Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1993 01:08:52 -0600
Message-Id: <199309120706.BAA04355@csf.Colorado.EDU>
Errors-To: chriscd@jhuvm.hcf.jhu.edu
Reply-To: P34D3611@jhuvm.hcf.jhu.edu
Originator: wsn@csf.colorado.edu
Sender: wsn@csf.colorado.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Peter Grimes <P34D3611@jhuvm.hcf.jhu.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject:      Electronic Journal (again)
 
WSNers;
 
     I've been following the recent discussion of Chris's Journal
proposal with interest, and wish to jump in with a few points.
 
1)  The conflict between Timmons' & Terry's concerns (the former
worrying about killing the spontaneity of our exchanges while not
getting sufficient professional recognition for submissions to an
electronic journal, the latter concerned that we would have
difficulty maintaining sufficiently high standards) reflects a
conflict of implicit models about what the role of an electronic
journal should be.  This conflict may be best resolved by
explicating what we believe are the basic functions that an
electronic journal should serve, and how such functions are
similar to or different from journals in print.
 
2)  I would suggest that we consider how the differences in media
(paper vs E-mail) affect the content of submissions.  Each medium
has its advantages and disadvantages.  It seems to me that the
advantage of the print/paper medium is its PERMANENCE, its
ability to be put on a shelf and SAVED, to be repeatedly
consulted for quotations or statistics, etc.  Given this quality
of permanence, as well as the high production costs, a logical
corollary is that issues be carefully edited so as to achieve the
highest quality possible.  Another corollary is that issues only
come out a few times per year, and articles submitted take months
to evaluate.  E-mail, in contrast, is transitory and FAST.  Once
you type out an idea and send it, within minutes everyone has it.
Reaction is also fast.  Within 24 hours someone will have
responded.  While conversations can be downloaded and printed,
the absence of the NECESSITY of printing (and mailing) means that
there is a "real time" character of E-mail that must necessarily
be absent from print journals.
 
3)  It seems to me that the strength of WSN is precisely in its
ability & capacity to be spontaneous--unlike printed media.  So
however we decide to go on the "Journal" question, I strongly
believe that we should retain the WSN in its current anarchic
format.  Hence no journal should replace or displace WSN as it
now is.
 
4)  That being said, what could a journal offer that we don't
already have?  We already have a paper journal--REVIEW.  We
already have spontaneous exchanges--WSN.  Looking over Chris'
original proposal, I see that the main advantage he sees in
having an (electronic) journal is the capacity to store, with the
articles, data archives.  Otherwise, he seems to be proposing a
journal that would be refereed like REVIEW.  I disagree with this
idea, because it strikes me as imposing the worst aspects of a
paper journal (editorial board, outside reviewers, time lag
between submission & publication) on our fluid electronic medium
without giving any real benefits to authors or readers.
 
5)  These considerations lead me to suggest that instead of a
refereed journal, we follow a version of Timmon's suggestion:
     (a)  people could submit copies of their work--accompanied
by data sets where appropriate--to the WSN archives, along with a
posted abstract.
     (b)  Those submitting would be responsible for taking
appropriate care that their submissions were spell-checked,
legible, etc.  (We could post a set of simple rules guiding paper
formats for this purpose.)
     (c)  Submissions could also be sent to a paper journal
should that be desired by the author(s).  In this sense, the
papers could be "working" papers--comments by WSN readers could
serve to strengthen papers for later submission to more formal
outlets.  (This solves the credibility question--WSN would NOT be
trying to compete w/paper journals, but instead to serve as a
forum for discussion & improvement of papers.)
     (d)  I would encourage us to explore connections with REVIEW
and maybe other journals as well about exploring our archives for
possible publications.  (REVIEW would seem a natural partner in
this enterprise.)
     (e)  Finally, to enhance participation (addressing the
problem of "giving a journal to which nobody came"), we might
think of being more intentional about reading submissions--as we
tried to do with Wagar.  No-one reads all papers published in
every issue of a paper journal, and I'm sure that many papers in
our archives might also go unread.  That cannot be controlled.
But that would also be true of a print journal.  But at least we
could try to set aside time for exchanges between readers (&
authors) about submissions.
 
     That's all for now.
     Peter Grimes [p34d3611@JHUVM]