VPIEJ-L Discussion Archives
August 1994
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 08:54:16 EDT
Reply-To: Judith Gresham <jgresha@eis.calstate.edu>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Judith Gresham <jgresha@eis.calstate.edu>
Subject: Re: VT Model
In-Reply-To: <199407301633.JAA30436@eis.calstate.edu>
I found this discourse interesting because--
I am proficient with producing attractive and readable paper publications
(newletters, manuals, etc.).
I accepted a position to produce a newletter for a new organization,
and found the newsletter was to be distributed soley through e-mail. The
mix of services used by the members precludes attaching files to some.
This means the newletter must be pure ASCII and self-contained within the
e-mail message. I find I have to rethink my presentation.
While one would think that scholarly journals are content-oriented and
not subject to the above problems, one must remember that tables of data
are included that extend beyond an 80-column limitation. Some may
include illustrations. I have found some on-line documents that merely
delete the tables.
Unfortunately, one must plan for the lowest common denominator and/or
devise alternative delivery systems for tables and illustrations.
Judith
San Bernardino, CA
On Sat, 30 Jul 1994, Gail McMillan wrote:
> >To: boudreau@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R. Boudreau)
> >From: gailmac@vt.edu (Gail McMillan)
> >Subject: Re: VT Model
> >
> >Thank you for send me your thoughts about the VT Model posted to VPIEJ-L
> earlier this week. I'm responding to you though I'd like your permission to
> post our comments to the list. Like I said initially, I certainly don't
> have all the answers but the idea is a sound one that could serve publishers
> and libraries well if the collaborate.
>
> ******Gail,
> Of course you may post our comments to the list. I thought I had posted
> mine to the whole list; did they go only to you? (Must be a result of how
> the list header is set up.) Anyway, I have some clarifications, but I'll
> wait until I see your responses on the list.
> --Mike B.*****
> >
> >>Following are some comments on the VT Model for journal publishing. I find
> >>the idea interesting, particularly its aim to capitalize on the distinction
> >>between "browsing" and "directed searching," but I also find some of its
> >>underlying assumptions to be questionable.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Electronic networks offer wonderful new tools for directed
> >>>searching. It is now possible (and software is available on
> >>>a few platforms) to embed an active link in a paper as a
> >>>reference to another paper. Selecting the link automatically
> >>>locates and opens a copy of the second paper. Electronic
> >>>preprint collections and tools like this make it likely that
> >>>publishers will lose control of the directed-search mode in
> >>>the near future.
> >>
> >>Of course, hypertext links are only one way of locating a piece of
> >>information you've already identified as desirable, and they don't help if
> >>you're not already reading a paper that has such links. But I'm curious as
> >>to how publishers can be seen as now having "control of the directed-search
> >>mode." Do you mean merely that publishers control access to the information
> >>they publish? If so, how will the availability of hypertext links force
> >>publishers to give up this control? They would still have to agree to let
> >>their documents be linked.
> >
> >Why would anyone need permission to link articles? If my library
> subscribes to two related titles and they are stored on the library's
> server, why couldn't we implement links--perhaps ones that are identified by
> subject specialists within the library (or the campus) or by activating
> links authors inserted in their articles?
> >>
> >>>The old mind-set was to deny access to non-subscribers. The
> >>>new attitude would be that subscribers receive guides and
> >>>aids to finding material which is in principle freely
> >>>available, but in fact is buried in an avalanche of other
> >>>information.
> >>
> >>The most useful aspect of this idea, it seems to me, is that it recognizes
> >>that organizing, storing, locating, and retrieving information are services
> >>for which one can reasonably be expected to pay. But these seem to be
> >>services that librarians already provide; publishers don't do this. This
> >>seems to be asking publishers and librarians to switch jobs.
> >
> >No, certainly not. Librarians would continue to do what they do best,
> including providing cost-free access to information (now its electronic, in
> addition to the other formats). Publishers would continue to provide their
> services, including specialized publications for their paid subscribers.
> >>
> >>>There is another "product" which is nearly invisible but
> >>>very important. This is quality control through editors and
> >>>peer review. There is nothing that intrinsically ties this
> >>>to traditional publishers, but that is where it is currently
> >>>located and where the track record is. It is been painfully
> >>>lacking in most areas of the electronic network.
> >>
> >>Yes, and in the realm of electronic publishing there is a distressing
> >>tendency to underestimate the importance of editing for content *as well
> >>as* copy editing. If there is indeed an "information explosion" going on,
> >>then copy editing and design (which will soon enough have its application
> >>in e-publishing) should become even more important as scholars and other
> >>users need to digest more and more information. Good copy editing and
> >>design is what makes the process of reading and understanding easier.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Archives cost money, so
> >>>one maintained by a commercial publisher would almost
> >>>certainly have to be revenue-producing. But
> >>>revenue-producing archives are problematic in many ways, and
> >>>will probably fare poorly in competition with free,
> >>>non-commercial journals and preprint databases. They will
> >>>also interact awkwardly with the navigation and retrieval
> >>>tools coming into use.
> >>
> >>How do you know?
> >
> >Awkward in that a search may result in several hits and she would have
> immediate access only to the free articles but would have to determine if
> the unseen articles were worth paying for--considering what is known about
> the content and the delay that may be cause during the money transactions.
> >>
> >>>Part of the mission of a research library is to archive
> >>>material and make it freely available to its users.
> >>>Supporting journal archives would be a direct contribution
> >>>to this mission.
> >>
> >>But let's not fall into the trap of thinking that the libraries provide
> >>this service "for free" just because they don't charge fees to individual
> >>users. The storing, cataloging, finding, retriving skills I mentioned
> >>above are indeed bought from librarians: they are paid for by taxes,
> >>student fees, and so on. If a library is supporting an archive for
> >>journals or any other text, you can bet your next paycheck they're going to
> >>recover their costs for establishing and supporting that archive.
> >
> >Yes, there is no free lunch. However, we are measuring success in terms of
> the numbers of searches and retrievals. Of course, some say that cost
> recovery (at least) may be necessary some day. so, one possibility may be
> to for the library to seek reimbursement from those who are making money on
...
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 08:55:29 EDT
Reply-To: "Michael R. Boudreau" <boudreau@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Michael R. Boudreau" <boudreau@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: VT Model
>>Why would anyone need permission to link articles? If my library
>subscribes to two related titles and they are stored on the library's
>server, why couldn't we implement links--perhaps ones that are identified by
>subject specialists within the library (or the campus) or by activating
>links authors inserted in their articles?
Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that publishers would still have to grant
permission for their publications to be stored in an archive from which
they could be accessed directly or by links.
>>>>Publishers
>>>>cannot support copy editing of files for a free archive
>>>>because editing is expensive and the costs cannot be
>>>>recovered. Editing lies outside the expertise and mission
>>>>of the library, so the library cannot support it either.
>>>
>>>Then the solution is to find a way to recover the costs of copy editing,
>>>not to dispense with it.
>>
>>Why? Many of us would rather read ASCII for free than to pay for a nice
>layout (e.g., two columns, varied fonts, etc.).
You're confusing copyediting and design. I would not fuss too much about
having to read ASCII text if it were clear, concise, easy to follow, and at
least occasionally lively--all the qualities that good copyediting helps to
bring to an article. I could read through one murky, wordy, awkward,
poorly organized article if I really had to; but if I needed to get through
a large collection, I'd start to feel pretty good about paying for
readability.
And let's not underestimate the importance of good design. A "nice layout"
may sound like a mere luxury--until you have to sit in front of the
computer and read a few hundred K worth of plain ASCII text. I'd like to
see publishers and libraries cooperate to find ways to make documents not
only accessible electronically, but easy on the brain and the eyes as well.
>>>>editors should
>>>>continue to request rewriting to improve useability.
>>>
>>>They can request it all they want; some authors are incapable of providing
>>>it.
>>
>>Perhaps the authors should pay for it then.
I'm all for that.
>>>How many bad articles are you willing to read just because
>>>they're free?
>>
>>Are they "bad articles" because they are not pleasingly displayed? I think
>I missed your point here.
Bad because poorly written. See? I need to hire a copy editor just for my
postings to this list...
--Mike Boudreau
University of Illinois Press
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 08:13:36 EDT
Reply-To: "Michael R. Boudreau" <boudreau@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Michael R. Boudreau" <boudreau@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: online document formatting
Judith Gresham writes:
> I accepted a position to produce a newletter for a new organization,
>and found the newsletter was to be distributed soley through e-mail. The
>mix of services used by the members precludes attaching files to some.
>This means the newletter must be pure ASCII and self-contained within the
>e-mail message. I find I have to rethink my presentation.
> While one would think that scholarly journals are content-oriented and
>not subject to the above problems, one must remember that tables of data
>are included that extend beyond an 80-column limitation. Some may
>include illustrations. I have found some on-line documents that merely
>delete the tables.
> Unfortunately, one must plan for the lowest common denominator and/or
>devise alternative delivery systems for tables and illustrations.
Are you familiar with Adobe Acrobat software? In brief, this allows you to
create a fully formatted document which is saved as a 7-bit ASCII file (and
hence transferable via email) and which can be viewed and printed by anyone
who has the viewing application, even though they don't have the
originating application (or the original fonts).
I've been testing the software on books and journals we produce, and I
wonder if anyone has any experience actually distributing Acrobat files.
--Mike Boudreau
University of Illinois Press
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 08:14:04 EDT
Reply-To: "J. KENNEDY" <kennedyj@who.ch>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "J. KENNEDY" <kennedyj@who.ch>
Subject: Electronic publication
Text item: Text_1
I have a project to electronically publish a book that the WHO
currently publishes in hard copy. The publication contains
information that is stored in a database. In years past, the
information within the database has been exported into a document
processor and the book has been crafted from this "exported" data.
Now, we would like to electronically produce this publication. What
this means specifically, is that we would like to marry a database
search engine with a text display package (perhaps like what is
currently available with CD-based encyclopedias, etc.) However,
unlike a encyclopedia, where the search engine searches amoungst the
text of the document, we want the search engine to search the database
files. Results of the user queries would be presented in a menu or
roster format. The user could then choose an item from the list and
display the associated text page.
Questions:
Are there any pre-written packages that accomplish this task?
If so, what are they?
Initially, this document would be distributed on diskettes, though
there should be no barrier to eventually distributing on CD-ROM or
even on the WWW. Are there any front-ends that work across these
platforms?
All replies gratefully appreciated.
Thanks,
John Kennedy
World Health Organization
Geneva, Switzerland.
kennedyj@who.ch
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 08:15:54 EDT
Reply-To: Stevan Harnad <harnad@princeton.edu>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@princeton.edu>
Subject: Electronic Editorial Office Costs
Three responses to Andrew Odlyzko's Questionnaire about Electronic
Editorial Costs follow below. -- S.H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 08:34:56 EDT
From: Janet Fisher <fisher@mitvma>
Subject: Editorial Costs
To: Andrew Odlyzko <amo@research.att.com>
Cc: Stevan Harnad <harnad@princeton.edu>
Thanks for sending me a copy of your questions about editorial
payments. I agree with Stevan's description of the process that an
editor (and support staff) go through to review papers. Yes, it is
common for publishers to pay a portion or all of the expenses of the
editorial office. In the humanities this is less the case, but it
varies tremendously depending on the editor, the editor's institution,
and the competition for the journal. When publishers compete for a
journal, this is where the deal can either be made or broken. These
costs have increased dramatically for a large percentage of our
journals in the last five years due to tightening funds at
universities. We now have editors wanting us to buy them computer
equipment and software, editorial tracking packages, etc.
In addition to editorial office support, some editors do indeed receive
royalties (in our case, usually after the journal has reached a
break-even position and the Press has recovered its initial deficits).
Or the bottom line can be split with the editor and/or the editor's
institution (if they own the journal). Also, we usually return 50% of
subsidiary rights income to the editorial office. Patricia Scarry (U of
Chicago Press) and Jill O'Neill (Elsevier) gave a presentation on
editorial office costs at the last Charleston Conference. You could
contact them for copies of their presentations: Patricia at phone
312-702-7359; Jill at phone 212-633-3754.
I would be happy to provide more detailed numbers -- with the journal
identities hidden, of course -- and percentages of total costs, if you
wish. But I probably cannot do this before the end of August because of
previous commitments and a 10-day trip coming up. Let me know what you
would like and I'll see what I can do. We have a diverse list of
journals in disciplines from humanities to social sciences to computer
and cognitive science, and an extremely wide range of financial
arrangements.
The other point I would make is that most journal editors accept
between 25% and 35% of the papers actually received. Possibly 10% are
rejected outright, but the rest of the rejected do go through the
review process and possibly through a revision stage also. These take
up the time of the editor and the editor's staff also, and this time
has to be paid for too. Only in a very few fields (like economics)
are submission charges common.
Note from S.H.: The acceptance rate varies greatly from discipline
to discipline. The acceptance rate in physics and mathematics is
more like 75-80% and author page charges are less uncommon there.
CICCHETTI DV. THE RELIABILITY OF PEER REVIEW FOR MANUSCRIPT AND
GRANT SUBMISSIONS - A CROSS-DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION. BEHAVIORAL
AND BRAIN SCIENCES, 1991 MAR, V14 N1:119-134.
HARGENS LL. VARIATION IN JOURNAL PEER REVIEW SYSTEMS - POSSIBLE
CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION, 1990 MAR 9, V263 N10:1348-1352.
ROBERTS J. NSF RETHINKS ITS PROPOSAL TO REVISE PAGE-CHARGE RULES.
NATURE, 1993 MAR 4, V362 N6415:7-7.
CHANGE - TO VOLUNTARY PAGE CHARGES. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
RELIABILITY, 1992 SEP, V41 N3:327-327.
Most of our editors have at least a half-time assistant to handle the
clerical parts of the editorial tasks (acknowledging manuscripts,
contacting potential reviewers, sending manuscripts out for review,
dogging reviewers, writing authors, etc.), and if the assistant is a
"managing editor type" and also does copyediting, this is more likely a
full-time position. These costs can be anywhere from $12,000 to $30,000
per year just for that staff position.(Not including equipment, phone,
fax, postage, office space, university overhead [yes, really!] that
universities often try to recuperate.)
Editorial board members are usually not paid, but this doesn't mean
that Editors are not. A few of our journals given token payments to
Associate Editors (the usually three top people under the editor) but
not to editorial board members. The fact that you have been a member of
the editorial board of 18 journals and never been paid is consistent
with our experience. But you cannot conclude from that fact that
editors are not paid and editorial offices are not paid for by the
journal or publisher.
I would also argue that there will still be some "typesetting" cost
with electronic journals. I do not believe that authors -- even in the
most highly sophisticated fields -- will ever do all the formatting
required to take manuscripts directly without some intervention.
"Typesetting" will really become formatting, I guess, but there are
costs associated with this. We should know more about what these are
once _Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science_ begins
publication.
I guess that's all for now. Let me know what editorial costs you are
interested in and if you have questions -- or disagree- ments -- over
anything in this message.
JANET H. FISHER PHONE (617) 253-2864
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR JOURNALS PUBLISHING
MIT PRESS, 55 HAYWARD STREET, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142
FISHER@MITVMA.MIT.EDU FAX (617) 258-6779
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 12:51:25 EDT
From: VMONTY@VM2.YorkU.CA (Vivienne Monty)
Hi: I shall look for harder data but in Library Science and History,
two fields that I am familiar with, I have never known a scholar/editor
to be directly paid. It is mostly in terms of release time or such
renumeration that I have known. Even these release time arrangements
are hard to get now in Canada at least.
Often the scholar/editor however has a "bureaucracy" to call on at the
Association sponsoring the journal or the publisher who take care of
the day to day administrative operations. The key word is often and NOT
always however.
As stated earlier in your discussions, the world of academe "sponsor"
academic publishing to a large degree through the granting release
time, research leaves and the personal time of scholars. Universities
have a tremendous Dollar value investment in editorships, writing etc
whether some realize it or not. And some count such time as zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 13:02 CDT
From: Jack P Hailman <jhailman@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Odlyzko Editorial Survey
Things might be changing on the subject of paid editorships, at least my
own views have changed. I served as editor of Animal Behaviour for
three years (or was it five?), and never again would I devote that much
of my life uncompensated. I wonder if other former editors of major
international journals feel the same way?
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 10:44:27 EDT
Reply-To: Samuel Richter <richter%hook@beacon.com>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Samuel Richter <richter%hook@beacon.com>
Subject: Re: online document formatting
>>Judith Gresham writes:
>>
>>> I accepted a position to produce a newletter for a new organization,
>>>and found the newsletter was to be distributed soley through e-mail. The
>>>mix of services used by the members precludes attaching files to some.
>>>This means the newletter must be pure ASCII and self-contained within the
>>>e-mail message. I find I have to rethink my presentation.
>>> While one would think that scholarly journals are content-oriented and
>>>not subject to the above problems, one must remember that tables of data
>>>are included that extend beyond an 80-column limitation. Some may
>>>include illustrations. I have found some on-line documents that merely
>>>delete the tables.
>>> Unfortunately, one must plan for the lowest common denominator and/or
>>>devise alternative delivery systems for tables and illustrations.
There is also the MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) standard
which some mailers support. Some people often think it means Multimedia
Internet Mail Extension, but that's understandable since it allows you
to send almost any kind of data through the mail, including audio and
video. What this means is, you can use the existing software you have
to create figures, tables, etc and embed them in a MIME message.
See RFC (Request For Comment) #1341 (available by ftp from ftp.uu.net under
/pub/rfc, I think) for the MIME specification. As far as mailer programs go,
I think PINE is MIME-compliant (and free).
>>Are you familiar with Adobe Acrobat software? In brief, this allows you to
>>create a fully formatted document which is saved as a 7-bit ASCII file (and
>>hence transferable via email) and which can be viewed and printed by anyone
>>who has the viewing application, even though they don't have the
>>originating application (or the original fonts).
>>
>>I've been testing the software on books and journals we produce, and I
>>wonder if anyone has any experience actually distributing Acrobat files.
>>
>>--Mike Boudreau
>>University of Illinois Press
>>
I have currently finished a prototype on-line journal delivery system
using Mosaic and WAIS and all I can say is thank God for Acrobat.
We typeset journals and each journal article is a postscript file usually
about 2-3+ megabytes in size. After distilling, we get a PDF file
of about 150-300k -- the size of a medium-large bitmap. I don't think
electronic distribution of PostScript files would be capable without it.
Sa///xr
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 10:46:14 EDT
Reply-To: "Dieke van Wijnen (Tel 078 334 264)" <dieke.vanwijnen@wkap.nl>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Dieke van Wijnen (Tel 078 334 264)" <dieke.vanwijnen@wkap.nl>
Subject: Re: online document formatting
In-Reply-To: <"4532 Tue Aug 2 14:20:49 1994"@relay.surfnet.nl>
Dear Mr. Boudreau,
In response to your question re: distribution of Acrobat files, the CAJUN
project (John Wiley & Sons and the Dept. of Computer Science at the
University of Nottingham (Professor David Brailsford)) is doing this with
the journal Electronic Publishing, Dissemintaion and Design.
For info: circus@cs.nott.ac.uk
Dieke van Wijnen
Wolters Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands
> Are you familiar with Adobe Acrobat software? In brief, this allows you to
> create a fully formatted document which is saved as a 7-bit ASCII file (and
> hence transferable via email) and which can be viewed and printed by anyone
> who has the viewing application, even though they don't have the
> originating application (or the original fonts).
>
> I've been testing the software on books and journals we produce, and I
> wonder if anyone has any experience actually distributing Acrobat files.
>
> --Mike Boudreau
> University of Illinois Press
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 10:48:13 EDT
Reply-To: RUSSELLB@ext23.oes.orst.edu
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: RUSSELLB@ext23.oes.orst.edu
Subject: (Forwarded) Re: VT Model
Forwarded message:
From: Self </vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></dieke.vanwijnen@wkap.nl></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></dieke.vanwijnen@wkap.nl></richter%hook@beacon.com></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></richter%hook@beacon.com></jhailman@macc.wisc.edu></harnad@princeton.edu></amo@research.att.com></fisher@mitvma></harnad@princeton.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></harnad@princeton.edu></kennedyj@who.ch></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></kennedyj@who.ch></boudreau@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></boudreau@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu></boudreau@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></boudreau@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu></jgresha@eis.calstate.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></jgresha@eis.calstate.edu>