Return-Path: <@CSF.COLORADO.EDU:wsn@CSF.COLORADO.EDU> From roper@csf.Colorado.EDU Thu Sep 2 08:21:19 1993 Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 08:21:19 -0600 From: Don Roper 303-492-7466 Message-Id: <199309021421.IAA19162@csf.Colorado.EDU> To: wsn@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: electronic journaling WSNers, Since hard copy journals can be scanned to produce electronic copy, I worry less than otherwise about how much electronic journaling will promote plagiarism. Full text searching is also coming down the road and that might help lower the problem of plagiarism. I think it's a good idea to post working papers and begin some refereeing and review and discussion around the papers, but I think Timmons is right about the difficulty of immediately convincing administrators that publishing in wsn constitutes a genuine publication. Can you imagine referees/editors of wsn, in order to prove that wsn has high standards, turning down 80 out of 100 manuscripts, when wsn has so many megabytes of storage capacity to fill? Rather than a qualitative jump into competition with hard-copy journals, I suggest a gradual move towards electronic journaling by forming a cooperative relation with one or more hard-copy journals. Since traditional journals are resource intensive, they should be used for only publishing the very very best. The role that I see for the electronic media is to help filter/referee materials and to determine what ultimately finds its way into traditional outlets. Over time that role gets bigger as the number of traditional journals declines. The filtering/refereeing that I think fits the electronic medium is an open forum. I suggest that "refereeing" be done in front of everyone with the author having ample opportunity to reply and make changes. Comments could be stored side-by-side with the longer manuscripts. What I'm describing has been tried and failed, but I still think can work. Last year about this time, Martha Gimenez, manager of the PSN@csf (Progressive Sociologists) list, had a conversation with Norm Denzin (editor of The Sociological Quarterly) about using PSN as a place to discuss materials the best of which TSQ would give an enhanced probability of publishing. I think she had about 3 papers submitted with little or no discussion of the papers. I participated with Martha in this effort and my sense of the reason for it not working is twofold: 1. We failed to generate a substantial commitment to the process from a sufficiently large portion of the PSN membership. This discussion on wsn is critical, it seems to be, for the development of consensus and purpose to create successful electronic journaling of whatever kind. 2. Another reason why PSN carried so little discussion of the papers that were submitted is that we failed to build in an explicit commitment which would require every author who submits a paper to write comments on several other papers. My basic point is that, if WSN members form a commitment to do the hard part of any journal, viz., commenting on, refereeing, one another's papers, hard-copy journal editors will come to WSN to shop for high quality manuscripts. If you want to know if they are going to shop at WSN before committing to labor-intensive comments, then cut a deal with your editorial friends in advance. Traditional journals are in a threatened position and this is a way for them to move into the electronic arena. This can be win-win. As the manager of csf, I see my job as making csf a good home for WSN and other lists/archives with similar intellectual values. I will be happy to support whatever directions Chris and WSN decide to pursue with the idea of an electronic journal. ... don roper