funded mandate to archive electronic materials and rely on informal
good will, interest, available capacity, and volunteer time and effort
to store information in a way that allows the Internet community to
retrieve it. Even if there was a formal mandate to archive substantive
electronic information resoursces, few would be able to identify what on
the Internet is worth saving.
IMHO,
Hannah King
SUNY HSC Library at Syracuse
kingh@snysyrv1
kingh@vax.cs.hscsyr.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 13:25:14 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: PRAXIS@GONZAGA.EDU
Subject: PRAXIS
Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington, is in the process of
creating a new electronic journal -- PRAXIS: Educational Research
& Reflection. This journal will initiate a conversation between
scholarly inquiry and the "wisdom of practice"; it is intended to be
an exchange of ideas, insights, and vision which has as its primary
goal the exploration of new ways of relating theory to its application
in the field.
Work published in the journal will include (a) educational research, both
quantitative and qualitative; (b) reflection about education in the form
of essays, experiences, and insights; and (c) editorial pieces such as
book reviews, regular columns, and letters to the editors. PRAXIS will be
especially interested in research that is meaningful and applicable to
educational practice and in critical essays, reviews, and commentaries
about school and society.
At present we are still in the planning phase. Within the next few
months, we will issue a call for papers. At that time we will also ask for
nominations of those willing to serve on the journal's editorial board.
Our vision is to publish only the highest quality of writing and thought.
Another goal is to run a moderated discussion list in conjunction with
the journal. PRAXIS will, of necessity, be offered on a subscription basis,
but the discussion list will be cost free.
With this in mind, we would like your input. Please respond to the
questions below and return to PRAXIS@Gonzaga.edu. Thank you for your
time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Jan Strever, Managing Editor
PRAXIS Survey
1. Does (or would) your institution recognize publication in an
electronic journal as a valid professional publication?
2. Would this type of journal be of interest to you?
3. What would you consider a fair price for a year's
subscription for a quarterly journal of this format?
4. Would you consider submitting articles for publication?
5. Do you know of anyone (including yourself) who would be
interested in serving on this journal's editorial board?
If you so choose, please add your name and your email address to your
reply.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 13:31:19 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: G Morrison <g.morrison@lse.ac.uk>
Subject: Re[2]: electronic information, archives, and libraries
Laine G.M. Ruus of Data Library Service at University of Toronto said:
Sorry - in the previous message, I realize that I had written that
"each institution should be responsible for the long-term preservation
of its employees/faculty/students/staff" - slip of the tongue, so
to speak. Of course, I meant "each institution should be responsible
for the long-term preservation of _the publications of_ its
employees/faculty....etc." 8-)
I hope they have the interests of *both* at heart!
Graham Morrison
Planning Officer
London School of Economics
g.morrison@UK.AC.LSE
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 08:31:39 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Marilyn Geller <mgeller@athena.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed,
25 Aug 93 08:37:20 -0400. <9308251247.AA11694@Athena.MIT.EDU>
My original posting to VPIEJ-L regarding complete archives of ejournals/
was prompted by something that concerned me in my role as publisher.
Now, I'd like to look at it from my perspective as a librarian. I am
currently serving on a committee charged with developing a library
gopher at MIT. One of the ideas we've discussed is collaboration among
a group of libraries to share responsibility for archiving an agreed
upon set of ejournals/.
In a private message to me, a colleague from Vanderbilt University
wondered if CONSER might be interested in such a project. While I can't
speak for CONSER and I'm not certain that its resources could stretch
that far, I think that the CONSER model is a good one for a consortium
of libraries to use. CONSER operates in a centralized manner to sort
out cataloging policy with regard to serials. And it operates in a
distributed manner with individual members contributing to the
collective database. The end product is a collection of serials
cataloging records that meets agreed upon standards and on which all
members of the library community have come to rely as the authoritative
database. An authoritative archive of ejournals/ built by a consortium
of libraries with shared objectives and standards and distributed labor
and storage space would be the end product of this CONSER-like effort.
The Gopher and Archie Resource Panel of the MIT Libraries is interested
in hearing from other libraries that would like to explore the
possibility of collaborating on the development of ejournal archives to
our mutual benefit.
Marilyn Geller
Serials Cataloger, MIT Libraries
(and also ejournal "publisher")
Internet: mgeller@athena.mit.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 08:32:14 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Howard Pasternack <blips15@brownvm.bitnet>
Subject: Re: electronic information, archives, and libr
>From: Laine Ruus <laine@vm.utcc.utoronto.ca>
>
>Sorry - in the previous message, I realize that I had written that
>"each institution should be responsible for the long-term preservation
>of its employees/faculty/students/staff" - slip of the tongue, so
>to speak. Of course, I meant "each institution should be responsible
>for the long-term preservation of _the publications of_ its
>employees/faculty....etc." 8-)
>
Why? If the institution is not responsible for the content, editing,
production, or dissemination of the publications, how does it follow that
the institution has an obligation to preserve the publication. If Faculty
Member X sets up an FTP server, why does the institution where X works
have an obligation to preserve the publications on the server, especially
when the institution was never involved in the first place in the decision
to set up and support the server.
Howard Pasternack
Brown University
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 08:33:49 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Dennis Moser <aldus@churchst.ccs.itd.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
In-Reply-To: <9308251243.AA17650@totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Here is a good example of what happens when one discipline subverts the
vocabulary of another, specifically the chipheads taking over the use of
the word "archive" from the archivists (who atleast know what they mean
when they use the word!)...
On Wed, 25 Aug 1993, Hannah King. wrote:
> Rich Wiggins works as Gopher Coordinator at Michigan State U and suggests
> that M Geller archive Sercites at Mich U's or other archvial gopher.
Can anyone explain, in practical terms, what an "archival" gopher is? The
courts have only just declared electronic records (whatever that means) to
be a part of the historical/archival record that must be saved.
>... Libraries have a recognized, authorized, funded mandate to
> archive printed materials which can be retrieved by physically going to
> the stacks and pulling the item off the shelf (if all other methods are
> unavailable).
Repeat after me: "Libraries are NOT archives." Nor do they have a mandate
to fulfill the role of the archives. Archives are not known for having
circulating collections -- Libraries are. Archives exist to preserve --
Libraries exist to provide access. Repeat: "Libraries are NOT archives."
> Gopher sites have no formally recognized, authorized, or
> funded mandate to archive electronic materials and rely on informal
> good will, interest, available capacity, and volunteer time and effort
> to store information in a way that allows the Internet community to
> retrieve it. Even if there was a formal mandate to archive substantive
> electronic information resoursces, few would be able to identify what on
> the Internet is worth saving.
Archivists make their livings sorting through some of the most awful chaos
of collections that make the Internet look like an anal-retentive,
obssesive's pet project of cataloging non-book materials. If anyone would
be capable of dealing with the identification of "saveable" material,
archivists should be the ones for job.
Sorry if this upsets anyone, but after two weeks of reading about people
wanting to "archive" electronic journals when they clearly had no clue as
to the real function of an archive, I just got tired of it. Yes, there is
a place for an electronic/digital entity that will function analogously to
the archives. But I have yet to see any mention of such a creature in this
discussion. Most of what I am seeing/reading is closer to the traditional
library model. And from the questions and objections being raised I
suspect that it would be much more applicable.
In my equally humble, but no less militant, opinion,
*******************************************************************
Dennis Moser (517) 764-6264 The Computer is incredibly fast,
aldus@churchst.ccs.itd.umich.edu accurate, and Stupid.
aldus@aal.itd.umich.edu Man is unbelievably slow,
or just: inaccurate, and Brilliant.
aldus@umich.edu -- Leo Cherne
*******************************************************************
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 08:34:29 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Richard Wiggins <wiggins@msu.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 25 Aug 1993 08:37:20 EDT from <kingh@snysyrv1>
Wow, lots of points in that paragraph, none of which I disagree with,
but just to clarify:
1) I think you're mixing two threads of my response as if they were
one; I suggested Gopher would be a better choice, IMHO, because it's
far easier to browse than a Listserv list is. Moving to Gopher from
Listserv does not solve the question of who keeps the archive
forever. On the other hand, neither does leaving the data under
Listserv; the fact that a Listserv maintainer wants to prune the
collection is what started the whole discussion.
2) The issue of how long something is kept in the collection arises
when there is not identity between the logical owner and the physical
keeper. The SUNY HSC Library at Syracuse can decide whether and when
to toss old issues of the Journal of Obscure Chemistry because they
control the shelves. Similarly, if Marilyn or someone close to her
area at the MIT library run a Gopher, control over the collection
resides with the owner of the collection.
In any event Marilyn likes Listserv for this collection. The good news
from yesterday is that Eric Thomas will port his tool to Unix, meaning
that conceivably this collection could be on a small box using the
technology of choice close to the owner's control within a year.
3) If the owner is not the physical keeper, then agreements are needed.
While in general Gopher sites have no recognized, authorized, funded
mandates etc., CICNet does have a project to archive electronic journals.
Marilyn's resource isn't an ejournal per se, but CICNet might be a good
home for it. Again, though, if she's looking for a permanent home that's
not under her control, absolutely, there has to be an agreement as to
how long the holdings would be kept.
4) The Net is in an experimental phase of publishing etexts, and it's
precisely how we move to a world where online archiving is funded,
authorized, and mandated that needs to be hashed out. I'm not sure
what you're arguing -- that it hasn't been done, or that it won't/can't
be done? In any event, it's an etext thing, not a Gopher thing.
5) Librarians make collection choices every day. It seems to me that
collection development choices for etexts will be made by librarians
and scholars in each discipline. Once the archive problem is solved --
not a trivial question, I agree -- then a collection can consist of
a set of links to the online archives. Good collections will point
to materials of high scholarly value. This is already beginning to
happen -- look at the biology Gopher at Harvard, for instance.
6) The Gopher at Michigan U will do fine without me, since I'm at
Michigan State. I'm feeling healthy, am not eligible for a sabattical,
and didn't realize my job was in jeopardy! Please send offers for
a better position via private email. :-)
/rich
>Rich Wiggins works as Gopher Coordinator at Michigan State U and suggests
>that M Geller archive Sercites at Mich U's or other archvial gopher. What
>happens to the Gopher a Michigan U when Rich 1) resigns for a better position
>2) is summarily fired or dismissed 3) retires 4) gets sick or takes a
>sabbatical? We have no formal agreements signed by top administrators
>that protect any of the electronic information now on the nets. Even worse,
>what guarantee do we have that 10 years from now the technology on the desk
>will be able to accept input from something in a then unstandard perhaps
>unknown format? Libraries have a recognized, authorized, funded mandate to
>archive printed materials which can be retrieved by physically going to
>the stacks and pulling the item off the shelf (if all other methods are
>unavailable). Gopher sites have no formally recognized, authorized, or
>funded mandate to archive electronic materials and rely on informal
>good will, interest, available capacity, and volunteer time and effort
>to store information in a way that allows the Internet community to
>retrieve it. Even if there was a formal mandate to archive substantive
>electronic information resoursces, few would be able to identify what on
>the Internet is worth saving.
>
>IMHO,
>Hannah King
>SUNY HSC Library at Syracuse
>kingh@snysyrv1
>kingh@vax.cs.hscsyr.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 08:35:25 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: IAN.WORTHINGTON@classics.utas.edu.au
Subject: *Electronic Antiquity* 1, 3
*ELECTRONIC ANTIQUITY:
COMMUNICATING THE CLASSICS*
As a subscriber to the electronic journal you are being contacted to
let you know that Volume 1 Issue 3 (August 1993) is now available
for access. The contents follow.
*ELECTRONIC ANTIQUITY:
COMMUNICATING THE CLASSICS*
ISSN 1320-3606
Peter Toohey (Founding Editor)
Ian Worthington (Editor)
VOL. 1 ISSUE 3 - AUGUST 1993
(01) LIST OF CONTENTS
(02) EDITORIAL
(03) GUIDELINES
(04) ARTICLES
Barre, G., 'Sappho 130 L.P.: Who's Who?'
Beness, J. Lea, 'Sulpicius (tr. pl. 88 BC) and the Pompeii
Hammond, N.G.L., 'Were "Makedones" Enrolled in the
Amphictyonic Council in 346 BC?'
(05) REVIEWS
Goetsche, Sallie, Aristophanes' *Lysistrata*, The Old Vic
Treloar, A., *Greko-Latinskij Kabinet*: Classics in Russia
(06) OBLOQUY
Lenz, J.R., 'Was Homer Euboean? A Reply'
(to B.B. Powell, *EA* 1,2, July 1993)
Powell, Barry B., 'Did Homer Sing at Lefkandi? A Reply
to J.R. Lenz'
(07) CONFERENCES
Epic in the Contemporary World: University of Wisconsin,
April 1994: Call for Papers
(08) VACANCIES
University of Washington: Visiting Roman Historian
(09) KEEPING IN TOUCH
Electronic Forums and Repositories for
the Classics
by Ian Worthington
------------------------
A general announcement (aimed at non-subscribers) that
the journal is available will be made in approximately 24
hours time over the lists - as a subscriber you will be
automatically contacted in advance when future issues
are available.
Access is via gopher or ftp (instructions below).
Volume 1 Issue 4 will be published in September.
The editors welcome contributions.
HOW TO ACCESS
Access is via gopher or ftp.
The journal file name of this issue is 1,3-August1993;
Volume 1 Issues 1 and 2 may also be accessed in the same way.
GOPHER:
-- info.utas.edu.au and through gopher:
-- open top level document called Publications
-- open Electronic Antiquity.
-- open 1,3-August1993
-- open (01)contents first for list of contents, then other files as appropriate
FTP:
-- FTP.utas.edu.au (or ftp.info.utas.edu.au)
--> departments --> classics --> antiquity.
-- In Antiquity you will see the files as described above.
Since a few people had problems accessing the journal via ftp,
here are the stages in more detail:
at your system prompt: FTP
at the subsequent prompt: open FTP.utas.edu.au
at login prompt: anonymous
at password: your username (which won't show)
then: cd departments
then: cd classics
then: cd antiquity
then: ls -l
then: cd 1,3-August1993
then: ls -l
You will now have a list of the various directories (the 'd'
beginning each line 'drwx....' indicates you're dealing with
a directory)
then: cd (into whichever directory you want)
then: ls -l
If the first character in the line is not 'd', you've got a file.
Use the 'get' command plus the file name to download. If you're
still in a directory, use the 'ls-l' command to list its contents.
Use 'get' to transfer files.
To move back up the directory tree:
type: cdup
then: ls -l
And repeat the process.
If still having trouble, try, once you have the directory list for
the journal:
Type (for example) cd (4)articles
Your response should be 'CWD command successful', but no list.
Type ls-l
Your response should be a list of six articles in the form:
-rw-rw-r--1 1689 77030 August 26 20:09 Barre-Sappho
etc for the rest
Type get Barre
and you should have a copy.
A final alternative if a space is magically inserted in the parenthesis
of the file number (e.g. of 'Articles' file) is to specify:
CD ./(04)Articles
Please also be very careful when ftping *not* to leave *any* spaces
in file names or make typos.
Do NOT use Telnet.
The best way to access the journal (in terms of both ease and
time) is by gopher, and we would urge you to do so. The
structure of the journal is also more easily recognisable on gopher.
Please try to access *here* in Tasmania (eastern Australian
time) either during the night, very early morning or at
weekends, since during the business day the lines are
crammed. This means you'll need to check with (e.g.)
the international operator for the right time difference,
but at the moment (the following is not an exhaustive list)
Britain is 9 hours behind eastern Australia; Europe, west
to east, 8-6 hours; East Coast U.S.A. 14 hours; West
Coast U.S.A. 17 hours; South America, coastal to eastern,
13-15 hours, South Africa 8 hours; Singapore 2 hours;
and Japan 1 hour.
Queries and contributions may be directed to the editors at
:antiquity-editor@classics.utas.edu.au.
Peter Toohey (ptoohey@metz.une.edu.au)
Ian Worthington (ian.worthington@classics.utas.edu.au)
(end)
---------
Ian Worthington,
Department of Classics,
University of Tasmania,
Hobart, Tasmania 7001,
Australia.
Tel. (002) 202294 (direct)
Fax (002) 202186
e-mail: Ian.Worthington@classics.utas.edu.au
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 08:27:17 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Frank Harris <fharri@osa.org>
Subject: Re: complete journal archives
Hello.
I have been one of the novice readers on this list up to now. I
think it might be worth looking at a software archive that also
contains the archives of two print journals, one peer reviewed, the
other not, as well as two or more listserver list archives and
one or more newsnet archives.
There is a logic to this grouping: the software, documentation, and
journals for this subject are all available from one source. Further,
it is mirrored in Europe, the USA, and the UK. This provides
insurance of access and data integrity in the case of disaster. (Recently
the USA host went down for about a week.)
I favor the sort of focussed storage we see here. It reduces the
difficulty of finding what you need, and improves the chance of
retrieving the most up-to-date versions of evolving documents.
Redundant archives on line, strikes me as a better approach
than merely having tapes in a vault somewhere.
Forwarded message:
X-Listname: TeX-Related Network Discussion List <info-tex@shsu.edu>
...
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 18:16:09 CST
From: "George D. Greenwade" <bed_gdg@shsu.edu>
Reply-To: "George D. Greenwade" <bed_gdg@shsu.edu>
To: info-tex@SHSU.edu
Message-Id: <009718FC.5F269BA0.30725@SHSU.edu>
Subject: CTAN mirrors??
This is to inquire which sites are presently (or plan to be soon) mirroring
the Comprehensive TeX Archive Network (CTAN) hosts at present. In other
words, sites mirroring the TeX collections from (alphabetically):
ftp.shsu.edu
ftp.tex.ac.uk
ftp.uni-stuttgart.de
I would like to keep some sort of informal tracking of these so I can watch
a few things. Also, if these sites are reliable and stable plus willing to
share a little network load, I would like to (possibly) list them in a
reference file somewhere so that users may be aware of where these mirrors
are.
I honestly don't mind the fact that we are serving about .57 gig of files a
day since ftp.shsu.edu came back up (and I trust similar activity at the
other hosts) and the network load doesn't seem to be killing us, but
knowing where reliable mirrors are can help out everyone (such as when we
unintentionally assassinate a machine) 8-) as well as assist me in planning
on where we might need to look for some growth in services for the
worldwide community of TeX users.
--George
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
George D. Greenwade, Ph.D. Bitnet: BED_GDG@SHSU
Department of Economics and Business Analysis THEnet: SHSU::BED_GDG
College of Business Administration Voice: (409) 294-1266
P. O. Box 2118 FAX: (409) 294-3612
Sam Houston State University Internet: bed_gdg@SHSU.edu
Huntsville, TX 77341 bed_gdg%SHSU.decnet@relay.the.net
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 08:27:46 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: MALCOLMH@ksgfin.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
Isn't this a job for CRL? Since they archive print materials,
shouldn't they be asked?
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 08:28:31 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "EDWARD M. (TED) JENNINGS" <jennings@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
About what to save: Richard Wiggins mentioned decisions to be made by
"librarians and scholars in each discipline." One eybrow and one corner
of my mouth twitched upward. I am involved with an e-journal that
doesn't quite align with any existing "discipline," and I hope it won't
be discarded simply because it lacks conventional sponsorship.
Ted Jennings
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 09:24:59 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Frank Harris <fharri@osa.org>
Subject: Re: complete journal archives
Hello:
Yesterday I posted my first message to VPIEJ-L, and I forgot to sign
it.
Further, I quoted some material from the list, info-tex@shsu.edu
The material I quoted contained a signature from Prof. George Greenwade,
owner of that list. My apologies to Dr. Greenwade for sending a message
that some people might assume was his. I also offer my apologies to
the subscribers to VPIEJ-L for not signing my message.
Frank E. Harris fharri@ursa.osa.org
Optical Society of America fharris@aip.org
2010 Massachusetts AVE NW
Washington, DC 20036-1023 Phone - 202-416-1904
The following is my message to VPIEJ-L, without the quote of
Dr. Greenwade.
Forwarded message:
> Hello.
>
> I have been one of the novice readers on this list up to now. I
> think it might be worth looking at a software archive that also
> contains the archives of two print journals, one peer reviewed, the
> other not, as well as two or more listserver list archives and
> one or more newsnet archives.
>
> There is a logic to this grouping: the software, documentation, and
> journals for this subject are all available from one source. Further,
> it is mirrored in Europe, the USA, and the UK. This provides
> insurance of access and data integrity in the case of disaster. (Recently
> the USA host went down for about a week.)
>
> I favor the sort of focussed storage we see here. It reduces the
> difficulty of finding what you need, and improves the chance of
> retrieving the most up-to-date versions of evolving documents.
>
> Redundant archives on line, strikes me as a better approach
> than merely having tapes in a vault somewhere.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 15:09:59 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: ghermanp@kenyon.edu
Subject: Re: Complete ejournal archives
It would seem that the archiving of e-texts will end up being in a distributed
enviornment with multiple hosts. Commercial publishers will offer e-journals
sooner or later ( most likely sooner) and I suspect they will want to retain
these files on their servers. Once specific files are nolonger economically
viaable to maintain ( no hits with paying customers), there ought to be
legislation that these file should be deposited in the Nationl Data Archive.
This archive should be federally funded and probably under the control of the
national libraries; LC, NAL, NLM.
OCLC clearly intends to be a major purveyor of e-texts. Since we trust them to
archive our bib records, why not the full text of journals. Their being
involved in this process would allow libraries greater control over how access
is priced, managed, etc.
CRL could be a possible institution for archiving e-texts, however they would
need to make a major investment in infrastructure, and they are supported by a
very limited number of libraries.
I also know that Oracle Publishing has been considering entering the business
of becomming an international e-text archive.
By the way, after yesterday's flame about using the term archive, maybe we
should use the term repository instead.
Paul M. Gherman
Director of Libraries
Olin and Chalmers Library
Kenyon College
Gamibier, OH 43022
614-427-5186 voice
614-427-2272 fax
ghermanp@kenyon.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 08:27:49 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Archie Zariski - Murdoch School of Law
<zariski@csuvax1.murdoch.edu.au>
Subject: Forwarded message...RE E LAW
The following exchange with Dr Eugene Clark of the University of Tasmania,
Editor of the Journal of Law and Information Science, may be of interest to
those who anticipate contributing to E Law, a new electronic journal
originating at the School of Law, Murdoch University, Perth, Western
Australia. At the present time it is our plan to make the journal available
initially via gopher and ftp.
------------------------------
From: "Archie Zariski - Murdoch School of Law" <zariski@murdoch.edu.au>
Mon, 30 Aug 93 10:31:09 +0800
To: eugene.clark@law.utas.edu.au
Cc:
Subject: RE: E Law
Eugene,
Regarding your query concerning technical requirements of E Law, we are still
feeling our way, but I can say that we will not limit the content to one
area of law and would prefer submissions formatted in as simple a style as
possible.
We aim to have international readers, and therefore hope that submissions
will have some transnational interest (comment on the Mabo case regarding
aboriginal land title would be a good example I feel).
One aspect of E Law we want to emphasise is the stimulation of dialogue
and debate via the "category 2 pieces" which might evolve into continuing
submissions on a particular topic, but with more considered views being
expressed than seems to be the case with most discussion lists.
Sorry these remarks are sketchy, but hope they are of some help.
Archie * * * * * Archie Zariski (zariski@murdoch.edu.au)
* * * Senior Lecturer, School of Law
* * * * Murdoch University
* * * * * * Murdoch, Western Australia 6150
Archie * * * * * Archie Zariski (zariski@murdoch.edu.au)
* * * Senior Lecturer, School of Law
* * * * Murdoch University
* * * * * * Murdoch, Western Australia 6150
</zariski@murdoch.edu.au></zariski@csuvax1.murdoch.edu.au></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></fharri@osa.org></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></jennings@albnyvms.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></bed_gdg@shsu.edu></bed_gdg@shsu.edu></info-tex@shsu.edu></fharri@osa.org></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></kingh@snysyrv1></wiggins@msu.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></aldus@churchst.ccs.itd.umich.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></laine@vm.utcc.utoronto.ca></blips15@brownvm.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></mgeller@athena.mit.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></g.morrison@lse.ac.uk></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></kingh@snysyrv1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></psgraham@gandalf.rutgers.edu></laine@vm.utcc.utoronto.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></psgraham@gandalf.rutgers.edu></laine@vm.utcc.utoronto.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></jaffe@scilibx.ucsc.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></drothman@access.digex.net></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></drothman@access.digex.net></lib3@uhupvm1.bitnet></blips15@brownvm.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></psgraham@gandalf.rutgers.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></jaffe@scilibx.ucsc.edu></wiggins@msu.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></jaffe@scilibx.ucsc.edu></c509379@mizzou1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></jaffe@scilibx.ucsc.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></jaffe@scilibx.ucsc.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></msokolik@uclink.berkeley.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></libem071@sivm></lib3@uhupvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></rmeyer@trinity.edu></lib3@uhupvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></rmeyer@trinity.edu></harnad@princeton.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></nking@wam.umd.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></gaines@fsc.cpsc.ucalgary.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca></drothman@access.digex.net></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></drothman@access.digex.net></libem071@sivm.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></ls973@albnyvms.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></wiggins%msu.bitnet@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></hoymand@joe.uwex.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></rmeyer@trinity.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></sokolik@well.sf.ca.us></wiggins@msu.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></jpowell@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></mgeller@athena.mit.edu></wiggins@msu.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></sokolik@well.sf.ca.us></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></mcr@spiff.carleton.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></jgra@seq1.loc.gov></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></drothman@access.digex.net></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></drothman@access.digex.net></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></jgra@seq1.loc.gov></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></samsam@vm1.yorku.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></dieke.vanwijnen@wkap.nl></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></mgeller@athena.mit.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></billy@cic.net></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></drothman@access.digex.net></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></drothman@access.digex.net></drothman@access.digex.net></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></michael=spencer%mis%nps@mis.nps.navy.mil></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></jod@ccat.sas.upenn.edu></wiggins@msu.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></drothman@access.digex.net></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></blips15@brownvm.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></awright@husc.harvard.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet> </vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></ls973@albnyvms.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></jod@ccat.sas.upenn.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></mgeller@athena.mit.edu></jqrqc@cunyvm.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></mgeller@athena.mit.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></mgeller@athena.mit.edu></wiggins@msu.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></mgeller@athena.mit.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></dmckewen@bna.com></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></sokolik@well.sf.ca.us></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></ngodava@cc.umanitoba.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></sokolik@well.sf.ca.us></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></sokolik@well.sf.ca.us></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></gaines@fsc.cpsc.ucalgary.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
__________________________________________________________________
James Powell