Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 08:24:09 -0600
Message-Id: <01H2NUB2S88Y8WXA4Q@DEPAUW.EDU>
Errors-To: chriscd@jhuvm.hcf.jhu.edu
Reply-To: THALL@depauw.edu
Originator: wsn@csf.colorado.edu
Sender: wsn@csf.colorado.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Tom Hall <THALL@depauw.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: More comments on electronic journaling
 
        Some thoughts on WSN electronic journal.
 
        I think Don Roper's suggestion is very useful.  Working with a
        journal, _Review_, or failing that, making a gradual transition.
        One way this might be done is to continue to archive material as is
        being done, and when sufficient papers get to final form, or at
        least a form which author(s)' are willing to have cited and quoted,
        issue them as a journal.
 
        A major trade off is between respectability (espec. re tenure
        decisions) vs rapid turn around and electronic point and shoot
        writing (Boswell & T. Roberts' concerns).  Respectability needs to
        be earned, the way to progress toward that is to have good papers,
        but that will involve putting stuff here that could go elsewhere.
        Probably something that cannot be asked of those facing a tenure
        decision.
 
        We will also need to make our own sort of "rules" or "norms" with
        respect to print journals.  I see several options:
        a) if we do it as a journal that's it, no republishing
        b) if we do it as journal, it can be republished ONLY in a print
        journal, with due acknowledgement that we had it first
        electronically.  While we might accept this, print journals might
        not, that's where a working arrangement with one or more print
        journals would be useful.
        c) we don't care what else author's do with papers
 
        One possibility would be to have the referring electronic, with a
        posting or archiving of referees' comments.  If we are to do blind
        refereeing, then papers and comments will need to filter through an
        editor who will repost to the net with initial identifiers
        stripped.  One way around this is to follow what some science
        journals are already doing:  signed reviews.  The idea here is that
        in any small set of people working on similar problems, anonymity
        is really a charade, so allow form reflect substance.
 
        If we go through an informal posting open comments & discussion,
        then "referees" can draw on those discussions in making their
        comments and recommendations.
 
        I see some other practical problems:
        A.  How do libraries track us?
            Who will maintain an archive if our archivist, or its host,
        gives up?
        B.  How does word of us get around?
            to subscribers
            to submitters
            to indexers
 
        Finally, the largest problem I see, is getting someone to do all
        the necessary work to get such an enterprise going.  It will almost
        certainly need to be someone with tenure and security whose
        institution will "credit" the effort expended.  This may be the
        real sticking point.
        Basically, I like the idea.  It would be useful to learn something
        of how other electronic journals operate (there is a growing
        literature on this).
 
        One final suggestion is that all of us who are writing World-System
        (+ or - the hyphen) stuff post working drafts of papers to the WSN
        archive, and post short abstracts on the net.  We might
        collectively try to comment on one or two per month.  My own
        preference would be for author(s) to identify intended audience and
        purpose so that critiques will be most useful to authors.  If we
        get enough action going here this way, we will already be partway
        toward a journal of our own.
 
        Enough blather from me for this round...
        Tom Hall  with a new, third & preferred email address:
        thall@depauw.edu