Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Public-Access Computer Systems Review Volume 02 Number 01
+ Page 1 +
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review
Volume 2, Number 1 (1991) ISSN 1048-6542
Editor-In-Chief: Charles W. Bailey, Jr.
University of Houston
Associate Editors: Columns: Leslie Pearse, OCLC
Communications: Dana Rooks, University of
Houston
Reviews: Mike Ridley, University of Waterloo
Editorial Board: Walt Crawford, Research Libraries Group
Nancy Evans, Library and Information
Technology Association
David R. McDonald, Tufts University
R. Bruce Miller, University of California,
San Diego
Paul Evan Peters, Coalition for Networked
Information
Peter Stone, University of Sussex
Published on an irregular basis by the University Libraries,
University of Houston. Technical support is provided by the
Information Technology Division, University of Houston.
Circulation: 2,685 subscribers in 32 countries.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Address: Charles W. Bailey, Jr.
University Libraries
University of Houston
Houston, TX 77204-2091
(713) 749-4241
LIB3@UHUPVM1
Articles are stored as files at LISTSERV@UHUPVM1. To retrieve a
file, send the GET command given after the article information to
LISTSERV@UHUPVM1. To retrieve the article as an e-mail message
instead of a file, add "F=MAIL" to the end of the GET command.
Back issues are also stored at LISTSERV@UHUPVM1. To obtain a
list of all available files, send the following message to
LISTSERV@UHUPVM1: INDEX PACS-L. The name of each issue's table
of contents file begins with the word "CONTENTS."
Note that all of the above e-mail addresses are on BITNET. The
list server also has an Internet address:
LISTSERV@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU.
+ Page 2 +
CONTENTS
SPECIAL SECTION ON NETWORK-BASED ELECTRONIC SERIALS
The Electronic Journal: What, Whence, and When?
Ann Okerson (pp. 5-24)
To retrieve this file: GET OKERSON PRV2N1
Online Journals: Disciplinary Designs for Electronic Scholarship
Teresa M. Harrison, Timothy Stephen, and James Winter
(pp. 25-38)
To retrieve this file: GET HARRISON PRV2N1
Post-Gutenburg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the Means of
Production of Knowledge
Stevan Harnad (pp. 39-53)
To retrieve this file: GET HARNAD PRV2N1
The Journal of the International Academy of Hospitality Research
Lon Savage (pp. 54-66)
To retrieve this file: GET SAVAGE PRV2N1
Postmodern Culture: Publishing in the Electronic Medium
Eyal Amiran and John Unsworth (pp. 67-76)
To retrieve this file: GET AMIRAN PRV2N1
New Horizons in Adult Education: The First Five Years (1987-1991)
Jane Hugo and Linda Newell (pp. 77-90)
To retrieve this file: GET HUGO PRV2N1
EJournal: An Account of the First Two Years
Edward M. Jennings (pp. 91-110)
To retrieve this file: GET JENNINGS PRV2N1
The Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues
Marcia Tuttle (pp. 111-127)
To retrieve this file: GET TUTTLE PRV2N1
+ Page 3 +
COMMUNICATIONS
How to Start and Manage a BITNET LISTSERV Discussion Group: A
Beginner's Guide
Diane Kovacs, Willard McCarty, and Michael Kovacs (pp. 128-143)
To retrieve this file: GET KOVACS PRV2N1
Providing Data Services for Machine-Readable Information in
an Academic Library: Some Levels of Service
Jim Jacobs (pp. 144-160)
To retrieve this file: GET JACOBS PRV2N1
COLUMNS
Public-Access Provocations: An Informal Column
Depth vs. Breadth: Enhancement and Retrospective Conversion
Walt Crawford (pp. 161-163)
To retrieve this file: GET CRAWFORD PRV2N1
Recursive Reviews
Copyright, Digital Media, and Libraries
Martin Halbert (pp. 164-170)
To retrieve this file: GET HALBERT PRV2N1
REVIEWS
Libraries, Networks and OSI: A Review, with a Report on
North American Developments
Reviewed by Clifford A. Lynch (pp. 171-176)
To retrieve this file: GET LYNCH PRV2N1
+ Page 4 +
The User's Directory of Computer Networks
Reviewed by Dave Cook (pp. 177-181)
To retrieve this file: GET COOK PRV2N1
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal. It is sent free of charge to participants of the
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum (PACS-L), a computer
conference on BITNET. To join PACS-L, send an electronic mail
message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First
Name Last Name.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1991
by the University Libraries, University of Houston, University
Park. All Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computer
conferences, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are
authorized to add the journal to their collection, in electronic
or printed form, at no charge. This message must appear on all
copied material. All commercial use requires permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 67 +
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eyal Amiran and John Unsworth. "Postmodern Culture: Publishing
in the Electronic Medium." The Public-Access Computer Systems
Review 2, no. 1 (1991): 67-76.
----------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 Introduction
Postmodern Culture was founded in 1990 by Eyal Amiran, Greg
Dawes, Elaine Orr, and John Unsworth at North Carolina State
University (professors Dawes and Orr have subsequently stepped
down as editors in order to pursue their research projects,
though both remain on the editorial board).
Postmodern Culture is a peer-reviewed electronic journal which
provides an international, interdisciplinary forum for
discussions of contemporary literature, theory, and culture. It
accepts for consideration both finished essays and working
papers, and carries in each issue fiction and/or poetry, book
reviews, a popular culture column, and announcements. The
journal does not consider essays dealing exclusively with
computer hardware or software, unless those essays raise
significant aesthetic or theoretical issues.
PMC comes out three times a year (September, January, and May)
and is free to the public and to libraries via electronic mail.
Each issue of Postmodern Culture carries a volume and number
designation. The journal is also available on computer diskette
and microfiche; it is distributed in a variety of diskette
formats (Macintosh 3.5", IBM 5.25", or IBM 3.5"), but no issue
will exceed 720 KB of data, the equivalent of one 3.5" or two
5.25" low-density diskettes. The subscription rate for diskette
or microfiche is $15/year for individuals, $30/year for
institutions (in Canada add $3; elsewhere outside the U.S. add
$7). At the present time PMC has about 1,200 subscribers in 17
countries. The journal's ISSN number is 1053-1920.
The editorial board for Postmodern Culture includes researchers
and writers in African American studies, cultural studies, film,
Latin American studies, literature and literary theory,
philosophy, sociology, and religion.
+ Page 68 +
The board members' primary responsibilities include reading
essays for the journal (approximately four essays a year),
inviting submissions, and helping to publicize the existence of
the journal. Some have also contributed essays. Members were
chosen because of their own performance in their field (or the
promise of it--we chose some younger scholars who were highly
recommended by their colleagues) and because they offer special
knowledge of diverse disciplines, genres, and cultures.
The first volume (numbers 1-3) of the journal included essays on
Latin American politics, eating disorders and spiritual
transcendence, the theory of writing in the hypertext
environment, William Gaddis's novel JR, the implications of the
postmodern critique of identity for the Afro-American community,
the rhetoric of the Persian Gulf War as presented in the New York
Times, the politics of Sartre, AIDS and cyborgs, Ishmael Reed's
The Terrible Two's, and representations of mass culture,
postmodern ethnography, and other subjects.
The journal has also published popular culture columns on the
televising of the Tour de France, Satanism and the mass media,
and female body building, plus fiction by Kathy Acker, a hybrid
theoretical-interpretive-poetic work by Susan Howe, a video
script by Laura Kipnis, and a number of poems and book reviews.
2.0 Distribution
When an issue is published, its table of contents is distributed
(using the Revised LISTSERV program) to all of the journal's
subscribers. This file contains the journal's masthead,
information about subscription and submission, the names of
authors published in that issue, and titles, filenames, and
abstracts for each item in the issue.
Subscribers can then choose to retrieve one essay, several
essays, or the whole issue as a package, using a few simple
LISTSERV commands (it is not necessary for individual subscribers
to have a copy of the LISTSERV program running at their site in
order to issue these commands). Essays can be retrieved as files
or as mail, and all essays are stored in a file list maintained
on the NCSU mainframe, so readers can get copies of material
published in back issues at any time.
+ Page 69 +
We have found the LISTSERV program to be an extremely flexible
and effective way to publish in this medium. It is widely used,
and it is generally familiar to those who already participate in
network discussion groups. It is also well-documented, and
support for list owners is available both locally (from the
postmaster and support staff at one's site) and through an
electronic discussion group moderated by Eric Thomas, who wrote
the program.
LISTSERV lists can be set up in different ways. For instance,
one can set up a list so that all mail posted to it is
automatically distributed to all subscribers, or so that all mail
posted to the list is sent to the list editor for screening
and/or compilation. Subscription to the list can be open or
restricted, as can access to the names of other subscribers and
to any files stored in association with the list. Furthermore,
the ability to edit files on the file list can be limited to the
editors, permitted to a designated group of readers, or permitted
to all readers. List maintenance and list editing can be
performed by different people (or by a number of people) at the
same site or at different sites, and one can automate certain
functions, such as the distribution of a designated set of files
for new subscribers.
Postmodern Culture is open to public subscription, and its
archived files are available for retrieval. Mail cannot be sent
directly for distribution to the list. Only the editors post and
edit items and maintain the list.
3.0 History
Some of our earliest discussion focused on the format in which we
might distribute the journal. We considered various analogues
and models for what we wanted to do, including interactive
software such as electronic bulletin boards (for example, the
Electronic College of Theory), hardware- or software-specific
journals such as TidBITS (a HyperCard, Macintosh-based journal),
and network discussion groups (such as HUMANIST).
+ Page 70 +
We decided that restricting ourselves to the lowest common
denominator would increase our accessibility and make us
available to a wider pool of subscribers. For these reasons, we
settled on ASCII text transmitted by electronic mail as our
format. ASCII text can be imported into almost any word
processing program, and electronic mail can be delivered free of
charge through Internet and BITNET, networks which connect
thousands of sites around the world.
Our next logistical decision was to set up PMC-Talk, a discussion
group which supplements the journal with an open channel for
critique, informational exchanges, and the publication of
non-juried submissions.
Finally, we elected to make the journal available on disk and
microfiche, so that libraries which could not devote the hardware
to making the journal available in its electronic mail form could
still subscribe, and so that individual users who had no access
to electronic mail could still have access to us.
During the Spring of 1990, we mailed several hundred letters to
artists, scholars, and critics in a wide variety of fields.
These letters met with a remarkably positive reception, and
enabled us to assemble a first-rate editorial board and a very
interesting first issue within a period of months. The response
to our mailings is a strong indication that many humanists are
prepared for the advent of electronic publication, and are eager
to learn more about the possibilities of the medium.
The response we met with at our own institution has been equally
encouraging. We have received financial and technical support
from several parts of North Carolina State University (NCSU): the
Computing Center, the Humanities Computing Lab, the Social
Sciences Computing Lab, the Department of English (which has
agreed, for instance, to give course reductions to the editors),
the Department of Foreign Languages, the College of Humanities
and Social Sciences, and the NCSU Libraries.
+ Page 71 +
4.0 Standards and the Medium
One of the questions we have considered in the course of putting
together the first three issues is whether the medium in which we
publish is particularly appropriate to a certain kind of essay.
Is the "finished" work more appropriate in the print medium,
while works in progress, collaborative essays, and interviews are
more appropriate for an electronic journal? Or, is there room
for both in this medium? Might the common sense of what it is
that constitutes a finished work itself be transformed when the
journal invites and publishes responses to the essay, and these
appear only days after the essay had been published?
Postmodern Culture can serve to encourage more experimental
scholarly writing. For example, we publish works-in-progress,
such as Bell Hooks's investigation of the interrelations and
contradictions of African American culture and postmodern theory,
which invite discussion and allow scholars to open their work to
criticism as they write, so that texts may in fact evolve as
collaborative ventures between readers and writers. We have also
published works which fall between or outside traditional generic
categories, like a video script by Laura Kipnis, which
literalizes the metaphor of the body politic, mixing a
biographical account of Marx's health problems during the writing
of Das Kapital with a discussion of contemporary anorexia and
bulimia.
We've also had to grapple with some more mundane questions which
are nonetheless still quite important, since there is very little
in the way of history or tradition to draw on. For example, how
should we format the essays published in the journal so that they
can be easily imported into whatever word processing software the
reader might have? Margins, spacing, the designation of units of
text, typographical conventions for underlining, boldfacing,
italics, superscript, and subscript (these are not possible with
ASCII text), must all be developed and tested with different
users before we will know what works, what is clearly readable
and understandable, and what users prefer.
+ Page 72 +
There are several other technical questions as well. For
example, every issue of the journal will have to navigate the
sometimes obscure connections between different
networks--particularly between the non-commercial academic
networks and the more widely available commercial carriers of
electronic mail, such as MCI, AT&T, Sprint, and CompuServe.
CompuServe, for example, limits the size of electronic mail
transmissions which can be received into individual accounts, and
that limit is well below what would be necessary to receive the
journal.
We are concerned that the journal should be available to
non-academic subscribers, so we will be working to make existing
connections work and to open new ones. We will also be exploring
possibilities for using visual materials, which include faxing
graphics to subscribers on request or transmitting through the
networks compressed graphics files in commonly used formats.
As the networks update their own hardware (especially with
the introduction of fiber-optic cables for data transmission),
new possibilities in the use of interactive software will also
become available. All of this makes it likely that the format
and the nature of Postmodern Culture will continue to evolve,
even in the immediate future. We have learned from print
publication to work around problems and limitations in production
and dissemination, but these problems do not pose as serious a
threat to electronic publishing. Electronic technology is
evolving so quickly--compare current desktop technology with that
available ten years ago--that today's problems (e.g.,
distributing graphics over the nets) will in all likelihood be
solved soon. We do not need to develop standards and techniques
that accept today's limitations, but to build into our medium a
flexibility that will anticipate and accommodate upcoming change.
5.0 The Future of Electronic Serials
In order for a publication in electronic media to succeed in
serving even the most traditional purposes, such publication
obviously needs to be available to the public--to students, to
researchers, and to interested readers.
+ Page 73 +
An electronic publication can keep its back issues on a file list
(an electronic log of reserved files) where network users may
retrieve them, but not everyone has access to the networks, and
there is no guarantee that a file list maintained by a given
electronic mail account-holder will always be there. If a
journal moves to another institution or ceases publication, how
will researchers have access to essays published by the journal?
In the same way they do for print journals, libraries should
provide that access. Many libraries have local area networks and
can make electronic publications available to patrons on those
networks; many more libraries have online card catalogs, and
might use some of those terminals to provide access to electronic
texts. It makes sense for libraries to use computer resources to
deliver publications which originate as electronic text, since
computerized access brings with it powerful capabilities for
searching, indexing, and analyzing texts even from remote sites.
However, until most libraries have the facilities to present full
text online and most readers have the skills to use such
services, we feel that it is important for electronic
publications to be available in several formats.
Electronic publications are likely to proliferate sooner than
most now expect. Although electronic text may never replace
print, it is likely to dominate where information storage,
retrieval, and manipulation are more important than the aesthetic
qualities of a printed text. Economic reasons alone will force
letters out of their time-honored sanctuary in wood-products and
into the electronic ether. It will soon seem as illogical to
print archives, data banks, government and business documents,
and much scholarly material as it already is to catalog the
holdings of large libraries on three-by-five cards.
Today, we still produce limited numbers of books whose physical
well-being must be guarded at regulated institutions around the
world. We must have these objects shipped to us or travel to
centers where they are collected. Compare this to a situation
where a library would not house a given number of volumes, but
would provide access to all books in an international network of
libraries. In this scenario, all books would be available to
anyone with a library card. Even the aesthetic appeal of
electronic text is bound to improve as computer equipment becomes
more portable, more sophisticated, and simpler to use.
+ Page 74 +
Such revolutionary flexibility holds dangers too--technological
freedom and the control of information may be flip and flop of
the same switch. For example, if commercial organizations step
into academic electronic publishing, then they may come to limit
redistribution of such publication or insist on copyright
restrictions that may serve their financial interests but not the
interests of the research community. In effect, this is the case
with print publication: much of it is determined by the financial
interests and possibilities of commercial presses--a condition
which seems so inevitable that it is virtually transparent.
Highly developed technological flexibility may depend on
private-sector support in the long run. The government now
subsidizes the networks, but threatens to cut its support by the
end of the decade. It is hard to say if and how the financial
support and interests of commercial enterprises will affect the
contents and availability of electronic serials. The nets now
offer an ideal international venue for small-budget,
limited-interest discussion groups and serials that may not have
had a chance for wide distribution in print, but all this may
change if the nets go private.
6.0 Conclusion
Electronic publishing needs the encouragement and participation
of the profession so that it leads where we want to go.
Libraries should take an active role in making electronic
publications--journals now, books in all likelihood
later--available to their users; universities should recognize
scholarly activity in the electronic field and see their support
of such developments as wise investments; and the profession
should recognize the legitimacy of electronic publications where
issues of tenure and promotion are involved.
For their part, the publishers of refereed electronic
journals--and of other electronic work in the future--should both
work to maintain professional credibility and take into account
the needs of an audience that is likely to be diverse and large.
+ Page 75 +
Selected Bibliography
Bailey, Charles W., Jr. "Intellectual Property Issues."
Electronic mail message to the Association of Electronic
Scholarly Journals list, 1 January 1991. BITNET, AESJ-
L@ALBNYVM1, GET AESJ-L LOG9101 to LISTSERV@ALBNYVM1.
Engst, Adam C. "TidBITS#30/Xanadu_text." Electronic mail message
to the Machine-Readable Texts list, November 1990. BITNET,
GUTENBERG@UIUCVMD, GET GUTNBERG LOG9011 to LISTSERV@UIUCVMD.
Herwijnen, Eric van. Practical SGML. Geneva, Switzerland:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.
Jennings, Ted. "Electronic publishing." Electronic mail message
to the Association of Electronic Scholarly Journals list, 30
December 1990. BITNET, AESJ-L@ALBNYVM1, GET AESJ-L LOG9012 TO
LISTSERV@ALBNYVM1.
Kulikowski, S. "Network Reference and Publication." Electronic
mail message to Educational Technology list, October 1990.
BITNET, EDTECH@OHSTVMA, GET EDTECH LOG9010 to LISTSERV@OHSTVMA.
Lambert, Jill. Scientific and Technical Journals. London: Clive
Bingley, 1985.
Ulmer, Gregory. "Grammatology Hypertext." Postmodern Culture
1, No. 2 (January 1991). BITNET, GET ULMER 191 PMC-LIST to
LISTSERV@NCSUVM.
+ Page 76 +
About the Authors
Eyal Amiran and John Unsworth
Postmodern Culture
Box 8105
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695
PMC@NCSUVM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal. It is sent free of charge to participants of the
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum (PACS-L), a computer
conference on BITNET. To join PACS-L, send an electronic mail
message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First
Name Last Name.
This article is Copyright (C) 1991 by Eyal Amiran and John
Unsworth. All Rights Reserved.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1991
by the University Libraries, University of Houston, University
Park. All Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computer
conferences, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are
authorized to add the journal to their collection, in electronic
or printed form, at no charge. This message must appear on all
copied material. All commercial use requires permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 177+
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 2, no. 1 (1991):
177-181.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LaQuey, Tracy L., ed. The User's Directory of Computer Networks.
Bedford, MA: Digital Press, 1990. ISBN: 1-55558-047-5. $34.95.
Reviewed by Dave Cook.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the introduction to her book, The User's Directory of Computer
Networks, Tracy LaQuey points out that this is not a book to be
read from cover to cover, but rather one to be consulted and used
as "a central reference guide." The User's Directory of Computer
Networks is a directory and, therefore, is primarily useful for
finding discrete pieces of information on networks and
networking. However, a good deal of it can be read with interest
and pleasure, especially by those with an historical interest in
computer-mediated communication and computer networks. Sections
of it should be read with care to facilitate its use a directory
and an information source.
The book was influenced by John Quarterman's book The Matrix and
by his earlier article on networking distributed on the networks
and published in Communications of the ACM in 1986. The LaQuey
and Quarterman books are basic works for a reference section on
computing, CMCS, and networks.
The Directory is itself based on earlier, annual publications and
is an updated expansion of the 1989 guide published by the
University of Texas at Austin. The earlier editions are still
available online and can be consulted by those who wish to check
the general outline and approach to the present edition. The
address is EMX.UTEXAS.EDU; login anonymous. Use the
NET.DIRECTORY for the introductory material and the
NET.DIRECTORY/1988.NETBOOK for the several files of the text
proper.
The Directory is organized in broad sections, each representing a
major network system (i.e., BITNET, DECnet Internet, Internet,
JANET, and USENET). There are also sections on UUCP, domains,
the OSI/x.500 standards, electronic mail, and a list of
organizations. The selection criteria were the size and scope of
the network listed and, interestingly, the responsiveness of the
network contact.
+ Page 178 +
There is no index, but its lack is not as important as might be
thought at first glance. The detailed "Contents" section
outlines the major networks and lists the subnets associated with
them. It is quite easy to find the particular one you're looking
for. The "List of Organizations" section is useful both as a
list and as a finding aid.
The international scope of the Directory is very apparent here.
It is a surprise to realize just how many institutions, both
academic and commercial, are integral components of these
networks and, one assumes, are using them as a standard part of
their institutional life.
The "List of Organizations" is also a cross-referenced finding
aid that can be used to locate the network associated with the
institution you are interested in. Brief instructions on how to
do this are mentioned in the "Introduction" and should be read
first by anyone wanting to make full use of the directory. You
are advised to look up your own organization in the "List of
Organizations" and to trace its connectivity through the
appropriate sections of the book. It's good advice, and it does
reveal the practical design of the book and how useful it can be
in real situations. The entries give a lot of information in
very little space: a description of the equipment, network, and
mail addresses; a contact person; and, useful when all else
fails, a phone number. Finding a personal address is still not
easy; you are left knowing the address of your correspondent, but
still guessing at his or her ID. The solution to that problem
will have to wait for a phone book to be published rather than a
directory of sources. The Directory is not a phone book, but it
does take you several steps along--the right-hand side of the
address and the syntax are now apparent and the postmaster's ID
is listed.
Much of the information for the Directory came from the
information databases maintained at the individual Network
Information Centres. The editor mentions an "accelerated editing
process" which means that some of the detail was not checked or
verified further. Readers are encouraged to send corrections to
the NIC's for their network (the address is provided) and to send
corrections, suggestions, or comments to the editor to be used in
future editions of the book.
In imposing a uniform format on the entries and collecting the
data in one large volume, the editor has created one place to
look for detailed information and has created a very useful tool
for e-mail and network enthusiasts. The consistent format adds
considerably to the ease of use of the Directory.
+ Page 179 +
LaQuey also stresses a concept called "Directory Services." That
is, the creation of a resource guide that can be used for more
than basic address information. The Directory has been designed
to help the user to locate resources in the broader sense:
contact names, database information, computer resources and the
availability of OPAC's and catalogues. Explicit data in these
areas is not provided, but the information given will allow the
individual researcher to take the initial steps towards locating
more information. Art St. George's work on OPAC's and the
various "Lists of Lists" for computer conferences on the networks
will still be primary sources in this area. The LaQuey book
expands their usefulness by detailing and explaining the
framework within which they operate.
There is another dimension to the Directory that makes it
interesting to read as well as informative. Short essays have
been included to introduce each of the major sections. The one
on BITNET is representative, with lots of technical information
written an a non-technical, easy to read style. A brief,
historical overview and a detailed geographic map showing the
sites and the interconnecting store-and-forward routes gives a
useful overview. A description of the general services provided,
a list of network information materials and instructions on how
to retrieve them, and an explanation of the commands and syntax
for IBM and VAX users are useful. An extensive list of BITNET
representatives is also included. This introduction is another
area where an international dimension to networking is very
apparent. EARN, NetNorth, and BITNET form one logical network
and the degree of international cooperation that underlies that
political fact is striking.
The section on the Internet follows the same pattern in combining
history (and a glimpse at the future) with descriptions of
technical processes providing a non-technical overview. The page
on protocol suites gives an explanation of concepts, such as
TCP/IP, and it provides a place to look it up when I, once again,
forget the details.
+ Page 180 +
These introductory essays are often written by experts--John
Quarterman on electronic mail and Eugene Spafford on The USENET
and UUCP, for example. Quarterman's article and his idea that
electronic mail is the glue that holds networking systems
together will be familiar to readers of The Matrix. The brief
summary here is appropriate and the explanation of domains and
gateways is helpful. One can only agree with the author the "the
current mess [mail addressing conventions] is not ideal" and that
"A generally accepted addressing syntax is the only real
solution."
Eugene Spafford writes clearly on USENET and UUCP. Those of us
who have absorbed BITNET and Internet procedures as the
networking norm will find the idea of no central authority and no
backbone structure a bit mystifying. The apparent anarchy of no
(or very few) rules for members or participants does have a charm
of its own. The processes are so complex and the scale is so
vast, that the wonder is that the system works at all.
The User's Directory of Computer Networks is useful, of course,
in the reference section of any library or academic department
concerned with local, national, or international networking. It
should also be useful for non-academic users. For example,
managers of large, national bulletin board systems who
incorporate network mail and conferences into their services.
Computer enthusiasts looking for help with the next step in their
development of personal knowledge and skills will also find the
Directory a great help.
+ Page 181 +
About the Author
Dave Cook
McMaster University Library
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
COOKD@MCMASTER
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal. It is sent free of charge to participants of the
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum (PACS-L), a computer
conference on BITNET. To join PACS-L, send an electronic mail
message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First
Name Last Name.
This article is Copyright (C) 1991 by Dave Cook. All Rights
Reserved.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1991
by the University Libraries, University of Houston, University
Park. All Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computer
conferences, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are
authorized to add the journal to their collection, in electronic
or printed form, at no charge. This message must appear on all
copied material. All commercial use requires permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 161 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 2, no. 1 (1991):
161-163.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Public-Access Provocations: An Informal Column
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Depth vs. Breadth: Enhancement and Retrospective Conversion"
by Walt Crawford
'Way back in 1987, I wrote: "Most patrons will use only one
catalog, particularly if they find any results. Adding more
material to the online catalog is more important than adding more
information to existing records. Budgetary realities suggest
that libraries can either include more items in online catalogs
or enhance the contents of some items, but probably not both"
[1].
I don't believe the budgetary realities have changed all that
much since 1987; if anything, they've grown worse. The miracle
cure for retrospective conversion has proved as elusive as other
miracle cures: doing it right takes time and money, period. The
same goes for any miraculous means of enhancing access (e.g.,
adding chapter titles, tables of contents, or back-of-book index
entries to OPAC records).
Thus, the easy answer to the question, "if we knew 20 years ago
what we needed to do to improve subject access, why haven't we
done it" is that it doesn't--and shouldn't--have first priority.
If It Isn't in the Catalog, It Isn't in the Collection
That's the simplest statement of one problem, but it's at most a
very slight exaggeration. If you don't agree with that premise,
then there's nothing more to say: we're living in different
worlds.
+ Page 162 +
Is it more important to have in-depth access to a small part of
the collection, rather than normal bibliographic access to all of
it? Some people apparently think so. Some of the most dogged
advocates of enhanced access have suggested eliminating all
subject access for materials more than 10 years old--and
possibly taking 20-year-old materials out of the catalog
altogether. So much for retrospective conversion--and you can
save big bucks by shutting down preservation departments as well!
To be fair to these advocates, I think they're trying to solve a
different problem--the fact that precision goes down as recall
goes up, and at some point lack of precision makes recall
worthless--but the effect is the same: they're proposing
something akin to discarding older materials in the interest of
better access to the new.
I'm a bit suspicious of the idea that every discipline (or, for
that matter, any discipline) reinvents itself every decade.
Perhaps that's because my degree is in rhetoric, but even
cellular physicists might be a tad uncomfortable with the idea
that nothing published prior to 1981 is worth reading. Let's not
talk about where that leaves librarianship; at least all those
who have never read Ranganathan, Cutter, or Dewey would no longer
be bashful about it.
If we're not willing to off the old books, then we must grant
them the respect they're due, which means inclusion in the online
catalog. Once that's completed, and once we're sure that new
materials will get into the online catalog promptly, then we can
and should spend more time enhancing certain categories of
records. The USMARC format already provides good storage
mechanisms for some such enhancements; all it takes is time and
money. Meanwhile, I find it hard to fault real-world libraries
for their current priorities: putting it all into the online
catalog at current levels of access, rather than giving some
material (who chooses?) special treatment while leaving other
material out altogether. That's responsible librarianship.
Notes
Walt Crawford, Patron Access: Issues for Online Catalogs (Boston,
MA: G. K. Hall, 1987), 21.
+ Page 163 +
About the Author
Walt Crawford
The Research Libraries Group, Inc.
1200 Villa Street
Mountain View CA 94041-1100
BR.WCC@RLG.BITNET
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal. It is sent free of charge to participants of the
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum (PACS-L), a computer
conference on BITNET. To join PACS-L, send an electronic mail
message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First
Name Last Name.
This article is Copyright (C) 1991 by Walt Crawford. All Rights
Reserved.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1991
by the University Libraries, University of Houston, University
Park. All Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computer
conferences, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are
authorized to add the journal to their collection, in electronic
or printed form, at no charge. This message must appear on all
copied material. All commercial use requires permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 164 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 2, no. 1 (1991):
164-170.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recursive Reviews
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright, Digital Media, and Libraries
by Martin Halbert
Running a branch library devoted to computational materials, I am
frequently amazed at patrons' lack of understanding of copyright
issues. One patron, an otherwise very intelligent research
scientist, was baffled concerning the restrictions inherent in
checking software out of the library. The magnitude of his
misunderstanding came home to me when he asked if our
restrictions meant that he didn't need to bring his own disks to
copy the software onto. He thought, in all honesty, I finally
realized, that copying the software was what checking out
software was all about. After a very long discussion with him
about copyright and why it is illegal to copy software, he went
away somewhat shocked, but at least informed.
While most librarians have a better understanding of the concept
of copyright than my patron, how many of us have really thought
about all the ramifications of copyright and new digital media
technologies? Librarians are ostensibly supposed to be experts
on the proper use of the collections of information they
administer. This month's column is devoted to a brief
bibliography on the subject of copyright and digital media. I
know that I had never considered many of the issues raised in the
sources reviewed below, so I think they will be of interest to
all librarians who have added any kind of digital media (e.g.,
software and CD-ROM databases) to their collections.
+ Page 165 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Intellectual
Property Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1986.
OTA-CIT-302.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This 1986 report by the Office of Technology Assessment is the
best existing review and discussion of how new technological
developments have impacted the concept of intellectual property
in the United States. Many discussions of the topic begin with a
review of this source (see below), which is justifiable
considering its quality. The 300-page report concisely covers
the conceptual framework and goals of intellectual property
rights, how current laws have tried to accommodate technological
change, enforcement issues, and the role of the federal
government as a regulator. The conclusion of the report is that
the new technologies, especially functional works like software,
have rendered the existing concepts and implementations of
domestic intellectual property law obsolete. An entirely new
approach to the issue of what constitutes intellectual property
and how to regulate it will have to be developed by congress.
The OTA report raises profoundly troubling issues for librarians
and the entire information industry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Computer
Software and Intellectual Property--Background Paper.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1990.
OTA-BP-CIT-61
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Drawing on the 1986 OTA report and others, this OTA background
paper further analyzes software issues. It goes into greater
detail concerning questions peculiar to software, such as
addressing the following questions. Can an interface be
copyrighted? Can the concept of an algorithm be unambiguously
defined? Patented? Is a neural net to be considered a software
system or a hardware system? The paper includes a few
developments which happened after the 1986 OTA report, but
fundamentally the paper only raises questions and provides a
context for discussing the problem. Real answers may be a long
way off.
+ Page 166 +
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duggan, Mary Kay. "Copyright of Electronic Information: Issues
and Questions." Online 15, no. 3 (May 1991): 20-26. (ISSN
0146-5422)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Because developments in the law have lagged so far behind
technological developments, many issues of copyright and digital
media are being resolved in practice, if not in legal fact.
Duggan discusses emerging views about what constitutes "fair use"
of electronic information sources. She concludes that while some
consensus is developing about use of search results from CD-ROM
and dial-up databases, little agreement has yet been reached
about LAN and WAN access to databases and other network
information sources.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garret, John R. "Text to Screen Revisited: Copyright in the
Electronic Age." Online 15, no. 2 (March 1991): 22-24. (ISSN
0146-5422)
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Garret is the director of market development at the
Copyright Clearance Center. Taking a very different view from
most of the other sources reviewed in this column, he maintains
that current copyright laws are perfectly capable of dealing with
the new electronic environment. He calls into question many of
the assumptions about computer systems and monetary funding that
(he claims) underlie the move to overhaul the copyright system.
He describes a variety of small-scale pilot projects that the
Copyright Clearance Center has undertaken in conjunction with
publishers and researchers "to provide owner-authorized,
text-based information electronically for internal use to various
sets of users, and to determine what they use, when they use it,
why, how often, and to what end." He further claims: "For these
pilots, and for other, larger-scale programs that will be
developed in the future, existing copyright law provides a
perfectly adequate context for the development and elaboration of
systems to manage computer-based text."
+ Page 167 +
While one has to wonder whether Mr. Garret is unbiased in this
matter given his position, he does make a convincing argument for
the limited case of electronic access to text-only databases.
However, his points do not address the larger issues raised in
the OTA intellectual property studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander, Adrian W., and Julie S. Alexander. "Intellectual
Property Rights and the 'Sacred Engine': Scholarly Publishing in
the Electronic Age." In Advances in Library Resource Sharing,
ed. Jennifer Cargill and Diane J. Graves, 176-192. Westport,
Conn.: Meckler, 1990.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian and Julie Alexander give a fine overview of the 1986 OTA
report, as well as a conference on intellectual property rights
held in 1987 by the Network Advisory Committee of the Library of
Congress. They conclude with a broad discussion of the potential
for electronic publishing for the scholarly research and
publication process, which echoes many of the themes discussed at
recent meetings of the Coalition for Networked Information.
They maintain, as some CNI speakers have, that electronic
publishing represents an opportunity for universities to
recapture their intellectual property from the expensive and
fruitless cycle of sale back and forth to publishers. They also
point out that publishers want to capture this potential
publication medium as well.
+ Page 168 +
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shuman, Bruce A., and Joseph J. Mika. "Copyrighted Software and
Infringement by Libraries." Library and Archival Security 9, no.
1 (1989): 29-36. (ISSN 0196-0075)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shuman and Mika provide a good overview of the current state of
software piracy and copyright infringement, with a few additional
comments that describe the situation of libraries which circulate
software. They are quite critical of the practice of
"shrink-wrap" licensing which many vendors have taken up. This
is the familiar tactic of pasting a license agreement with many
restrictions on the outside of a shrink-wrapped software package,
with a statement to the effect of "if you open this package, you
thereby agree to this license." They describe the many problems
involved in trying to police the use of software by library
patrons, and state that: "Librarians will continue to find
themselves between copyright holders and license-vendors, eager
to recover the money they feel entitled to, and patrons (and
sometimes library employees) who wish to 'liberate' programs,
whether out of simple greed, a love of the challenge, altruism,
or a 'Robin Hood' complex."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denning, Dorothy E. "The United States vs. Craig Neidorf."
Communications of the ACM 34, no. 3 (March 1991): 24-32. (ISSN
0001-0782)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, I would like to conclude this column with an example of
the kinds of troubling legal actions that are surely brewing on
the horizon.
The March 1991 Communications of the ACM was partly devoted to a
debate concerning electronic publishing, constitutional rights,
and hackers. The article by Dorothy Denning was a description of
the trial of Craig Neidorf, a pre-law student at the University
of Missouri. Neidorf was charged by a federal grand jury with
wire fraud, computer fraud, and interstate transportation of
stolen property.
+ Page 169 +
All this because he published a document (containing what turned
out to be public domain information) in an electronic journal he
edited. The electronic journal was called "Phrack," a
contraction of the terms "Phreak" (the act of breaking into
telecommunications systems) and "Hack" (the act of breaking into
computer systems). The document in question concerned the E911
system of Southwestern Bell, and it contained only information
that was already in the public domain. The charges against
Neidorf were dropped when this was brought up during the trial,
but Neidorf was left with all his court costs, amounting to
$100,000.
Now, regardless of what one thinks of Neidorf or the ethics of
hacking, the fact that the U.S. government can bankrupt an
individual (or institution!) by making groundless accusations of
publishing "secret" electronic documents bears attention!
Neidorf's case may potentially mark the beginning of entirely new
types of censorship revolving around electronic media. Denning's
article points out that currently the government can seize all
computer equipment and files of an individual or organization,
and hold them for months. This kind of search and seizure (again
on mistaken grounds) devastated one small company called Steve
Jackson Games. Denning discusses this incident as well, and it
is chilling to imagine happening by accident to one's own
organization.
Problems of copyright and the new digital media are only now
beginning to surface, but they have been inherent in the new
technologies since at least the sixties. Libraries and society
as a whole will increasingly have to face these issues, either in
legislation by a forward-looking congress, or more likely in
painful court trials like the United States vs. Neidorf.
+ Page 170 +
About the Author
Martin Halbert
Automation and Reference Librarian
Fondren Library
Rice University
Houston, TX 77251-1892
HALBERT@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal. It is sent free of charge to participants of the
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum (PACS-L), a computer
conference on BITNET. To join PACS-L, send an electronic mail
message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First
Name Last Name.
This article is Copyright (C) 1991 by Martin Halbert. All Rights
Reserved.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1991
by the University Libraries, University of Houston, University
Park. All Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computer
conferences, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are
authorized to add the journal to their collection, in electronic
or printed form, at no charge. This message must appear on all
copied material. All commercial use requires permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 39 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harnad, Stevan. "Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution
in the Means of Production of Knowledge." The Public-Access
Computer Systems Review 2, no. 1 (1991): 39-53.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 The Evolution of Human Communication and Cognition
There have been three revolutions in the history of human
thought, and we are on the threshold of a fourth. The first took
place hundreds of thousands of years ago when language first
emerged in hominid evolution and the members of our species
became inclined--in response to some adaptive pressures whose
nature is still just the subject of vague conjecture [1]--to
trade amongst themselves in propositions that had truth value.
There is no question but that this change was revolutionary,
because we thereby became the first--and so far the only--species
able and willing to describe and explain the world we live in.
It remains a mystery--to me at any rate--why our anthropoid
cousins, the apes, who certainly seem smart enough, do not share
this inclination of ours. At any rate, this divergence between
our two respective species was a milestone in human communication
and cognition, making it possible for culture to develop and be
passed on by oral tradition.
That momentous adaptation seems to have had a neurological basis.
Injuries to certain areas of the left side of the
brain--Wernicke's area and Broca's area, to be exact--result in
language-specific deficits in speaking and understanding [2, 3].
So whatever the evolutionary changes underlying language were,
they were imprinted as permanent modifications of our neural
hardware.
The second cognitive revolution was the advent of writing, tens
of thousands of years ago. Spoken language had already allowed
the oral codification of thought; written language now made it
possible to preserve the code independent of any speaker/hearer.
It became, if you like, an implementation-independent code. No
one knows for sure whether there was any corresponding change in
our cerebral hardware. There is nominally a region in the left
frontal lobe--Exner's area--that is dubbed the "writing center,"
and there are certainly specific neurological problems associated
with "dyslexia" or reading disorder. But all of this neurology
is complicated and ill-understood, and no "pure" alexia
(inability to read), without any other associated visual or motor
problems, has been found. So it is more likely, I think, that
writing and reading were cognitive and motor skills that we
acquired without any organic evolutionary change in our brains;
they were merely learned adaptations of the same hardware we had
all along.
+ Page 40 +
No precise starting point can be assigned to either science or
literature. The former began with the first true proposition
about the world and the latter either with the first such true
proposition that was also formulated elegantly, or perhaps with
the first untrue proposition. In either case, the oral tradition
was already equipped to produce both science and literature,
although perhaps science, being a little too constrained by the
limits of memory and accuracy in the word-of-mouth medium, was
the greater beneficiary of the advent of writing, with the
incomparably greater reliability and systematization it conferred
in preserving the words, and hence the thoughts, of others.
But there were constraints on writing too. For whereas spoken
language conformed well to both the transmitting and receiving
powers of human thinkers (perhaps as a reflection of its specific
dedicated neurology), writing was somewhat out of synch with
thought. It was slow. And worse than that, it had a much more
limited scope, for whereas a spoken proposition could be heard by
several people, even by multitudes, a written one could only be
read by one at a time. This could be done serially by limitless
numbers of readers, of course, and this was the real strength of
writing, but it was purchased at the price of becoming a much
less interactive medium of communication than speech. The form
and style of written discourse accordingly adapted to this
lapidary new medium--again, not neurologically, but consciously
and by convention--constraining the writer to be more precise in
some respects, but also allowing him more freedom to redraft and
reformulate his text in composing it. In becoming less
interactive, writing also became less spontaneous than speech,
more deliberate, and more systematic. One might also say it
became less social and more solipsistic, although its ultimate
social reach became much larger, limited only by the slow pace of
copyists in providing the text to disseminate.
The third revolution took place in our own millennium. With the
invention of moveable type and the printing press, the laborious
hand-copying of texts became obsolete, and both the tempo and the
scope of the written word increased enormously. Texts could be
distributed so much more quickly and widely that again the style
of communication underwent qualitative changes. If the
transition from the oral tradition to the written word made
communication more reflective and solitary than direct speech,
print restored an interactive element, at least among scholars,
and, if the scholarly "periodical" was not born with the advent
of printing, it certainly came into its own. Scholarship could
now be the collective, cumulative, and interactive enterprise it
had always been destined to be. Evolution had given us the
cognitive wherewithal and technology had given us the vehicle.
+ Page 41 +
Of course, there had already been a prominent exception to the
impersonal trend set in motion by writing, namely, private
letters. These made it possible for people to communicate even
when they were separated by great distances, although again the
pace of the communication was much slower and less interactive
than live conversation, and it continued to be so, even after the
advent of print.
Many minor and major technological changes followed, but none, I
think, qualify as revolutionary. The means of transportation
improved, so the written word could be circulated more quickly
and more widely. The typewriter (and eventually the word
processor) made it much easier to generate and modify one's
texts. Photocopying made it possible to duplicate, and desktop
publishing to print, even texts that weren't worth duplicating
and printing. And the telephone all but did in the art of letter
writing altogether, probably because it restored the natural
tempo of spoken communication to which the brain is
constitutionally adapted. Of course, phoning had the
disadvantage of not leaving a permanent record, but for that
there were tape recorders, and so on.
The reason I single out as revolutionary only speech, writing,
and print in this panorama of media transformations that shaped
how we communicate is that I think only those three had a
qualitative effect on how we think. In a nutshell, speech made
it possible to make propositions, hand-writing made it possible
to preserve them speaker-independently, and print made it
possible to preserve them hand-writer-independently. All three
had a dramatic effect on how we thought as well as on how we
expressed our thoughts, so arguably they had an equally dramatic
effect on what we thought. The rest of the technological
developments were only quantitative refinements of the media
created by speech, writing, and print. The purist might, with
some justification, even hold that print was just a quantitative
refinement of writing, but let's argue about that another time:
the historic evidence for the impact of print is considerable.
+ Page 42 +
The two factors mediating the qualitative effects were speed and
scale. Speech slowed thought down, but to a rate for which the
brain made specific organic adaptations. Our average speaking
rate is a biological parameter; it is a natural tempo.
Hand-writing slowed it down still further, but here the
adaptations were strategic and stylistic rather than
neurological. In writing, the brain was underutilized. Evidence
for this comes from the fact that when the typewriter and the
word processor allowed the pace of writing to pick up again, we
were quite ready to return to a tempo closer to our natural one
for speech. On the other hand, the constraints of the written
medium are substantive, and they affect both form and content, as
anyone who has tried to use raw transcripts of spontaneous speech
can attest. What is acceptable and understandable in spoken form
is unlikely to be acceptable and understandable in written form,
and vice versa.
In a sense, there are only three communication media as far as
our brains are concerned: the nonverbal medium in which we push,
pull, mime and gesticulate [4]; and two verbal media--the natural
one, consisting of oral speech (and perhaps sign language), and
the unnatural one, consisting of written speech. Two features
conspire to make writing unnatural. One is the constraint it
puts on the speed with which it allows thoughts to be expressed
(and hence also on the speed with which they can be formulated),
and the other is the constraint it puts on the interaction of
speaking thinkers--and hence again on the tempo of their
interdigitating thoughts, both collaborative and competitive.
Oral speech not only matches the natural speed of thought more
closely, it also conforms to the natural tempo of interpersonal
discourse. In comparison, written dialogue has always been
hopelessly slow: the difference between "real-time" dialogue and
off-line correspondence. Hopeless, that is, until the fourth
cognitive revolution, which is just about to take place with the
advent of "electronic skywriting."
+ Page 43 +
2.0 Scholarly Skywriting: A Personal Glimpse of the Potential
Panorama
I must now turn from impressionistic history to personal
anecdote. My own skyward odyssey in the newest communication
medium, the airwaves of electronic telecommunication networks,
had its roots in a long-standing personal penchant for scholarly
letter-writing (to the point of once being cited in print as
"personal communication, pp. 14-20"). These days few share my
epistolary bent, which is dismissed as a doomed anachronism.
Scholars don't have the time. Inquiry is racing forward much too
rapidly for such genteel dawdling--forward toward, among other
things, due credit in print for one's every minute effort. So I
too had to resign myself to the slower turnaround but surer
rewards of conventional scholarly publication. In fact, a decade
and a half ago I founded a scholarly journal in the conventional
print medium, though Behavioral & Brain Sciences (BBS) is hardly
a conventional journal.
2.1 Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Modelled on Current Anthropology (CA, which was founded by the
anthropologist Sol Tax, who in turn modelled it on the extreme
participatory democratic practices of the native North American
peoples he studied), BBS's unique feature is "creative
disagreement" [5]. Specializing in important and influential
ideas and findings in the biobehavioral sciences, BBS, after a
round of particularly rigorous peer review (involving five to
eight referees representing the multiple areas that candidate
manuscripts must impinge upon), offers to the authors of accepted
papers the service of "open peer commentary." Their manuscript
is circulated to specialists across disciplines and around the
world, each invited to submit 1,000-word commentaries that
discuss, criticize, amplify, and supplement the work reported in
the target article, which is then published along with the
commentaries (often twenty or more
) and the author's formal
response to them [6]. BBS's open peer commentary service has
evidently been found valuable by the world biobehavioral science
community, because already in its fourth year its "impact factor"
(citation ratio) had become one of the highest in its field [7,
8].
+ Page 44 +
2.2 Limitations of Print Journals
Like other print journals, BBS is prisoner to the temporal,
geographic, and (shall we call them) "internoetic" constraints of
the conventional paper publication medium. In that medium, new
ideas and findings are written up and then submitted for peer
review [9, 10]. The refereeing may take anywhere from three
weeks to three months. Then the author revises in response to
the peer evaluation and recommendations, and when the article is
finally accepted, it again takes from three to nine months or
more before the published version appears (perhaps earlier, when
circulated informally in preprint form). That's not the end of
the wait, however, but merely the beginning, for now the author
must wait until his peers actually read and respond in some way
to his work, incorporating it into their theory, doing further
experiments, or otherwise exploring the ramifications of his
contribution. After all, that's why creative scholars publish--
not to put another line on their resumes, but to collaborate with
their peers in expanding our collective body of knowledge.
It usually takes several years, however, before the literature
responds to an author's contribution (if it responds at all) and
by that time the author, more likely than not, is thinking about
something else. So a potentially vital spiral of peer
interactions, had it taken place in "real" cognitive time, never
materializes, and countless ideas are instead doomed to remain
stillborn. The culprit is again the factor of tempo: the fact
that the written medium is hopelessly out of synch with the
thinking mechanism and the organic potential it would have for
rapid interaction if only there were a medium that could support
the requisite rounds of feedback, in tempo giusto!
Hopeless, as noted earlier, until the forthcoming fourth
cognitive revolution makes it possible to restore scholarly
communication to a tempo much closer to the brain's natural
potential while still retaining the rigor, discipline, and
permanence of the refereed written medium.
+ Page 45 +
2.3 Discussion Groups on the Net
I will try to illustrate with an account of my own first
(unrefereed) glimpse of the Platonic world of scholarly
skywriting. Most of the world's universities and research
institutions are linked together by various international
electronic networks such as BITNET and Internet (called,
collectively, the "Net"). Electronic mail ("e-mail") can be sent
via the Net, usually within minutes, to London, Budapest, Tel
Aviv, Tokyo, lately even Minsk. But the feature that has the
most remarkable potential is multiple reciprocal e-mail:
electronic discussion groups in which every message is
immediately disseminated to all members.
These groups first formed themselves anarchically, on various
networks, the biggest of them called USENET, and were devoted
partly to technical discussion about computers and information,
the technologies that had built the Net, and otherwise to
"flaming": free-for-all back and forth messages by anyone, on any
topic under the sun. Next, discussion groups devoted to specific
topics (e.g., computers, politics, language, culture, and sex)
began to form, and these in turn split into "unmoderated" and
"moderated" groups. Anyone with an e-mail address whose
institution was connected to USENET could post to an unmoderated
group, and the message would automatically be sent to everyone
who was "subscribed" to the group.
It was because most of the unmoderated groups were quite chaotic
that the moderated groups were formed. In these, all submissions
had to be channeled through a "moderator," but this was usually
someone with no special qualifications or expertise, so the
quality of the information on the moderated groups was still very
uneven, and, with a few exceptions (principally technical
discussions about computing itself), these groups were mostly
havens for uninformed students and dilettantes rather than
respectable scholarly forums for learned specialists in the
subject matter under discussion, a subject matter that by now
ranged across the humanities, the social sciences, and the
natural sciences.
+ Page 46 +
This was the status quo on the Net--a communication medium with
revolutionary intellectual potential being used mostly as a
global graffiti board (in all fields other than computing
itself)--when I first sampled the skyways several years ago in a
large (unmoderated) USENET group called "comp.ai" (devoted to the
topic of artificial intelligence, a subfield of my own specialty,
cognitive science). I had heard that there was a lot of ongoing
discussion on comp.ai about something that had appeared in
BBS--Searle's "Chinese Room Argument" [11]. The content of that
discussion is not relevant here. Suffice it to say that about a
profound and complex topic a great deal of nonsense was being
posted on comp.ai by people who knew very little (mostly students
and computer programmers). This initial demography, and the
unscholarly level of discussion that prevailed because of it, was
and still is one of the principal obstacles to the Net's
realizing its real potential. For what true scholar would
condescend to join these innocents in serious scholarly
discussion, and in such an anarchic medium!
Well, draw your own conclusions, but that did not stop me.
Whether it was my partiality for letter-writing or for creative
disagreement, I decided to test out the airways, but consciously
applying self-imposed constraints, since the medium would not
provide them for me. My postings to comp.ai would be
conscientiously thought out and carefully written, as if they
were for a serious refereed journal, with a sophisticated
scholarly readership--for posterity, in fact. Hardest of all, I
would treat the contributions of my interlocutors as if they had
been serious and scholarly ones too, and when these were
uninformed or in error, I would endeavor to correct them in a
dignified and respectful way that would be informative and
instructive to all, solemnly trying to correct the Nth instance
of the same egregious mistake with a Nth new aspect or dimension
of the problem under discussion, always with the objective of
advancing the ideas for all skygazers. Indeed, critical to my
efforts at sobriety and self-discipline was maintaining for
myself a conscious fantasy that, silent among the thousands of
eyes trained skyward, were my peers, and not just the rookies I
was jousting with.
+ Page 47 +
Lest it be thought that this was all just some sort of altruistic
exhibition, however, let me hasten to report that I found myself
by far the greatest beneficiary of this exercise. For the
remarkable fact is that even under these primitive demographic
conditions my own ideas profited enormously from the skywriting
interactions. The problem under discussion (and it only became
evident to me during the discussion just what that problem was) I
dubbed, in the course of the skywriting, "the symbol grounding
problem," and it has since generated not only a series of (alas,
conventional, ground-based) papers [12, 13, 14], but also a
cottage industry in the form of a theme for workshops and
symposia [15], and soon, no doubt, dissertations. All this as a
consequence of aerobatics with mere rookies. "So what would it
have been like," I then asked myself, "if the best minds in the
field were on the Net, skywriting away with the rest of us?"
2.4 Psycoloquy
When I founded BBS fifteen years ago, I had been inspired by the
remarkable potential of "open peer commentary" as revealed
through an article by Gordon Hewes [16] in Sol Tax's commentary
journal, CA. That article was on the origin of language, a topic
that had been under an informal moratorium (as breeding only idle
conjectures) imposed by the Paris Societe Linguistique a century
earlier. Hewes and his animated commentators across disciplines
so piqued my own interest in the topic that I: (1) co-organized
an international conference under the auspices of the New York
Academy of Sciences [17] (a conference that effectively put an
end to the moratorium on the topic and went on to spawn an
uninhibited series of language-origins conferences, e.g.,
Raffler-Engel et al. [18]); and (2) I founded BBS, convinced that
Sol Tax's "CA Comment" principle could be generalized beyond its
discipline of origin.
A decade and half later my own rewarding experience with
electronic skywriting has convinced me that this newest medium's
unique potential to support and sustain open peer commentary must
now be made generally available too, so I have founded
Psycoloquy, a BBS of the air, unfettered by the temporal and
spatial constraints of the earthbound print medium.
+ Page 48 +
Originally initiated in 1985 by Bob Morecock of the University of
Houston as an electronic bulletin board called the "BITNET
Psychology Newsletter," Psycoloquy was transformed in 1989 into a
refereed electronic journal (ISSN Number 1055-0143). It is now
sponsored on an experimental basis by the Science Directorate of
the American Psychological Association. I am Co-Editor for
scientific contributions, and the Co-Editor for clinical, applied
and professional contributions is Perry London, Dean of the
Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology at Rutgers
University.
One of Psycoloquy's principal scholarly objectives is to
implement peer review on the Net in psychology and its related
fields (cognitive science, neuroscience, behavioral biology,
linguistics, and philosophy). All contributions are refereed by
a member of Psycoloquy's Editorial Board (currently 50 members
and growing), but the idea is not just to implement a
conventional journal in electronic form. Psycoloquy is
explicitly devoted to scholarly skywriting, the radically new
form of communication made possible by the Net, in which authors
post to Psycoloquy a brief report of current ideas and findings
on which they wish to elicit feedback from fellow specialists as
well as experts from related disciplines the world over.
The refereeing of each original posting and each item of peer
feedback on it is to be done very quickly, sometimes within a few
hours of receipt, so as to maintain the momentum and interactive
quality of this unique medium, just as if each contribution were
being written in the sky, for all peers to see and append to.
Skywriting promises to restore the speed of scholarly
communication to a rate much closer to the speed of thought,
while adding to it a global scope and an interactive dimension
that are without precedent in human communication, all conducted
through the discipline of the written medium, monitored by peer
review, and permanently archived for future reference. Scholarly
skywriting in Psycoloquy is intended especially for that
prepublication "pilot" stage of scientific inquiry in which peer
communication and feedback are still critically shaping the final
intellectual outcome. That formative stage is where the Net's
speed, scope, and interactive capabilities offer the possibility
of a phase transition in the evolution of knowledge, one in which
we break free from the earthbound inertia that has encumbered
human inquiry until now, soaring at last to the skyborn speeds to
which our minds were organically destined [19].
+ Page 49 +
Psycoloquy appears in two forms. Its USENET version, called
"sci.psychology.digest," is "gatewayed" to the Net from
Princeton. Its BITNET version, formerly stored at Tulane
University and archived at the University of Houston, is now at
Princeton too. The BITNET version currently has around 2,500
individual subscribers and redistribution lists. The USENET
version (which is transmitted to sites rather than individuals,
and hence is not directly monitored for number of subscribers)
may well be reaching an order of magnitude more readers.
Psycoloquy is fully international, with subscribers in the
Americas, Europe, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, the Middle
and Far East, and growing parts of the third world (where
electronic journals promise to be a godsend for the libraries and
scholars who have hitherto been information deprived because of
currency restrictions and budget limitations).
Subscription to Psycoloquy is free. To subscribe, anyone with a
login on any of the networks can send the following one line e-
mail message to LISTSERV@PUCC.BITNET: "SUB PSYC First Name Last
Name" (omitting quotes and substituting your own first and last
name). The message must originate from the e-mail address at
which you wish to receive Psycoloquy. Subsequent postings are
sent to PSYC@PUCC.BITNET or to PSYC@PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU.
Psycoloquy currently appears about once a month, but we are
prepared to publish it much more frequently as the submission
rate and demand increase. Back issues of Psycoloquy are archived
at Princeton, and they can be retrieved from any Internet e-mail
address directly by a simple procedure called "anonymous FTP."
Princeton also has a service called "BITFTP" that allows issues
to be retrieved indirectly from BITNET by e-mail (other services
exist, for example, for JANET subscribers in the United Kingdom).
Soon, with the help of an experimental searchable database
provided by Bellcore and some collaborative efforts with the
American Mathematical Society, it should be possible not only to
retrieve items, but to do interactive full-text searches of the
Psycoloquy archive from both BITNET and Internet.
+ Page 50 +
3.0 After the Revolution
This fourth revolution has not yet taken place. Some of the
impediments have already been noted: (1) the current demography
of the Net and the stereotype it has created of the medium as not
suitable for serious scholarly communication; (2) the ingrained
habits of a scholarly community adapted to the paper medium for
centuries; (3) the foot-dragging of the paper publishing
industry, with all its interests vested in the ground-based
technology; and (4) many prima facie doubts and objections (e.g.,
about quality, academic credit, and security), all of which are
easily and decisively answerable [20], even though they keep
getting raised again and again. (An attempt to lay to rest these
prima facie objections once and for all is in preparation [21].)
It is a foregone conclusion that the revolution will come. My
selfish concern is with getting it underway while I am still
compos mentis and in a position to partake of its intellectual
benefits! Allies in hastening its coming will be the libraries,
whose budgets are overburdened with the expenses associated with
the print medium; learned societies, whose primary motivation is
to get carefully refereed scholarly information disseminated to
the peer community as quickly and fully as possible; and the
scholarly community itself, who will surely realize that it is
they, not the publishers who merely give it the imprimatur, who
are the controllers of the quality of the scholarly literature
through peer review--not to mention that they are also the
creators of the literature itself. (A strategic
pro-revolutionary alliance may be in order.)
But the most important factor in hastening the onset of the
fourth cognitive revolution will surely be the unique
capabilities of the medium itself. Electronic journals should
not and will not be mere clones of paper journals, ghosts in
another medium. What we need, and what Psycoloquy will endeavor
to help provide, are some dazzling demonstrations of the unique
power of scholarly skywriting. I am convinced that once scholars
have experienced it, they will become addicted for life, as I
did. And once word gets out that there are some remarkable
things happening in this medium, things that cannot be duplicated
by any other means, these conditions will represent to the
scholarly community an "offer they cannot refuse." We are then
poised for a lightning-fast phase transition, again a unique
feature of the scale and scope of this medium, one that will
forever leave the land-based technology far behind, as
scholarship is launched at last into the post-Gutenberg galaxy.
+ Page 51 +
Notes
1. S. Harnad, H. D. Steklis, and J. B. Lancaster, eds., Origins
and Evolution of Language and Speech, Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences (New York: New York Academy of Sciences,
1976): 280.
2. S. Harnad, R. W. Doty, L. Goldstein, J. Jaynes, and G.
Krauthamer, eds., Lateralization in the Nervous System (New York:
Academic Press, 1977).
3. G. A. Ojemann, "Brain Organization for Language From the
Perspective of Electrical Stimulation Mapping," Behavioral and
Brain Sciences 6, no. 2 (1983): 189-230.
4. P. Greenfield, "Language, Tools, and Brain: The Development
and Evolution of Hierarchically Organized Sequential Behavior,"
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14, no. 4 (1991), in press.
5. S. Harnad, "Creative Disagreement," The Sciences 19 (1979):
18-20.
6. S. Harnad, ed., Peer Commentary on Peer Review: A Case Study
in Scientific Quality Control (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1982).
7. S. Harnad, "Commentaries, Opinions and the Growth of
Scientific Knowledge," American Psychologist 39, no. 12 (1984):
1497-1498.
8. R. A. Drake, "Citations to Articles and Commentaries: A
Reanalysis," American Psychologist 41, no. 13 (1986): 324-325.
9. S. Harnad, "Rational Disagreement in Peer Review," Science,
Technology, and Human Values 10, no. 3 (1985): 55-62.
10. S. Harnad, review of A Different Balance: Editorial Peer
Review, by Stephen Lock, in Nature 322 (3 July 1986): 24-25.
11. J. R. Searle, "Minds, Brains, and Programs," Behavioral and
Brain Sciences 3, no. 3 (1980): 417-457.
12. S. Harnad, "The Symbol Grounding Problem," Physica D 42
(1990): 335-346.
+ Page 52 +
13. S. Harnad, "Other Bodies, Other Minds: A Machine Incarnation
of an Old Philosophical Problem," Minds and Machines 1, no. 1
(1991): 43-54.
14. S. Harnad, "Connecting Object to Symbol in Modeling
Cognition," in A. Clarke and R. Lutz, eds., Connectionism in
Context (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1992), in press.
15. S. Harnad, S. J. Hanson, and J. Lubin, "Categorical
Perception and the Evolution of Supervised Learning in Neural
Nets" (Presented at American Association for Artificial
Intelligence Symposium on Symbol Grounding: Problems and
Practice, Stanford University, March 1991).
16. G. W. Hewes, "Primate Communication and the Gestural Origin
of Language," Current Anthropology 14, no. 1/2 (1973): 5-12.
17. S. Harnad, H. D. Steklis, and J. B. Lancaster, eds., Origins
and Evolution of Language and Speech, 280.
18. V. von Raffler-Engel, J. Wind, and A. Jonker, eds., Studies
in Language Origins, Volume II: Papers from the 3rd International
Meeting of the Language Origins Society (Amsterdam: John
Benjamin, 1991).
19. S. Harnad, "Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication
Continuum of Scientific Inquiry," Psychological Science 1, no. 6
(1990): 342-344.
20. Ibid.
21. S. Harnad, "Prima Facie Arguments Against Electronic
Journals: Replies," College and Research Libraries (1992),
forthcoming.
+ Page 53 +
About the Author
Stevan Harnad
Department of Psychology
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544
HARNAD@PRINCETON.EDU
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal. It is sent free of charge to participants of the
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum (PACS-L), a computer
conference on BITNET. To join PACS-L, send an electronic mail
message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First
Name Last Name.
This article is Copyright (C) 1991 by Stevan Harnad. All
Rights Reserved.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1991
by the University Libraries, University of Houston, University
Park. All Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computer
conferences, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are
authorized to add the journal to their collection, in electronic
or printed form, at no charge. This message must appear on all
copied material. All commercial use requires permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 25 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harrison, Teresa M., Timothy Stephen, and James Winter. "Online
Journals: Disciplinary Designs for Electronic Scholarship." The
Public-Access Computer Systems Review 2, no. 1 (1991): 25-38.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 Introduction
The decade of the 80's has witnessed the advent of a revolution
in scholarly communication. The explosive growth of wide-area
academic computer networking using BITNET/EARN, Internet, and an
extensive array of regional networks has brought us beyond the
point of asking whether the networks will be used for scholarly
communication. The important questions now center around how
computer-mediated scholarly communication will take place.
Increasingly, speculation has focused upon the ability of
electronic media to replace paper as the primary delivery medium
for scholarly journals.
A prima facie case for the desirability of online or electronic
scholarly journals seems already to exist. Advocates have based
their cases on the advantages of computer networking and
electronic media over print publication, such as the speed of
dissemination, the relatively low costs of production and
dissemination, and the ability to make more scholarship available
than before [1]. Noting that publishers receive the economic
benefits of research produced at public expense, Okerson has
suggested that an electronic publishing component within the
National Research and Education Network would enable scholarship
to remain financially accessible to the public [2].
Other arguments have been based upon the ways that electronic
publication might improve the practice of scholarship within
academic disciplines. For example, advocates have described the
superior possibilities for information retrieval that may be
achieved when scholarly articles are interconnected in flexible
databases [3, 4]. Yavarkovsky [5] and Lyman [6] have suggested
that electronic publication can facilitate certain types of
scholarship that generate products better represented in
graphics, or in three-dimensional, animated, or moving visual
representations. Other researchers have argued that electronic
journals might be aimed at facilitating informal communication
processes through which original ideas are generated and refined
and preliminary information about research is disseminated [7, 8,
9].
+ Page 26 +
Although the future of electronic journals seems promising, their
adoption by scholars will not be determined solely by the number
of technical innovations or by the medium's ability to tip the
scales in a comparison of costs and benefits with print media.
The decade of the 90's will no doubt witness many attempts to
introduce models for electronic academic journals. Whether these
journals succeed or fail will depend on the extent to which a
particular journal's design is consistent with the social
practices of the discipline it serves and the extent to which it
reflects the discipline's needs for information and
communication.
If this is true, it follows that no single journal model will
serve as a prototype for all disciplines. Instead, designers of
electronic journals would do well to understand how their
particular disciplines' social practices may block or delay the
acceptance of an electronic journal. The journal must be
designed and introduced in a way that overcomes these hurdles,
while offering an approach to "publication" that improves the
discipline's ability to satisfy information and communication
needs.
In this article, we describe the approach we have taken in the
design of the Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue
Electronique de Communication (EJC/REC, ISSN 1183-5656). We
begin by noting differences between disciplines that argue for a
variety of approaches in electronic journals. Then, we focus on
the considerations that were most important to us in planning the
development of EJC/REC, and we describe how we have attempted to
address them. Our strategy has centered upon the idea of
introducing EJC/REC within the context of an electronic service
known as Comserve--a broader disciplinary project whose aim is to
promote the use of electronic media in communication scholarship.
Finally, we call attention to challenges that designers of
electronic journals will face in attempting to institutionalize
the medium within the academy.
+ Page 27 +
2.0 Disciplinary Differences in the Design of Online Journals
Electronic media makes feasible a dazzling array of innovations
with the potential to transform the nature of scholarly
communication. Developers are eager to incorporate these
features into the design of electronic journals. However, these
innovations will not be equally attractive in all disciplines.
Although journals in the sciences, humanities, and the social
sciences appear to be fairly similar, there are systematic
differences in the kind of information they include and the way
that information is presented [10]. These variations in journal
design and presentation reflect more fundamental distinctions
across the disciplines in journal publication processes, the way
that journals are used, and the types of contributions journal
articles represent. Those planning to develop electronic
journals must be sensitive to these differences.
2.1 Electronic Archives
Some of the most radically innovative proposals for online
publications have focused on the improvements in information
retrieval that can be obtained when journals and their contents
are interconnected in archival databases. Designers of these
"electronic archives" (the category "journal" no longer seems
apt) plan to incorporate certain characteristics of traditional
journals such as editorial boards and peer review, but use
technology to transcend the limitations of print. Their aim is
to create information retrieval features that enable users to
access a single article as well as a body of literature that is
relevant to it, to place comments and rebuttals to specific
articles within the archive, and to generate instructions that
will identify additions to the system that are of interest to
particular users [11, 12, 13].
+ Page 28 +
One would expect such a model to be attractive in the natural and
applied sciences where scholars often pursue particular questions
systematically within established theoretical programs. Research
such as this, occurring in fields like medicine, engineering,
physics, and biology, is often supported by large grants or
contracts. In such contexts, new knowledge accumulates rapidly
and supersedes existing knowledge; scholarly credibility depends
upon the ability to portray one's work as integral within this
stream. However, this type of process is barely evident within
most humanities and social science disciplines. Further, we
question whether the economic resources devoted to disciplinary
inquiry will be sufficient for the construction and use of such
elaborate information retrieval capabilities.
2.2 Non-Traditional Electronic Journals
It has also been popular to suggest that, instead of
replacing traditional journals, online publications might address
other aspects of scholarly communication. For example, online
journals might be used to disseminate brief summaries of research
and information about research in progress [14], to engage in
more limited exchanges of information [15], or, more ambitiously,
to support and institutionalize informal scholarly communication
activities that typically take place in interpersonal contexts
[16]. Informal scholarly communication, which is regarded as
important for generating ideas and communicating information
about ongoing research, takes place at conferences, at colloquia
or symposia, and through correspondence. It is typically
restricted to small numbers of individuals. Electronic media
would enable these activities to take place on an ongoing basis
with greater levels of participation.
Some of these proposals spring from fears about whether
electronic journals will command the credibility of traditional
print publications. For example, Turoff and Hiltz's focus on
developing electronic alternatives to traditional journals was
motivated by their discovery that scholars were reluctant to
place their work in the Electronic Information Exchange System
(EIES)-maintained journal [17]. They surmised that this
reluctance was due to perceptions that articles in this journal
would have a smaller chance of being cited by others.
+ Page 29 +
In the natural and applied sciences, where informal communication
is the scholar's primary means of keeping up to date on research
advances, computer-mediated information exchanges may be valued,
though it is not clear if electronic journals that carry out such
functions will ever command the same prestige as traditional
publications. Peer review and broader network access to these
journals would surely help to overcome some of their limitations.
However, what is true of one discipline may not be true of
others. In many humanities and social science disciplines,
informal communication may play a greater role in generating
ideas than disseminating information about research in progress,
and journal article publication is itself viewed as a less
important contribution to knowledge than publication of a book
[18]. In such disciplines, electronic journals may never achieve
the credibility of print. Indeed, Katzen's suggestion that
scholarly communication functions are likely to be split between
electronic and print media seems to proceed from the assumption
that humanities scholars will find it very hard to break their
allegiance to print [19]. Electronic journals are viewed as
impermanent, less satisfying to read, and it is feared their
contents will change as the journals are disseminated.
Therefore, these journals may be suitable for reflecting what is
transient in scholarship; what is permanent and authoritative
should be preserved in print.
We do not doubt that electronic media will stimulate the
development of new forms of scholarly discourse; however, we were
reluctant to introduce both a new genre and a new medium of
journal publication. Historically, the journal article evolved
as a genre of scholarly discourse from the first published
scientific communication, which consisted of letters sent to the
editor of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London [20]. In the same way, we expect that new genres of
electronic scholarly discourse across the disciplines will evolve
after the medium in which they appear has acquired the imprimatur
of scholarly legitimacy.
+ Page 30 +
3.0 The Design and Introduction of EJC/REC
One might expect that those who study human communication would
be the first to embrace the advantages of new communication
technologies. However, while there are many communication
scholars who are interested in communication technologies, there
are many others who have little experience in computing and who
are just as likely as other scholars to question the viability of
new publication systems. Any new serial is going to face issues
of permanence (will it still exist in three years?),
accessibility (will it get into the hands of other scholars?),
and credibility (will articles be peer reviewed and cited by
others?). It was apparent that the new medium would make it more
difficult to provide the usual assurances. Further, we
recognized that the medium posed challenges not experienced in
print publication that would have to be overcome. Thus, before
any of the advantages of online journals could be realized, we
believed that it was necessary to overcome the obstacles
presented by the medium.
3.1 Comserve: An Electronic Publisher
One of the first decisions made was to offer EJC/REC under the
auspices of Comserve. Comserve is an electronic information and
discussion resource that, since 1986, has used national and
global computer networks to provide disciplinary services to
communication scholars and students. Individuals interact with
Comserve using accounts on local mainframe computers that are
linked to BITNET, Internet, or any network connected to them.
Comserve functions as a software robot with its own network
address, watching for and taking action on commands that users
send to it.
+ Page 31 +
Comserve's primary purpose is to promote the use of electronic
networking and computer-mediated communication in the service of
communication scholarship. Available 24 hours a day, seven days
a week, at no charge to users, Comserve offers four basic types
of resources:
(1) An interactive "white pages"--an electronic
directory of names, electronic mail addresses, and
research interests of individuals in the
discipline.
(2) Electronic indexes to disciplinary journals
that can be searched for bibliographic citations.
(3) A database of over 1,000 files containing
research, teaching, and other professionally useful
information.
(4) A suite of 20 online conferences addressing
research, teaching, and professional topics in
communication studies.
By associating the publication of EJC/REC with Comserve we hoped
to dispel some of the inevitable doubts about the permanence of
the journal. When the first issue of EJC/REC was published,
Comserve was entering its fifth year of operation, making it one
of the oldest disciplinary services on the networks. Comserve
had received financial support from several of the discipline's
professional organizations as well as from many individual
departments of communication throughout North America, thus
indicating that it had achieved some measure of recognition and
visibility within the discipline.
+ Page 32 +
Furthermore, by associating EJC/REC with Comserve, we hoped to
provide some assurances about EJC/REC's accessibility. Users
have generally found it easy to learn how to access Comserve's
resources, as indicated by the speed of diffusion among students
and faculty. Over 20,000 individuals from nearly every major
academic institution in the United States, Canada, and Mexico (as
well as in 35 other countries) have sent over 250,000 commands to
Comserve. Approximately 4,500 individuals maintain subscriptions
to one or more of Comserve's electronic conferences.
In the same way that many scholarly associations act as
publishers of their own disciplinary journals, Comserve acts as
an electronic "publisher" for EJC/REC. As an electronic
disciplinary forum, Comserve offers an array of incentives for
faculty and students in communication studies to learn how to use
computer-mediated communication for scholarly discourse. The
services described above fall within the realm of informal
scholarly communication. EJC/REC, a mechanism for formal
scholarly communication, complements these efforts to
institutionalize the use of electronic communication within the
field. Together, Comserve and EJC/REC are helping to create an
electronic community of scholars. Within such a community, we
believed that an electronic journal has a significant chance to
develop disciplinary stature.
3.2 EJC/REC: Form and Content
In its first year of publication, EJC/REC has delivered two
issues and is in the process of producing its third.
Technically, subscriptions are managed automatically through a
special electronic conference devoted to the journal that is
managed by Comserve. Interested individuals may subscribe to the
journal by sending the following command on the first line in the
body of an electronic mail message to COMSERVE@RPIECS (BITNET) or
COMSERVE@VM.ECS.RPI.EDU (Internet):
SUBSCRIBE EJCREC First_Name Last_Name
(Example: SUBSCRIBE EJCREC Mary Smith)
+ Page 33 +
The journal's 320 subscribers automatically receive the journal's
table of contents, abstracts for each article in the issue, and
the names of files containing each article in the issue. Files
are named by author and volume/issue number. Those interested
may then request files containing desired articles by sending the
appropriate command to Comserve (at either of the addresses noted
above). For example:
SEND MCKEOWN V1N190
refers to an article by Bruce McKeown of Westmont College
entitled "Q Methodology, Communication, and the Behavioral Text,"
appearing in volume 1, number 1 of EJC/REC in 1990. Articles
appearing in back issues will continue to be available through
Comserve and may be requested at any time. All articles are in
ASCII format.
With respect to editorial policies, EJC/REC seeks to be broadly
representative of the field of communication studies and invites
submissions related to the study of communication theory,
research, practice, and policy. Manuscripts reporting original
research, methodologies relevant to the study of human
communication, critical syntheses of research, and theoretical
and philosophical perspectives on communication are encouraged.
Manuscripts are reviewed by relevant individuals within a thirty-
member editorial board consisting of scholars representing
diverse interests in the field from Europe, Canada, and the
United States.
To establish a credible publication history, attract readership,
and encourage submissions, we have devoted initial issues of
EJC/REC, edited by scholars with established reputations, to
special topics within the communication field. Thus, the first
issue addressed the topic of "Q Methodology and Communication:
Theory and Applications" and was edited by Irvin Goldman of the
University of Windsor and Steven Brown of Kent State University.
Goldman and Brown, acknowledged heirs to the scholarly legacy of
psychologist and communication theorist William Stephenson, who
invented Q methodology, identified noted scholars in the area,
invited contributions to the issue, and supervised the reviewing
process.
+ Page 34 +
Since EJC/REC originates in Canada, there have been efforts to
create a journal that is bilingual in certain aspects of its
presentation and in some of its focuses. Editorial duties are
distributed between James Winter of the University of Windsor
(English-speaking editor) and Claude Martin of the University of
Montreal (French-speaking editor). Articles may appear in
English or French. Although articles will not always be
translated into both languages, messages from special issue
editors, article titles, and article abstracts are presented in
French as well as in English.
4.0 EJC/REC: In the Future
We recognize that we have not resolved all doubts about the
permanence, accessibility, and credibility of EJC/REC.
Ultimately, these doubts can only be resolved, and the journal's
future assured, when EJC/REC is incorporated within the
recognized body of scholarly knowledge. This means ensuring that
the journal is readily available through university and college
libraries. Although libraries may currently subscribe to issues
of EJC/REC distributed through the network, we plan to improve
availability by distributing the journal to libraries on
diskettes (at well below current costs for print journals) as
soon as a full volume becomes available. We are also exploring
possibilities for including the journal in standard citation
services and other secondary bibliographic resources in the
humanities and social sciences.
Finally, one important hurdle we, and other designers of
electronic journals, must attempt to address is the onerous
experience of reading an online journal. It is necessary to
display the contents of online or electronic journals in ASCII
format because there are few word processing systems compatible
with the many different kinds of computing equipment that can be
used to display text. As most already know, reading large
quantities of text on video display terminals is not a
comfortable way of consuming scholarship. Many editors of online
journals are resigned to the fact that their readers will
download articles of interest and print them in order to read
them. Thus, the electronic medium is viewed as suitable for
delivering, but not for experiencing, text.
+ Page 35 +
We are impressed by the results of an experiment conducted by
Standera that assessed reader responses to a journal appearing in
five different formats, including an electronic version read on a
video display terminal [21]. He concluded that before readers
will be willing to change their preferences for print: "Designers
(of electronic publishing systems) must provide improved
legibility, easy browsing, more friendly procedures, ready
availability of indexes, portability, and less fatigue" [22].
Some improvements in legibility will occur with advances in video
display technology. But needed now, or in the very near future,
are more fundamental improvements in the reader's ability to
"handle" or manipulate text. The allegiance to print is in great
measure an unwillingness to give up advantages conferred by the
materiality of paper. Until they can do with electronic text
what they currently do with text on paper, scholars will retain
their devotion to print and resist converting to electronic
media.
Notes
1. Murray Turoff and Starr Roxanne Hiltz, "The Electronic
Journal: A Progress Report," Journal of the American Society
for Information Science 33 (July 1982): 195-202.
2. Anne Okerson, "Incentives and Disincentives in Research and
Educational Communication," EDUCOM Review 25 (Fall 1990): 15.
3. William Gardner, "The Electronic Archive: Scientific
Publishing for the 1990s," Psychological Science 1, no. 6 (1990):
333-341.
4. Sharon J. Rogers and Charlene S. Hurt, "How Scholarly
Communication Should Work in the 21st Century," Chronicle of
Higher Education, 18 October 1989, A56.
5. Jerome Yavarkovsky, "A University-Based Electronic
Publishing Network," EDUCOM Review 25 (Fall 1990): 14-20.
+ Page 36 +
6. Peter Lyman, "The Library of the (Not-So-Distant) Future,"
Change 23 (January/February 1991): 34-41.
7. Stevan Harnad, "Scholarly Skywriting and the
Prepublication Continuum of Scientific Inquiry,"
Psychological Science 1, no. 6 (1990): 342-344.
8. D. J. Pullinger, "Chit-Chat to Electronic Journals:
Computer Conferencing Supports Scientific Communication," IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communications PC 29 (March 1986):
23-29.
9. B. Shackel, "The BLEND System: Programme for the Study of Some
'Electronic Journals'," Journal of the American Society for
Information Science 34 (January 1983): 22-30.
10. May F. Katzen, "The Changing Appearance of Research Journals
in Science and Technology: An Analysis and a Case Study," in
Development of Science Publishing in Europe, ed. A. J. Meadows
(Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1980), 177-214.
11. A. Bookstein and M. J. O'Donnell, "A Scholarly Electronic
Journal on the Internet: The Chicago Journal of Computer Science"
(Paper presented at the Association of Research Libraries
Conference for Refereed Academic Publishing
Projects, Raleigh, North Carolina, 8 October 1990.)
12. Lynn Kellar, "Functional Overview of the Electronic
Science Journal." (Paper presented at the Association of
Research Libraries Conference for Refereed Academic
Publishing Projects, Raleigh, North Carolina, 8 October 1990.)
13. Gardner, "The Electronic Archive: Scientific Publishing for
the 1990s," 333-341.
14. May Katzen, "Electronic Publishing in the Humanities,"
Scholarly Publishing 18 (October 1986): 5-16.
15. Turoff and Hiltz, "The Electronic Journal: A Progress
Report," 195-202.
16. Stevan Harnad, "Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication
Continuum of Scientific Inquiry," 342-344.
+ Page 37 +
17. Turoff and Hiltz, "The Electronic Journal: A Progress
Report," 195-202.
18. Blaise Cronin, "Invisible Colleges and Information
Transfer: A Review and Commentary with Particular Reference to
the Social Sciences," Journal of Documentation 38 (September
1982): 212-236.
19. Katzen, "Electronic Publishing in the Humanities," 5-16.
20. Katzen, "The Changing Appearance of Research Journals in
Science and Technology," 177-214.
21. O. L. Standera, "Electronic Publishing: Some Notes on Reader
Response and Costs," Scholarly Publishing 16 (July 1985):
291-305.
22. Ibid., 299.
About the Authors:
Teresa M. Harrison and Timothy D. Stephen
Co-Directors, Comserve
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180
James Winter
Editor, Electronic Journal of Communication
University of Windsor
Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4
+ Page 38 +
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal. It is sent free of charge to participants of the
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum (PACS-L), a computer
conference on BITNET. To join PACS-L, send an electronic mail
message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First
Name Last Name.
This article is Copyright (C) 1991 by Teresa M. Harrison, Timothy
D. Stephen, and James Winter. All Rights Reserved.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1991
by the University Libraries, University of Houston, University
Park. All Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computer
conferences, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are
authorized to add the journal to their collection, in electronic
or printed form, at no charge. This message must appear on all
copied material. All commercial use requires permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 77 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hugo, Jane and Linda Newell. "New Horizons in Adult Education:
The First Five Years (1987-1991)." The Public-Access Computer
Systems Review 2, no. 1 (1991): 77-90.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 Overview of the Journal's History
The Syracuse University Kellogg Project began in 1986 with a
mission to provide broader access to the university's adult
education materials and to facilitate the exchange of
information and learning using the very latest technologies
where possible. In the fall of 1987 the Project initiated
an electronic journal, New Horizons in Adult Education. The
electronic journal, as initially conceived, was to (a)
provide a means of disseminating, via computer, current
thinking within the field of adult education; (b) develop
new avenues for connecting adult educators worldwide; and
(c) generate dialogue among researchers and practitioners.
It was decided from the onset that the journal would be
student run [1].
This clear statement of the purpose and direction of New Horizons
glosses over the serendipity and the hard work that was the
process out of which New Horizons emerged. The graduate student
who took on the job of initiating the journal, Michael
Ehringhaus, set about the task of clarifying the purpose and
structure of the journal, identifying students to serve on its
editorial board, gaining a command of the technology that would
be required to support such an effort, and establishing
publication procedures. Each of these formative activities
consisted of many decisions, all of which had consequences that
the student editor had to consider for this innovative venture.
1.1 Clarifying the Purpose and Structure of the Journal
At the time New Horizons started, there were few templates to
follow other than those offered by traditional, print journals.
Kellogg Project staff interested in the journal concept discussed
what the journal should look like, not in terms of its visual
appearance, but rather in terms of the locus of control, who
would publish it, and what relationship the journal might have to
the field of adult education [2].
+ Page 78 +
Some wanted a radical journal that would serve to rattle the
established views of academic adult education. Others suggested
something more like a bulletin board. Using electronic mail (e-
mail) communication networks, the student editor extended this
conversation to other students and faculty in the field of adult
education.
The ensuing dialogue brought forth several issues. The consensus
was that the journal should be student-run, yet remain open to
all for refereed publication. In addition, students, many of
whom already felt marginal within the field of adult education,
recommended that the journal not increase this feeling by
positioning itself in opposition to the field at large (e.g.,
being a "radical" journal) or by being a student-only
publication. It would be important that contributing to New
Horizons be perceived by the field as something that would
benefit both student authors, who were being initiated into the
publication process, and seasoned professional writers. In other
words, the journal needed to have credibility with academic adult
educators. Concern over these issues led the editor to define
the journal in these ways:
(1) The journal would be student-run with graduate students
serving as editors and on the editorial board. As such, it
would serve as a unique learning environment for students.
It would be a chance to blend the technological skills that
must be developed to obtain computer proficiency with an
added opportunity to learn more about the theoretical and
practical aspects of adult education.
(2) The journal would use a double-blind review process to
adjudicate articles.
(3) The journal would consider submissions on a range of
adult education topics (research based or not) from
academics, students, or practitioners outside of academic
settings.
+ Page 79 +
Since the fundamental purpose of the journal was to expand the
boundaries of what electronic information was available to adult
educators and to develop new avenues for connecting adult
educators worldwide, part of clarifying the purpose and setting
the structure had to deal with financial issues. Would the
journal be free or not? The decision was made to make it free,
and it would be distributed via a BITNET list server.
Unfortunately, while the Kellogg Project and Syracuse University
could absorb the costs related to managing, assembling, and
disseminating the journal, they could not control the policies in
place at other sites accessing BITNET or related networks. For
example, educators in New Zealand and Australia were charged per
page by those controlling the electronic traffic at their end of
the transmission. The Kellogg Project could not absorb those
costs.
The result was two-fold. First, prohibitive costs on the
receiving end eliminated some readers. Second, the editor and
editorial board had to grapple with the question of producing
paper copies of the journal. In the end, the desire to
disseminate the ideas presented in the journal superseded the
desire to have a purely electronic journal. In cases where the
reader's context made access to the journal impossible or costly,
the editors printed copies from mainframe files and mailed them
out.
1.2 Identifying Students to Serve on the Board
The first editor of the journal selected graduate students to
serve on the editorial board. In order to be eligible for the
editorial board, students needed to be able to use mainframe
communication networks. Journal discussion, decision making, and
article reviews were to be done electronically over BITNET.
"To take advantage of the medium," wrote the first editor, board
members "must have a fairly sophisticated knowledge of their
mainframe computer and how to manipulate lengthy electronic
files" [3].
+ Page 80 +
The names of potential board members came from the early e-mail
discussions about the structure of the journal. In 1986, finding
graduate students with either network access and experience or
with a willingness to learn and institutional support for network
access was difficult. For example, a member of the original
board had to share a mainframe account with a professor in her
department, and another woman who wanted to be on the board could
not participate because her institution did not have the computer
support services to assist her.
Following the leads that his sometimes serendipitous e-mail
turned up, the editor garnered the names of enough students from
around the United States and Canada to constitute the initial
editorial board, which had seven members. Many of them had
limited technical sophistication when they started, but acquired
skill as they participated.
Electronic mail played a key role in the journal's development:
E-Mail has been used to exchange information about technical
problems, set up editorial board meetings at national
conferences, discuss various topics, get feedback on the
journal, and survey the board for their views concerning the
operation, management, and substance of New Horizons [4].
A by-product of this national and international interchange was
that people began talking about the journal, giving the journal
some visibility and publicizing its existence and purpose.
One unanticipated challenge underlying both issues discussed thus
far was the founders' naivete about how much formative work was
involved in getting an electronic journal started. This was
clearly brought home as the New Horizons editor and editorial
board learned to use the technology and developed the journal's
infrastructure.
+ Page 81 +
1.3 Gaining Command of the Technology
Getting the journal into an accessible form on the network was
like "nailing jelly to a tree," according to the Kellogg Project
network specialist Dan Vertrees [5], who assisted the editor in
identifying and solving technical problems. When they began,
there were few tools to do it with and little communication with
the technical experts who had the tools. However, Kellogg
Project staff established a vital liaison between themselves and
the campus computer network services. This liaison was
responsible for breaking electronic logjams having to do with
collecting, moving, formatting, uploading, and downloading files;
insuring adequate mainframe space for journal activities; and
working with different computer systems.
Because electronic communication is rapid, there is an
accompanying myth that anything connected with such communication
would be rapid. Surely, putting out an electronic journal would
be a streamlined, fast process! This expectation exemplified the
naivete surrounding the development phase of the journal. As the
founding editor commented in a recent conversation:
Push a button and it's [the journal] in Australia, [or] in
Vancouver. We can disseminate instantly. We can receive
instantly. [However], the actual process of electronic
formatting doesn't fit the myth of the speed of an
electronic product [6].
Gaining command of the technology involved not only learning
which communication packages to use and which commands did what,
it also involved formative tasks such as training others,
experimenting with the technology at each phase of publication,
exploring the consequences of doing file transfers instead of
using e-mail, and helping board members, authors, and readers
grapple with technical problems on their end of the process. A
spirit of playfulness and adventure were key qualities the editor
brought to this aspect of the journal's development.
+ Page 82 +
1.4 Establishing Publication Procedures and an Editorial Policy
It was not the intention of the Kellogg Project to clone a print
journal. However, those involved with shaping the journal
wrestled with the pros and cons of taking advantage of electronic
publishing while at the same time keeping recognizable formats
that were the boundaries set by print journals. There were few
models to follow for developing an electronic journal in an
academic context where credibility, equitable access, and
bibliographic retrieval are important. "It was too early in
electronic journaling," noted Dan Vertrees, "to push too many of
the boundaries because people were just beginning" [7].
Most of the journal's policies and procedures evolved over time
from discussions with people in the field of adult education,
computer technology, and library science. For instance, the
editor did not set a publication frequency because it wasn't
known how long the entire publication process (from submission to
final publication) would take using e-mail and mainframe-PC
communication. In addition, as a student-run journal read mainly
by those in academic settings, it became apparent that New
Horizons' publication cycle needed to mesh with the academic
calendar, taking into account things like exam periods,
vacations, and the special demands of the beginning and end of
semesters.
After a little over a year's experience with the journal, a
formal editorial policy was codified. The editorial policy
guidelines, published in the third issue (Fall 1989) of New
Horizons, were designed to be as encompassing of "high tech" and
"low tech" options as possible in order to highlight the
journal's overall commitment to access.
The following areas were addressed within this policy statement:
(1) Purpose of the Journal
New Horizons in Adult Education was founded to enhance
international dialogue within the field of adult education.
(2) Nature of the Publication
Categories of acceptable submission forms were broadly
defined to include research articles, thought pieces, book
reviews, point/counter-point articles, case studies, and
invitational columns written by graduate students,
professors, and practitioners involved in adult education
and allied areas.
+ Page 83 +
(3) Manuscript Submission Requirements
New Horizons in Adult Education would accept articles in a
variety of formats including computer disk (ASCII files), e-
mail, fax, and paper copy. Submissions could be sent to an
electronic address or by regular mail to the journal's
office. There were no explicit length limitations, although
authors were informed that the editorial board reviewers
would evaluate each piece to determine if the subject and
substance warranted the length. Authors were also advised
to use written text explanations of concepts and data rather
than diagrams or graphics; simple tabular data, when
necessary to article content, could be included.
(4) Submission Style
While the electronic medium would not accommodate strict
adherence to the rules governing manuscript style and
references outlined in the Publication Manual of the
American Psychological Association (APA), APA was the
preferred style of New Horizons and was recommended as a
model for manuscript preparation.
2.0 A General Description of New Horizons
As one of the first electronic journals distributed via computer
networks, New Horizons had to blaze the trail and establish a
variety of editorial and operational procedures that were
appropriate for the new electronic medium.
2.1 Frequency of Publication, Scope, and Content
Since its inception, five issues of the journal have been
"published" or distributed across AEDNET (the Adult Education
Network). AEDNET, an electronic network sponsored by the
Syracuse University Kellogg Project, is a VM/CMS-based list
server, networked to BITNET, CSNET, Internet, NSFNET, and
NYSERNet. Several participants also connect to AEDNET via
FidoNet and CompuServe. In 1991, a biannual publication policy
with Fall and Spring issues corresponding to the academic year
was instituted in response to an increase in the number of
submissions to the journal.
+ Page 84 +
The manuscript acceptance rate for this journal has been 32%.
Article submissions have been both theoretical and practical in
focus, and they cover many fields of inquiry. The complex mosaic
of submissions to date share common threads of interest to
education scholars, practitioners, and students alike who are
concerned with topics relevant to the field of adult education.
For example, past issues have carried articles on adult
development, propaganda and adult education, feminist research
methodology, functional literacy in Nigeria, women and literacy
in Tanzania, physical learning environments, adult education in
Nicaragua, and a comparison of computer and audio
teleconferencing.
2.2 Reader Access
The editorial staff of New Horizons has attempted to facilitate
access in two ways.
First, the journal is sent out free of charge to over 400 adult
educators in ten countries, including Australia, Canada, Finland,
Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom,
and the United States. In addition, through AOLIN (Australian
Open Learning Information Network), another 95 individual
participants as well as the members of seven organizations have
access to AEDNET. Back issues of the journal, in both electronic
and paper form, are available free of charge. Although most
back-issue requests have been for paper copies, there is an
increasing demand for electronic copies.
Second, since the Kellogg Project was concerned about access for
readers who were not on the network, it approached the ERIC
Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. New
Horizons has been indexed and abstracted by ERIC. To further
enhance bibliographic access, an ISSN number has recently been
applied for.
+ Page 85 +
In his recent editorial on a journal readership survey conducted
over AEDNET, Ehringhaus [8] highlighted the concerns regarding
access to the technology that were expressed by respondents to an
e-mail questionnaire:
Network access is not pervasive throughout the world or
within those areas of institutions in which adult education
departments are housed. Some readers of New Horizons, for
example, have to share computer accounts with colleagues
while other readers find it next to impossible to gain the
necessary institutional support (both technical and
training) to engage in the level of mainframe communications
necessary to interact with AEDNET, in general, or with New
Horizons, in particular. Any publication distributed via an
electronic network is, therefore, limited in its readership
to those who have means and institutional support necessary
to log on and use the system.
It is issues of equity and access such as this, which the
editorial staff of New Horizons has tried to consider from a
number of possible angles, that will remain a challenge to
electronic journal publication in the future.
2.3 The Editors and the Editorial Board
New Horizons has been edited and published by a total of five
graduate students from Syracuse University: (1) Michael
Ehringhaus, 1987-1990; (2) Jane Hugo, 1989-1990; (3) Linda
Newell, 1989-1991; (4) Joan Durant, 1990-1991; and (5) Mary Beth
Hinton, 1990-1991. Also, David Price of the University of
Missouri-Columbia left his position on the editorial board in
1990-1991 to join the editorial staff.
The editorial board, which was initially comprised of seven
graduate students from across the United States and Canada, has
now grown to
fourteen members. The editorial board members
represent a wide range of disciplinary interests within the field
of adult education. Like the editors, they are nontraditional
students who bring many years of adult education theory and
practice to their position. Selection criteria for the editorial
board include graduate student status (once a board member
completes his or her degree, she/he is no longer eligible to
participate as a reviewer) and access to a personal computer and
mainframe account.
+ Page 86 +
New Horizons offers a unique informal learning opportunity for
the graduate students who volunteer to serve on the editorial
board. Although most of the editorial board members are graduate
students in adult education, two board members have been from
related disciplines.
2.4 The Editorial Dynamics
A series of snapshots of the editorial responsibilities would
include the following activities as the major operational
components.
2.4.1 Requests for Information
Staff must respond to ongoing written, electronic, and telephone
requests for information about the journal.
2.4.2 Promotional Materials
Promotional materials such as letters, calls for manuscripts,
newspaper articles, and newsletter articles must be prepared on a
regular basis.
2.4.3 Communication with the Editorial Board
The editors must engage in frequent e-mail communication with
editorial board members to provide information updates on the
receipt of new submissions and the status of work-in-progress.
2.4.4 Article Submission
Authors can send articles to either the journal's e-mail address,
HORIZONS@SUVM, or to its regular mail address: New Horizons in
Adult Education, Syracuse University Kellogg Project, 310 Lyman
Hall, 108 College Place, Syracuse, New York 13244-4160.
(After August 1991 when the Syracuse University Kellogg Project
ends, the electronic mail address for New Horizons will remain
the same; however, its regular mail address will change to New
Horizons in Adult Education, Department of Adult Education, 350
Huntington Hall, Syracuse, New York 13244-2340.)
+ Page 87 +
Once submitted articles are received, staff create office files
for all submissions, including author's original paper or
electronic disk copy, duplicate editorial copies, and copies of
all correspondence with the author. An article submission
checklist has been prepared to capture the sequential details of
this process.
2.4.5 Article Annotations
Staff prepare brief annotations of each article for use by the
editors and the editorial board. Such documents give the
editorial board members a more detailed picture of what the
submission is all about than a title alone could provide.
2.4.6 Preparation of Electronic Review Documents
Articles submitted in an electronic format need to have
identifying materials removed (e.g., author's name and
institutional affiliation) from the original electronic file,
which requires the creation of duplicate files on each
submission. Electronic copies are requested for all submissions;
however, depending upon the location and resources of the author,
exceptions are made, and some documents are keyed by staff.
2.4.7 Review Cycle
Based on interest, expertise, and time constraints, board members
select articles to review. An electronic article review form
facilitates the review process. This form consists of three
sections.
The first part asks for criterion ratings (on a scale of 1 to 4)
on importance of the problem/subject of the article, the adequacy
of background information, the clarity of purpose, the adequacy
of literature reviewed, the soundness of the methodological
approaches, the adequacy of the findings presented, how
well-supported the inferences and conclusions are, and how
well-organized and well-written the article is.
+ Page 88 +
The second section calls for a narrative assessment of the
article's strengths and weaknesses as well as details on any
problems that must be resolved for the article to be acceptable
for publication.
The final section asks the reviewer to provide an overall
recommendation for subsequent action to the editors: accept with
minor revisions, accept with major revisions, or reject.
Reviewers are requested to complete their critiques within two
weeks. Detailed written summaries of the reviewers' comments are
then drafted, and a letter is sent out--either via regular mail
or by electronic mail--informing the author of the decision. If
accepted, the article's publication status is conditional pending
a careful review to make certain that the requirements for
acceptance have been met.
This part of the process, from receipt of a submission through
the editorial board review, was originally envisioned to take
about six weeks. It often takes much longer and it is dependent
upon a number of factors. It is the unwritten policy of this
journal to make every possible effort to accommodate the needs of
the editorial board and of the authors themselves. It has been
observed by the editors that this flexibility serves to encourage
both new and experienced authors to consider New Horizons as an
avenue for the dissemination of their writing. The goal has been
to have four reviewers for each submission. However, this ideal
has often proved to be problematic; occasionally, guest reviewers
have been selected when a submission falls outside the range of
interest and/or professional opinion of the editorial board.
2.4.8 Publication of a Completed Issue
This is the most time consuming aspect of the entire process,
although it has been completely done via electronic means.
Assistance from campus and Kellogg Project computer support
services is invaluable at this stage. Many hours are spent on
each individual article--with five articles per issue on an
average--to assure that the format meets APA style and that the
finished product, once deemed ready for to be sent out over
AEDNET, is able to be received by computer systems of all kinds.
+ Page 89 +
Since many users are uncertain as to how to go about receiving an
electronic file, issue files are not sent. Rather, an
explanatory cover letter precedes the journal which is
distributed as an e-mail message. If future issues consist of
more than about 30 pages, the editors will need to decide on an
alternative distribution strategy, such as sending the journal
out in two parts or as two separate e-mail messages.
3.0 Conclusion
As one of the major components of the Syracuse University Kellogg
Project, New Horizons has served as an effective means of linking
a dispersed community of adult education scholars, practitioners,
and students throughout the world. During our first five years,
the editorial team has attempted to capitalize on the benefits of
the electronic medium, while at the same time learning to accept
the new and often idiosyncratic nature of this communication
channel. When the Kellogg Project grant at Syracuse University
ends in August 1991, New Horizons will assume a new home base in
the Adult Education Department at Syracuse. The editorship will
also change helm at that time, and a new team will continue to
learn to negotiate the peaks and valleys of the world of
electronic publishing.
Notes
1. Michael Ehringhaus, The Electronic Journal: Promises and
Predicaments, Syracuse University Technical Report No. 3.
(Syracuse, NY: School of Education, Syracuse University, 1990),
3-4, ERIC, ED 316732.
2. Michael Ehringhaus, personal communication, March 1991.
3. Michael Ehringhaus, The Electronic Journal: Promises and
Predicaments, 4.
4. Ibid.
5. Dan Vertrees, personal communication, March 1991.
+ Page 90 +
6. Michael Ehringhaus, personal communication, March 1991.
7. Dan Vertrees, personal communication, March 1991.
8. Michael Ehringhaus, "New Horizons in Adult Education: A
Readership Survey Report," New Horizons in Adult Education 3
(Fall 1989): 14.
About the Authors
Jane Hugo and Linda Newell
New Horizons in Adult Education
Syracuse University Kellogg Project
310 Lyman Hall
108 College Place
Syracuse, New York 13244-4160
(315) 443-3421
Linda Newell: LTNEWELL@SUVM.BITNET
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal. It is sent free of charge to participants of the
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum (PACS-L), a computer
conference on BITNET. To join PACS-L, send an electronic mail
message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First
Name Last Name.
This article is Copyright (C) 1991 by Jane Hugo and Linda Newell.
All Rights Reserved.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1991
by the University Libraries, University of Houston, University
Park. All Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computer
conferences, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are
authorized to add the journal to their collection, in electronic
or printed form, at no charge. This message must appear on all
copied material. All commercial use requires permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 144 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobs, Jim. "Providing Data Services for Machine-Readable
Information in an Academic Library: Some Levels of Service."
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 2, no. 1 (1991): 144-
160.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 Introduction
Many libraries are facing two trends that are moving them closer
to providing services for electronic information products: (1)
information in electronic formats is becoming more plentiful,
diverse, and obtainable; and (2) a growing number of library
users want--and demand--access to information in electronic
formats.
One need not look far to find examples of these trends. The
proliferation of CD-ROM's in the U.S. government depository
program is a good example [1]. Other examples include the
availability of electronic journals [2] on floppy disk and
through electronic mail delivery, commercially available
databases of images and maps, and the wide variety of numeric
data files available on computer tape from all levels of
government, private vendors, and data archives such as the Inter-
University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR)
[3].
Similarly, faculty and students are quite likely today to have
easy access to personal computers or powerful workstation-class
machines and to feel more comfortable with information in
electronic form. As a result, many library users already prefer
to have the information they require in a machine-readable
format, rather than in paper form.
How can libraries deal with these products and the demands for
service that go with them? To address this, I will list some
examples of different kinds of services that a user of electronic
information might consider important and that a library might
consider offering [4].
+ Page 145 +
The four lists are "Levels of General Data Services," "Levels of
Computing Services," "Levels of Library Data Services," "Levels
of Reference Data Services." (For the purposes of this paper, I
have defined "data service" as any kind of service for electronic
information.) The lists focus on academic support services,
especially library services, for nonbibliographic electronic
information products, which I will refer to as "machine-readable
information" [5] or "data files."
I specifically exclude bibliographic information products in this
discussion for two reasons. First, there is ample literature on
dealing with electronic bibliographic information in libraries.
Second, although many libraries now have experience dealing with
bibliographic files (e.g., online public catalogs, bibliographic
CD-ROM databases, and online bibliographic vendors such as Dialog
and BRS), nonbibliographic data products provide different
challenges.
Examples of the kinds of products which fall into the
nonbibliographic category of machine-readable information include
the following: (1) numeric data such as census information,
results of survey research, and economic time-series; (2)
cartographic data such as census TIGER files; (3) image data such
as photographs and satellite images; (4) and textual data such as
the full texts of literary works.
Three assumptions or themes underlie these lists.
First, most libraries can provide some kind of service for
electronic information without attempting to provide complete
service for all conceivable combinations of users and electronic
products.
Second, libraries should not avoid dealing with these data
resources because of their formats.
Third, it is not necessary, and probably not desirable, for a
library to attempt to provide "full service" for machine-readable
information on its own. Different campus units (e.g., computer
center, survey research centers, and academic departments) might
each provide some services which complement those provided by the
library and each other. Together, these units may be able to
provide better service than any single unit could individually.
It is important to analyze one's local academic and computing
environment in order to best fit the services into that context
[6].
+ Page 146 +
There is one important caveat before we begin looking at levels
of service. Although the discussion is intended to be "generic,"
it is important to remember that every situation is different.
The examples used here are just that--examples. They are not
intended to be prescriptions for service or suggestions for
strategies to follow. Rather, They are reference points that may
be used to reflect on one's own situation.
2.0 Levels of General Data Service
What kinds of services might a user of machine-readable
information expect? What kinds of services might an organization
(not necessarily a library) provide? The following is a list of
six levels of service which attempt to answer these questions.
Although these levels are not intended to be prescriptive, levels
one through three are basic services that should be provided if a
campus is to have any level of data services at all. The primary
purpose of this list is to help identify what services are
already being provided and to help select those services that the
library might provide. The levels are listed somewhat
hierarchically. Higher levels tend to be more complex or require
more staff; they often build on services provided at lower
levels.
2.1 Level One: Pre-Acquisition Services
There are several things which need to be done before any
machine-readable information is acquired. These include (1)
receiving requests for data; (2) helping users identify which
data files are required; and (3) identifying different sources,
formats, and costs of data. On campuses where survey data are
important, there should be an ICPSR membership. That membership
requires annual funding and a person to serve as the ICPSR
Official Representative to process all requests for data and
handle communications with the Consortium. That person should
also promote ICPSR membership and services on campus.
+ Page 147 +
2.2 Level Two: Data Acquisition Services
Once a campus has made a decision to acquire data files someone
must insure that they are compatible with local hardware and
software and that orders are placed accurately. Next, tapes and
other media as well as codebooks or documentation for the
machine-readable information must be received and processed.
Records of orders placed and received must be kept and bills must
be paid. Finally, someone must notify the requester that the
data files have been received and provide for physical access to
computer tapes (or other medium), codebooks, and technical
specifications needed by users to access the data files on their
storage medium.
2.3 Level Three: Data Access Services
It is important that all authorized data users can easily learn
what data files are locally available and how to gain access to
those files. Some kind of list or catalog of available data
files must be provided, along with the codebooks and technical
documentation that will allow authorized users to gain access to
these files.
2.4 Level Four: Basic Data Advisory Services
Once data files have been acquired, are users "on their own" or
will there be consulting services available? Data consultation
or advisory services would require staff who are familiar with
the contents and structure of studies, can refer users to
particular studies, help users interpret codebooks, and explain
how data files are laid out on the storage medium.
2.5 Level Five: Data Analysis Advisory Services
Another level of advisory or consultation service would involve
staff familiar with statistics, statistical software, and
particular academic disciplines. These staff members could
advise users on appropriate statistical procedures, help users
choose appropriate statistical software, write statistical
programs, interpret results, debug statistical programs, and
debug analytical procedures.
+ Page 148 +
2.6 Level Six: Comprehensive Data Analysis Services
This level of service would do everything for the user. Staff
would analyze data as requested and deliver finished output to
users requesting analytical products such as charts, graphs,
measures of significance, and cross-tabulations of variables. It
should be noted that, although this is a rare service to find in
an academic setting, it is not unknown. As is true of all these
levels of service, some users will expect such service. It is
only prudent to anticipate user requests for service and have a
clear policy delineating those services that can and cannot be
provided.
3.0 Levels of Computing Services
Providing services for machine-readable information does not have
to include providing computing services, but users of machine-
readable information must use computers and providers of data
services should be aware of whom is providing computing services
for those users.
In these days of smaller, faster, less expensive computers, it is
increasingly common for individual users to have adequate
computing power on his or her desktop. Libraries interested in
equal access to information should question whether the fact that
many people have their own computers changes the library's
commitment to those who do not. Even if users have their own
computers, they must somehow obtain data files they want in
formats compatible with their machines and then manage to load
them physically into their machines. These processes require
some level of computing service on the campus.
In general, there are four basic computing resources, in addition
to human resources, that must be provided in each of the levels
listed below. These resources are hardware, software, computer
"cycles" (i.e., the computer actually performing a task), and
delivery or storage medium. The primary issue is who will
provide these services.
+ Page 149 +
3.1 Level One: Data Storage Services
Obviously, data files must be stored somewhere on some medium.
Will the data files be online or will they require loading or
mounting? If stored "offline," who provides the service of
loading the files into a host computer? Is a proper storage
environment for the chosen medium provided? Will backup copies
of files be made? Will someone check whether the files were
received in the format ordered and that they were received
accurately without errors?
3.2 Level Two: Copying and Subsetting Services
Will users be able to copy data files, either whole files or
parts of files, to their own account, machine, or disks/tapes?
Who will provide instructions for how to do this? Who will
provide the hardware, software, and computer cycles for this
work? Will the user move data across a network or within a
single machine?
This kind of service fits nicely into a traditional library
model. For instance, much like a user checks out a book or
copies an article from a journal, he or she might copy data of
interest from a CD-ROM onto a floppy disk and take it home. With
the drop in prices of CD-ROM drives, some users may have their
own drives and libraries may want to consider checking out CD-ROM
disks. What the user does with the data and what computer
resources he or she uses might be of no more concern to the
library than whether a user reads a book under a tree on the
campus commons or at a desk in a dorm room.
3.3 Level Three: Data Retrieval Services
Some data files will be used simply to retrieve a quick fact, a
table, a single image, or a brief excerpt of text. Again, who
will provide the instruction and computer resources for this
service? Many libraries may find it convenient and possible to
provide this sort of service for some products distributed on CD-
ROM, and it is certainly manageable because no single patron uses
any one machine for very long.
+ Page 150 +
Unfortunately, there are many other complicating issues. Here
are some example issues. Is there common software available for
all files that are needed to answer users' questions or must
library staff learn multiple software products in order to help
patrons? Are data files documented sufficiently so that users
understand the meaning of the answer they have retrieved? Are
librarians sufficiently familiar with the data files on hand to
refer library users to the right files in an accurate and
efficient manner?
3.4 Level Four: Data Analysis Services
One important reason for distributing information in machine-
readable format is so that the raw data can be analyzed. Whether
this involves performing statistical analysis on a complex census
file, overlaying cartographic data over satellite images, or
finding word frequencies in a text file, users want data in
machine-readable form so that they can manipulate them. A simple
analysis might be no more than creating and sorting a list of
counties with high per capita income. A more complex analysis
might involve performing an advanced statistical procedure on a
data file of many variables and thousands of observations. Even
simple analysis may take quite some time on a personal computer.
Advanced analysis may simply be inappropriate on any but large
mini- or mainframe computers. Any kind of analysis will require
appropriate software (e.g., statistical, textual, or geographic
software).
While libraries might want to provide computers for some kinds of
analysis, they may have to develop policies defining appropriate
use. Libraries considering providing analytical computing
services should realize that they are, in effect, considering
becoming a computing center.
4.0 Levels of Library Data Services
Let's explore the kinds of data services that a library might
provide. This list may serve as one possible application of the
more general levels listed above. The numbering of these levels
does not necessarily correspond to the "Levels of General Data
Service" listing. This section serves as an example of how
different organizational situations are different and require
their own solutions.
+ Page 151 +
4.1 Level One: Passive Referral Services
The lowest possible level of service (other than no service at
all) may already be in place; however, minor service enhancements
may be desirable.
This level of service can be provided by a knowledgeable
reference staff equipped with an adequate supply of printed
materials and access to appropriate online databases that list
sources of and collections of machine-readable information. No
additional staff or separate service center is required, although
some staff training and some additional reference tools may be
needed.
At this level of service, staff determine whether a certain kind
of information exists in machine-readable form, where it can be
obtained, and how much it costs. This level of service is
passive in that it does not actively seek patrons or users of
machine-readable information, but simply responds to questions by
referring patrons to vendors or other collections.
Normal online bibliographic searches for library users could be
broadened to include databases that list machine-readable
information (e.g., ERIC, RLIN, NTIS, and ICPSR Guide). The
service could be further enhanced by adding "codebooks" (i.e.,
descriptions of the contents of machine-readable data files) to
the general collection of books. These codebooks would aid
researchers in identifying useful data files, and they would
often provide actual useful data themselves, such as frequencies
of response to individual questions.
4.2 Level Two: Active Education and Referral Services
This level adds the education of users and promotion of services
to level one activities. It is the active counterpart to level
one. Level two aspires to make users, and potential users, of
the library aware both of the existence of information in
machine-readable form and of the services which the library can
provide in identifying such products. Education and promotion
may be in the form of user instruction classes and seminars,
special workshops on "new" sources of information for particular
subjects, informal contacts between librarians and faculty, and
newsletters.
+ Page 152 +
4.3 Level Three: Data Cataloging Services
On campuses where there are already machine-readable information
collections outside the library, level three is a very important
and fairly easy step to take to improve data services. There may
be a collection of data files on campus in a computer center,
data archive, social science research center, or even a
department or faculty office, but these data files are not
accessible to all potential users because there is no central
listing of them. The library might offer to catalog the data
files or the codebooks, or both, and add those cataloging records
to its online or card catalog. If there is no current easy
access to the code book collection, the library might also offer
to house and maintain it, or the library might choose to buy
copies for its collection, adding yet another access point.
4.4 Level Four: Data Acquisition Services
This level involves the addition of machine-readable information
to the library collections. Although this may not seem to be an
immediate prospect, libraries that are government depositories
are already having to decide whether or not to accept machine-
readable depository items.
Decisions will have to be made as to: (1) which media will be
collected (e.g., tape, floppy disks, compact disks, and video
disks); (2) which formats will be collected (e.g., for tapes:
what densities, number of tracks, and character modes); (3) what
level and kind of cataloging or other bibliographic access will
be provided; (4) where machine-readable information will be
stored; (5) what criteria will be used to select and acquire
machine-readable information; (6) what kind of access will be
available; and (7) who will have access. It would be wise to
write a formal collection development policy statement for
machine-readable information in order to both address these
issues within the library and to communicate to faculty and other
users how much, or how little, the library can do.
+ Page 153 +
4.5 Level Five: Data Consultation Services
Deciding to acquire data files raises the question of what other
kinds of services will be provided for the information acquired.
Data consultation services can be offered when there is machine-
readable information on campus, whether it is acquired by the
library or by another agency on campus. These services also can
be offered on widely differing levels.
4.6 Level Six: Archival Services
It is fairly easy to buy a few data files on tape and, in one way
or another, add them to the library collections. However, it
will take much more effort and time to archive campus machine-
readable information. This level of service might well be
omitted as it is not a necessary prerequisite to higher levels of
service.
This level could be seen as an extension of level three or level
four services. As an extension of level three services,
archiving data files would mean assuming responsibility for a
large collection of data files all at once. This is unlikely to
happen unless there is currently no formal location for the
collection. For example, it is only informally housed in a
faculty office. As an extension of level four services,
archiving data files would involve storing and making accessible
files acquired or produced by individuals on campus.
Just as in a traditional archive, it is very important to have a
clear statement of what you will accept and what you will not.
Documentation, or the lack of it, can be a particularly sensitive
issue when evaluating locally produced data files.
+ Page 154 +
4.7 Level Seven: Data Analysis Services
Not every library will want to provide all levels of service, but
data analysis services may be the least likely to be offered. In
general, libraries do not offer this kind of service even for
printed materials with the exception of "ready reference"
questions. The more complex the question, the less likely most
libraries are to provide answers. The obvious example of this
service orientation in terms of printed materials are medical and
legal questions, which for ethical and legal reasons are
virtually never answered. Another example is that few libraries
answer questions which involve interpretation of tables of
statistics.
To continue the analogy with printed sources, data service at
level five would be comparable to helping someone locate the
appropriate volume of the printed census, the appropriate table
in that volume, and the appropriate explanations of how the data
were collected and how they are presented, but would leave the
user to read, interpret, and choose which numbers actually answer
his or her questions. By contrast, level seven service would
take a question or a precise request for data analysis from a
user and provide that user with an answer to the question or a
customized product of data analysis. This would require all the
sophistication of the other levels, plus a more experienced staff
and more staff time than any other level.
5.0 Levels of Reference Data Services
Assuming you have some data files and you want to provide some
sort of reference service for those files, where do you start?
Or, more appropriately, where do you stop? Here are some
examples of levels of reference service. Once again, these
examples, which are based on an academic library context, are
meant to help guide your thought and help you plan within your
own context. They are not meant to be definitive guidelines.
+ Page 155 +
5.1 Level One: Data File Identification Services
If someone asks "Do you have the PSID?" [7], your reference desk
staff should be able to understand the question, find out if the
PSID is on campus, and, if it is, where it is, who has access to
it, and what the access procedures are. Also, in a case like
this one, you'd want to be able to identify which parts of PSID
you have and if they are in some special format or not.
Adding catalog records for your data file holdings to your online
or card catalog can accomplish most of this. However, general
awareness of data files is also necessary. Special guides that
list your local holdings and guides explaining how to access data
files would also help. Such guides might be created by the
library, the computer center, a research center on campus, or a
combination of such organizations.
5.2 Level Two: Basic Data File Recommendation Services
If a patron asks "Do you have some statistics on income?", you
could, if you had cataloged machine-readable information, search
your catalog by subject and find National Longitudinal Survey,
Current Population Survey, the Census of Population and Housing,
the Survey of Income and Program Participation, and numerous
other entries. But how helpful is that?
A more useful service might provide at least some guidance on the
differences among these files. Reference staff should know the
difference between aggregate data and micro-data [8], and they
should comprehend to difference between cross-sectional and
longitudinal studies [9]. They should understand what a panel
study [10] is and be comfortable talking with users about sample
size, choice of sample, level of observation (e.g., household and
individual), geographic detail, and so forth [11].
+ Page 156 +
5.3 Level Three: Advanced Data File Recommendation Services
Providing service for large data files is somewhat like providing
service for a collection of manuscripts. Typically, a data file
will record information on dozens, or even hundreds, of topics;
and, typically, few of these topics are indexed in traditional
library catalogs. Just as an archivist may remember a letter
from an ex-slave buried in the papers of an Ohio school teacher,
a data archivist may remember that a particular poll asked a
question about day care availability for single parents. Such
familiarity, which comes from reading codebooks as data files are
acquired and from working closely with data users as they use
data files, increases the access points to a collection.
5.4 Level Four: Data File Use Advisory Services
Data archivists learn about limitations of data files and hear
about their problems by working with users and data and by
talking with other librarians. An example of a data file
limitation is data that are stored in a special format and
require a specific piece of software for access. Researchers who
use a data file will be well aware of some problems associated
with it, but other problems will not be so well known. As
librarians acquire this kind of knowledge, they can help users by
sharing it with them.
For example, several problems with the content of U.S. foreign
trade data were discussed at a recent meeting of the Association
of Public Data Users: (1) for several years, foreign trade data
had a "carryover" problem (data reported for one month actually
included trade from earlier months); (2) the change to the
Harmonized system of classifying industries makes it very hard to
compare current data with older data; (3) exports are not counted
as carefully as imports; (4) aggregate figures are revised, but
industry level figures are not [12]. It is apparent how this
information, not all of which is documented, would be very
helpful to a user of U.S. foreign trade data.
+ Page 157 +
5.5 Level Five: Data Extraction Services
When librarians help novice or occasional data file users to
obtain subsets from large data files, their familiarity with how
particular data files are organized and arranged is important.
Even if computer or programming assistance is not provided, it is
helpful to understand the different data structures so that you
can help the user identify if the needed data need is available
and if they will be easy to extract. For example, each record in
the Citibase database is a time series; therefore, it is very
easy to extract time series from Citibase [13]. In other data
files, time series data may be available, but it may be embedded
in variables, with each record consisting of an observation for a
person or a household. Extracting a time series from such a data
file would be a much more difficult process.
6.0 Conclusion
Nonbibliographic machine-readable data files provide many
challenges for libraries and their campuses. Many of these
challenges can be met by combining the resources and skills of
different units on campus in order to provide a coherent service.
The key to providing such a service is analyzing local resources
and needs and making wise choices among a wide range of possible
services. Libraries have an important role to play in the
provision of data services, and they can provide many data
services with little or no change to staffing or other resource
allocations.
Librarians interested in more information about machine-readable
information and data services should investigate membership in
the ICPSR, IASSIST [14], and APDU.
+ Page 158 +
Notes
1. Depository Library Council, Subcommittee on Electronic
Distribution, "Preliminary Report, March 9, 1988," Administrative
Notes 9, no. 8 (May 1988): 20-26; and U.S. Government Printing
Office, GPO Special Survey 89-300 (Washington, D.C., U.S.
Government Printing Office, October 1989).
2. Ron Eisner, "Publishers Work Toward Starting Reputable Online
Science Journals," The Scientist 5 (4 March 1991): 4-5.
3. For a list of studies available from ICPSR, see the annual
publication: Guide to Resources and Services.
4. Earlier examples of lists of levels of service appear in the
following sources: Howard D. White, "Libraries and Access to
Social Science Data," in Reader in Machine-Readable Social Data,
ed. Howard D. White (Englewood, Co. Information Handling
Services, 1977), 175-194; Laine G. M. Ruus, "The University of
British Columbia Data Library: An Overview," Library Trends 30
(Winter 1982): 397-406; Edward P. Bartkus, "Use of Numeric
Databases in Reference and Information Services," Drexel Library
Quarterly 18 (Summer-Fall 1982): 205-219; JoAnn Dionne, "Why
Librarians Need to Know About Numeric Databases," in Numeric
Databases, ed. Ching-chih Chen and Peter Hernon (Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1984), 237-246; and Ann S. Gray and
Sue A. Dodd, "The Roles of Libraries and Information Centers in
Providing Access to Numeric Databases," in Numeric Databases, ed.
Ching-chih Chen and Peter Hernon (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corporation, 1984), 247-262. The lists presented here are
derived from these earlier works, personal experience, and
numerous communications with other librarians attempting to deal
with these issues.
5. An excellent overview of nonbibliographic databases is
provided in: RASD/MARS Committee on Nonbibliographic Databases
and Data Files, "Information Sheet I: What Are Nonbibliographic
Databases," RQ 26 (Spring 1987): 280-284.
+ Page 159 +
6. Diane Geraci, "Categorizing Your Local Environment" (Paper
presented at Management of Machine-Readable Social Science
Information Workshop, ICPSR Summer Program in Quantitative
Methods of Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI, August 1990).
7. James N. Morgan, "Panel Study of Income Dynamics" (Ann Arbor,
MI: Survey Research Center, Inter-University Consortium for
Political and Social Research, 1989). (Computer file)
8. Aggregate data are those which have been created by combining
values for a number of individual observations into a larger
unit. An example would be census data files which contain values
that are totals for geographic areas such as blocks and counties,
without the values for each individual respondent to the census.
Micro-data are those which contain values for individual
respondents.
9. Cross sectional data provide observations on a group sample at
a particular point in time. Longitudinal studies are studies
across time.
10. A panel study interviews the same group of individuals (the
"panel") several times over a period of months or years.
11. A good source of definitions of survey research concepts is
P. McC. Miller and M. J. Wilson, A Dictionary of Social Science
Methods (Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons, 1983).
12. The Association of Public Data Users (APDU) is an
organization of users, producers, and distributors of federal,
state, and local government statistical data. The executive
director is Susan Anderson, Princeton University Computing
Center, 87 Prospect Ave., Princeton, NY 08544.
13. Citibase: Citibank Economic Database (New York: Citibank).
(Computer file)
14. IASSIST: The International Association of Social Science
Information Service and Technology.
+ Page 160 +
About the Author
Jim Jacobs
Data Services Librarian
University of California, San Diego
Central University Library, 0175-R
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093-0175
JAJACOBS@UCSD.EDU
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal. It is sent free of charge to participants of the
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum (PACS-L), a computer
conference on BITNET. To join PACS-L, send an electronic mail
message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First
Name Last Name.
This article is Copyright (C) 1991 by Jim Jacobs. All Rights
Reserved.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1991
by the University Libraries, University of Houston, University
Park. All Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computer
conferences, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are
authorized to add the journal to their collection, in electronic
or printed form, at no charge. This message must appear on all
copied material. All commercial use requires permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 91 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennings, Edward M. "EJournal: An Account of the First Two
Years." The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 2, no. 1
(1991): 91-110.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 Introduction
As I write these first paragraphs of EJournal's autobiography, it
is the morning after the first issue hit the "newsstands."
Yesterday, I uploaded the mailing list to the list server from my
personal account on SUNY Albany's VAX. Then I finished the
unexpected task of deleting 283 copies of the subscription
confirmation message that was sent to recipients. Ready at last,
I e-mailed the fourth "final" version of the 421-line issue to
the list server for network distribution. Then came the catch: I
was not privileged to send anything to the list from that
account. So, it wasn't until I had gone through one more file
transfer and the deletion of a "wrong-address" header that
EJournal 1.1 went off into the "matrix."
Yesterday's episode is typical of the last two years: one
adjustment of expectations after another. This essay will fill
in some of the twists and turns along EJournal's short journey.
It will be a kind of editorial autobiography, and I will finish
up with a rationalized interpretation of the response to the mid-
March 1991 mailing.
Near the top of EJournal's front page is the line: "An Electronic
Journal concerned with the implications of electronic networks
and texts." My interest in paperless texts goes back to an
experimental course in 1985. In it, we almost abandoned the
classroom in favor of writing to each other from terminals. My
awareness of larger networks began when Frank Madden, of SUNY's
Westchester Community College, introduced me to an Exxon-
sponsored project out of New York Institute of Technology.
Michael Spitzer had convinced several people interested in using
computers to help students figure out how to write more
confidently. In the spring of 1989, after Michael's funding had
dried up and Fred Kemp started MegaByte University (MBU) on
BITNET, several intriguing issues began to pop up with some
frequency. Let's turn the clock back, then, to Spring 1989.
+ Page 92 +
2.0 Initial Issues
One set of issues had to do with the academic sociology of
networks, lists, and bulletin boards as a medium--the fascination
they held for some people, and the nagging we felt as we wasted
our time in extended and stimulating, but professionally
unproductive conversations. Another set had to do with the
peculiarities of the discourse itself. We all had some inkling,
I think, that writing is different when you have to scroll it
instead of flip codex pages. It is more like talking when you
know the names of almost everyone who will read what you type,
but have never met most of the group. I think it was Michael
Cohen who likened the environment to a large party where friends,
acquaintances, and strangers mingle, and where most of the
conversations are familiar enough to be easy to join, yet just
strange enough so you don't feel obliged to chime in.
One fine day, as narrators blithely say, I wondered if it would
make sense to try distributing some sort of "journal" over the
network. MBU had tried putting some texts into its archives.
Most of them had been donated by their authors after
presentations at meetings. When I downloaded and scanned them,
though, they felt longer than I wanted to read. I wanted a place
where some of the intriguing ideas that streamed across my screen
every week could be packaged so they would be eligible for
publication credit within the accounting system of higher
education. I wanted something less stodgy than the familiar
pseudo-permanence of paper journals, but less quick-triggered
than the bright snippets on MBU and less scattered than the
stream of observations on HUMANIST. Joe Raben, one of the first
people to whom I mentioned the idea, thought it might work. This
brings us to the fall of 1989.
+ Page 93 +
3.0 The First Steps
The ideas sketched above were about all we had in mind when we
sent a notice to five BITNET lists in the fall of 1989:
Electronic texts in the humanities are not yet generally
considered academic "publications." They are not likely to
be taken seriously in the course of deliberations about
tenure and promotion. This can be attributed, in part, to a
latent, unchallenged premise--a default assumption--that
ideas aren't quite real until they have been printed and
bound and received in the mail. Another factor may be
computer networks' reputation for informality. Perhaps most
restraining, though, is awareness of how pushy it would be
to put forward "ideas" whose merit remained unacknowledged
by one's peers.
But an edited and refereed "paperless" journal, one devoted
to electronic texts and the implications of the medium,
would stand a good chance of acquiring legitimacy even if
(and perhaps because) it appeared principally on-line.
What's more, network communications ought to permit speedy
exchange of submitted texts; reading, critiquing, revising
and distributing ought to happen faster than with paperbound
media. We are proposing such a project.
3.1 Assembling the Staff
Several happy accidents happened between the first dream and the
drafting of those paragraphs. The proprietors of SUNY Albany's
Computing Services Center, who had helped me with my paperless
writing experiments over the years, asked good questions about
what such a journal might accomplish. I asked Kelly Kreiger,
among others, about finding someone who might help me, probably
an undergraduate with an interest in both writing and computers,
and she put me in touch with Allison Goldberg, who, it turned
out, had written an Honors Seminar paper with me the spring
before about computers and privacy. Allison thought the project
might be fun, and a few extra credits would help her finish her
degree program ahead of schedule. I was delighted. Dave
Redding, Director of Undergraduate Studies in English, was
willing to let her register for an independent study.
+ Page 94 +
Don Byrd and Steve North thought an all-electronic journal
sounded like a good idea. Steve inquired whether I had asked the
Council of Editors of Learned Journals if they knew of anything
like what we were doing. My question to Evelyn Hinz, then the
Council's President, was answered with an invitation to speak
informally at their December session in Washington at the Modern
Language Association meeting. Nervously working on that talk and
on some parallel speculations for Alan Purves' Center for Writing
and Literacy at Albany, I began to wonder about broadening the
journal's purpose (this happened as we were drafting and
distributing the announcement quoted above).
3.2 The Journal's Focus
At first, the journal was supposed to address the ways that
computers affect writing. The focus was to be on texts,
discourse, language and rhetoric, and the reciprocities of
creating and interpreting. I even asked a few people what they
would think of the neologisms "Techst" or "Alternatext" as
possible titles for the journal. But, the tentative procedures
already implied a somewhat broader range of interests. "Our
principal subject is what happens when computer networks
supplement paper and sound as channels for distributing 'texts',"
we had said.
I had begun to wonder if electronic networks were going to have
the same effect on culture as writing and printing. Keeping
records, creating long fictions, and going to libraries had
transformed "oral" cultures, or so it appeared. Would the new
medium for capturing and spreading information prove comparable
in its effects on "literate" cultures? Perhaps electronic
journals would be the appropriate places to analyze and exhort
the Third Wave in the way that printed journals served, and would
continue to serve, the Second Wave.
+ Page 95 +
3.3 The First Announcement
The first preliminary draft announcement called "Credo1.Net" went
to a half dozen people, whose BITNET addresses I had handy, on
September 20, 1989. By early October, we had received enough
curious responses to keep us going. I began drafting journal
procedures on the 12th. Allison sent the two-screen announcement
to Fred Kemp's MBU, LITERARY, Willard McCarty's HUMANIST, Rob
Royar's On-Line Composition Digest, Malcolm Hayward's EDITOR
list, and probably to others via links and nodes unfathomable
even by network experts. No mailing lists, no brochures, no
paper, no printer, and no directly measurable costs were
involved. We had responses from 40 or 50 people, including two
outspoken skeptics. Most said they'd like to learn more; a few
offered to help. So, we sent out those preliminary ideas about
procedures.
3.4 Preliminary Journal Policies
Perhaps the most noteworthy procedure, besides our intent to
conduct business electronically and keep essays brief, was the
three-tier distribution sequence. Abstracts were to go to
subscribers frequently, a table of contents of accumulated titles
would go to a wider list occasionally, and everyone would
download what they wanted from a file server whenever they wanted
to. Although we now send the full text of each article to all
subscribers, we intend to carry out the plan of having several
"tiers" of announcement and access.
Two other paragraphs, about money and ownership, from those
proposed procedures deserve to be noted:
We want to avoid charging for the sharing of what we think
we have learned about matters we are all investigating. We
all support BITNET, and we'll all share the load of
reviewing, and I will feel better about being an editor if
everyone knows that we're bootstrapping together in a low-
overhead operation. It may be necessary to discuss fund
raising at some moment in the future, but for now it's all
free.
+ Page 96 +
Ownership: we will do nothing about copyright, permissions,
first-refusals, or other paraphernalia of intellectual
possessiveness. We're operating in the domain of search,
not re-search.
3.5 The Review Process
The idea of sharing the load of reviewing was predicated on the
formation of a group that would carry out the anonymous review of
submissions. Here's our invitation to become an editor, which
was the last part of the proposed procedures sent to the group
that responded to the preliminary announcement:
We would like to develop a list of co-editors or an
editorial board or an advisory board, or all of the above.
If you have ideas about people who might be invited to be on
that sort of list (yourselves included), please send names
to us. I don't know how we'll make up panels without
insulting someone, sooner or later, but we'll try.
Several people replied that they'd be willing to review
submissions in their specialties--history, philosophy,
whatever--or even in computer and network topics. We had heard
from one person in Finland, one in Italy, and two or three in
England. There was some question about whether "promulgate"
should replace "publish" in our vocabulary, because publishing
was associated with printing, mailing, and handling. Cooler
heads prevailed.
By the end of December, I was ready to add two footnotes to our
procedures: (1) we could not deal with niceties of typography and
format, even underlining, at least in the beginning; and (2)
contributors would control, and be responsible for, final copy.
I really hoped I could avoid proofreading.
+ Page 97 +
3.6 The Idea Takes Shape
As we began 1990, there were two ways to look at what had
happened so far. The idea of an electronic journal had begun to
acquire support and even something of an international audience
in just a few months. On the other hand, given the efficiencies
of the medium we were celebrating so noisily, it seemed to have
taken us a ridiculously long time just to find a few people
willing to listen seriously to our ideas.
[As I draft this, it is almost 48 hours since Issue 1.1 was sent
out. I have not logged in to find out what happened. I may well
have done so by the time I resume work on this text; I will try
to keep a straight face and not let knowledge of the reaction
affect the story of 1990, the intervening year that both flashed
by and dragged along in the meantime.]
4.0 Down To Business
The second semester of 1990-91 seems almost empty. I spent a
long time writing up a justification for "support for a
periodical" from the university. My answers to the university
form's set questions turned into essays because I had to explain,
in what seemed like a dozen different ways, why those questions
were not pertinent to an electronic publication. I was seeking
assurance that the university would underwrite a part-time
position, probably for a graduate student who could step into
Allison's shoes. So, when I learned that there wouldn't be any
real money for the project, even if the committee found us
deserving, I thanked Bill Dumbleton, English Department Chair,
and Dona Parker, Associate Dean, for the indirect support they
said they could help us with, and set that application aside.
We also started talking with Kelly Kreiger Hoffman about using
the list server for distributing and archiving the journal. We
thrashed our way through some uncertainties about why we would be
unlike a printed journal, accumulated a group of consulting
editors, signed on several Advisory Board members, and reviewed
our first submission. Maybe the semester wasn't as empty as it
seemed.
+ Page 98 +
Arranging the list was almost as foolish as it was forehanded.
We locked ourselves into the subtitle "An Electronic Journal for
Humanists" in one unexpected instant when a network expert, hands
poised over the keyboard, turned suddenly and asked: "Wha'd'ya
wanna call it?" But we really thought we might have an issue to
distribute before too long, so we wanted to have the mechanisms
in place. Then I forgot about the arrangements.
At the end of January I asked John Slatin at the University of
Texas, Austin and Stuart Moulthrop at Yale (since gone to UT
Austin) if they'd be interested in collaborating on a piece for
EJournal about hypertext. I had something of a run-in on one
network list with a person who felt strongly that electronic
journals could not, would not, and, perhaps, should not work.
The major objection was that originality, copyright, and
ownership could not be controlled on the network, and that the
world would virtually come to an end if they were not controlled.
My sketchy notes show that Stevan Harnad (editor of Psycoloquy)
jumped in to defend electronic media, and that Harry Whitaker
told me, rather eloquently, to stand my ground. I immediately
asked Harry to join the Board of Advisors. He lived in the world
of cognitive science and, like Joe Raben, had edited "real"
scholarly journals (Brain and Cognition as well as Brain and
Language). I hoped that his presence would symbolize our
interest in reaching outside the realm of literary theory and he
would help us learn to edit responsibly.
4.1 The Board of Advisors
I will outline the process of putting together our Board of
Advisors because it illustrates serendipity and one way that e-
mail has spoiled me.
+ Page 99 +
Joe Raben, founding editor of Computers and the Humanities, had
said he'd be willing to help out. I wrote Arthur Danto in early
February; he had helped me with a project in the seventies, and
was probing the blinkspace between art and artifice, between
medium and backdrop. In mid-month, I found courage and time to
ask Bob Scholes and Dick Lanham if they would lend us their
imaginations and reputations. Dick's insistence that the nature
of "text" had been irreversibly changed when pixels met ASCII was
part of EJournal's heritage, as was Bob's experiment with
computers in a poetry course in the mid-seventies.
Dick sent e-mail back at once, agreeing to be on the Board.
Arthur scrawled a nice note saying that he felt unqualified
because he had never used and probably never would use the
technology. Bob answered positively, some time later, by regular
mail. I finally remembered, in March, to ask Joe Raben about
actually using his name on the masthead. Sigh of relief; he said
we could.
I had started out in the fall of 1989 hoping simply to enlist
people who would be recognized by professors of English; people
whose established reputations would validate EJournal's claim to
be as good a place to be published as most other refereed
journals in the humanities. By mid-winter, the journal was
already respectable, from that point of view, and thanks to Harry
Whitaker's willingness was on its way to bringing the networks
and electronic texts within their purported scope. By this time,
I was also aware of how dependent I had become on electronic mail
for getting everything done. Some tasks that should have been
done months ago still get postponed because they require paper,
envelopes, and postage.
An aside about the name "EJournal." The closest thing to a
disagreement with a Board member was my not heeding Joe Raben's
advice to assign an academically resplendent title like "Studies
in the Relationship . . ." or some such deliberately heavy
phrasing. I had wanted a title as far from print-associated
locutions as I could get, which meant avoiding "journal,"
"studies," and "review." But, I realized eventually that journal
implied day-by-day-record, which seemed appropriate for
adventures in new fields.
+ Page 100 +
When "Techst" was greeted with the scorn it deserved, I slipped
into "e-journal," short for electronic journal, in notes and some
conversations. Then, when Joe suggested a weightier name, I
realized that I had come to like the abbreviation, which seemed
to suit the directness and informality of the network. I was
also fully aware that some literary periodicals are known better
by their initials than by their formal titles.
4.2 Editorial Procedures
Our actual editorial procedures had not been worked out when the
first essay arrived to be considered. We were committed to
anonymity and to using e-mail, so I stripped names and
affiliations from the essay and sent it to a distribution list
made up of people who had answered the call for volunteers. I
asked them to think about what they would like EJournal to
become. I don't remember specifying any criteria. Within a week
I had received plenty of responses. The consensus seemed to be
that the essay was interesting and well constructed; however, the
subject might be too narrow for our presumed audience. I broke
the news to the author.
This process seems to me one of the great strengths of the
electronic journal format. Not only can we be fast, but we can
look at every submission as a committee of the whole, reading it
from the perspectives of different academic disciplines as well
as in terms of our own experience in the network labyrinth. The
senior editor merely decides what to send out for review, sifts
the panel's responses, and communicates consensus to the authors.
This procedure is also something of a happy accident. EJournal
has never held a meeting to discuss and decide editorial policy.
In retrospect, the idea of settling on a definitive editorial
policy looks almost silly, like an exercise in compromise that
may have been useful in times when recording was dominated by
paper. It implies permanence, the kind of congealed consistency
characteristic of print-dominated culture. However, in the
matrix, with its heritage of lists and bulletin boards, both the
integrity of the journal and its evolving relevance seem best
served by the delegation of editorial judgment to independent
readers.
+ Page 101 +
4.3 Highs and Lows
By the end of March 1990, Allison and Kelly had shepherded the
journal past several milestones. We had a Board of Advisors, we
had a panel of Consulting Editors, we had been through our first
review, and we had stuck our toes into the lake of "list
servering." I had asked people to write essays about hypertext
and about a "hyperversity," a prophesied environment for
education in the coming cyberspace era. All of this was
encouraging.
Then, however, Kelly confirmed that she would be leaving the
university, and I worried about what would happen if I couldn't
find people to answer my questions and look after the actual e-
mail and network connections. There had been some nasty noise on
the line between my 8088 machine at home and the VAX on campus,
and I had gotten into a flurry of activity with a campus
committee charged with discussing "Educational Technology."
Allison had real jobs lined up for the fall. Even if the Vice
President's committee was to endorse the idea of the journal,
there would be no money available to support any kind of student
assistance. There were some discouraging moments. EJournal sat
there waiting for something to happen.
Kelly arranged for Bob Pfeiffer, her successor as electronic
Postmaster, to guide us into the maze of list servers and file
servers. As she moved into the position of Head Consultant in
our computer center, Allison persuaded Ron Bangel to think about
following her as Managing Editor (Acting) of the journal. He
agreed to consider enrolling for several credits of independent
study. The idea of an electronic journal had taken on potential
form thanks to Allison and Kelly, and the momentum of their
efforts carried us into the fall semester.
+ Page 102 +
5.0 Year Two Begins
As the first year was Allison Goldberg's, the second year was Ron
Bangel's. An English major, he had also run the university's
"Open Line" through the Caucus software on the VAX. Besides
looking after much of the correspondence that was beginning to
trickle in, Ron prodded me into arranging a totally separate
account for the journal, one that he and I could share. Once we
got there, he found out that I was still confusing two kinds of
indexing locators, the file name and the directory the file was
stored in. Having been conditioned by DOS to keep the filenames
short, I had kept assigning almost indecipherably short names.
Ron designed nests of subdirectories and taught me to use long,
thorough, and systematic filenames. He set up a directory-tree
display called "Swing" (a program from the files of the local ACM
chapter) so we could navigate our multiplying directories and
subdirectories pictorially. And he started keeping a log of what
we were doing so that the technical details of our procedures
wouldn't be forgotten as they became semi-automatic.
Meanwhile, EJournal's mission was expanding. I didn't realize it
while the change was taking place--indeed, new implications keep
popping up--but a call f
rom Ann Okerson in late summer helped us
see that EJournal was one of a few electronic publications that
were trying to be "scholarly" or "academic" by virtue of an
editorial process more elaborate than the screening of postings
to a BITNET list. Ann pointed out that librarians had long been
worried about the rising cost of serial publications, and they
were wondering if experiments like EJournal might become one
route toward holding down escalating costs.
5.1 The Questions Emerge
It had been easy for me to vow that EJournal would be free.
Early statements of BITNET policy had frowned on activity that
might involve filthy lucre, and I had smiled at the thought that
the Net might let us revive motives from seventeenth-century
England. As I saw it, Bacon's Solomon's House and the fledgling
Royal Society had assumed that discoveries should be shared and
that those who found or made new knowledge were more or less
obliged to give it away.
+ Page 103 +
Even though electronic distribution does indeed involve real
costs, it is cheaper than using paper, printers, and postage.
More significant, perhaps, is the appearance of freedom in the
eyes of the academic practitioner. I had not stopped to think,
though, that seventeenth-century scientists set about sharing
knowledge before copyright and patent laws controlled the
ownership of intellectual property.
In short, money raised its ugly head. Who does own what we make
public? Who can get possession of it, and how? How will
discipline-sponsored electronic journals "compete" with the codex
journals in their fields? In this context, I am just now
recognizing some of the ways that EJournal is slightly different
from most other electronic publications. We have no tight
disciplinary or departmental or program allegiance. We have gone
outside the literature-writing realm to scan and report and
speculate about a phenomenon that is hostage to no academic
specialty.
Ann Okerson's call, then, prompted another round of pondering our
still-inchoate purpose, and led to two specific developments:
(1) participation in an October 1990 meeting at North Carolina
State University of a group she dubbed the Association of
Electronic Scholarly Journals, and (2) her acceptance of an
invitation to be one of our Advisors.
5.2 Two Articles are Submitted
Back at the keyboard and screen, we accepted our first piece. We
used the procedures from the spring before, and got a different
range of replies from the panelists. Some said, as I recall,
"Sure, this is just what we want, even though it's less formal
[read 'pompous'?] than most 'scholarship'." Some said "It seems
a little hasty-drafty." And some thought it could be OK with the
addition of a couple of acknowledgments of precedents for parts
of some of the ideas.
+ Page 104 +
I tried to articulate for the author a summary of the positive
responses, and asked for swift revision so that we could get a
first issue out. One of the reviewers was inspired to send in an
essay that took off from the original piece. We were excited
because we had imagined trying to trigger miniature chain
reactions to our essays. This type of interchange would be more
stimulating than stale "snail mail" controversies that arrive
quarterly.
Both essays are still sitting in their subdirectories.
Electronic networks move texts fast once they are ready, but they
can't speed the writing and revising process all by themselves.
Ron and I exchanged ideas for a masthead. I needed something to
put on paper in order to apply to the Library of Congress for an
ISSN, and he made sure that it would meet the needs of screen-
scroll technology. We didn't want to pollute the channels and
mailboxes with wasteful "black space," and we wanted to let
readers proceed through an issue without having to find their way
backwards to information that had slipped away.
We were ready to add another layer of consultation. Having
checked our efforts at on-screen design with the advisors, then
with the panel of consulting editors, we were ready to send an
announcement to the list of interested "subscribers" who had
signed on since the preliminary mailing of a year before. Our
first mass mailing, so to speak, went to that group, and also to
managers of several closed lists. We sent it, in a shotgun
blast, straight to all members of some open lists as well. The
several screens included the cover page, the staff, and the
latest version of our evolving statement of purpose.
The first response was a howl about our breach of propriety; we
had somehow threatened to clog the circuits of the matrix by
using such a long distribution list instead of a BITNET file
server. And there was enough overlap among lists, we were
lectured, so that some people were getting more than one copy.
Our Computing Services Center Director, Ben Chi, told me not to
worry. We might have touched the edge of naughty behavior, but
shouldn't feel ashamed. He estimated that the announcement might
have gotten to some 7,000 mailboxes.
+ Page 105 +
At this point we felt committed. There was (1) an "accepted"
essay awaiting revision, (2) a set of editorial procedures that
seemed to have worked, (3) commitments to work on two more essays
and a review, and (4) enough responses to the late-fall
announcement to build our pre-publication subscriber list all the
way to 300. Besides, we had been assigned an ISSN (1054-1055)
because we had promised to begin publishing in January.
But plenty could go wrong. I lost one contributor's address and
almost refused what became our first article. In our eagerness
to be all-electronic, we fouled up our list server's mailing
list. These last few anecdotes bring us up to the first issue.
6.0 The First Issue
By spring 1991, the widely broadcast announcement had brought
inquiries about proposed essays. Several seemed feasible, some
seemed a bit celebratory rather than ruminative, and one struck
me as a possibility. I set up a subdirectory for it, removed its
mail header, added a headnote for the panel of consulting
editors, and sent it off to the group. The return messages were
not enthusiastic. The piece seemed somewhat stale, and it
probably would be redundant for most of our readers. I went back
to the subdirectory to recapture the author's address. No name.
There was an address, but it was cryptic; I had expunged the name
more thoroughly than I should have in the course of making the
piece anonymous.
There were some anxious hours while I tracked through notes,
logs, and who-where techniques to make a match I could be
confident would not embarrass the journal. I am determined,
after that episode, to be sloppy in the direction of redundant
records. And I dread discovering the next inadvertent error.
Someone will be mystified, frustrated, or hurt (or all three),
and we might not even know that anything happened. I am finding
electronic files harder to keep track of than even sloppy paper
folders. I hold on to more pieces, it seems, but have more
trouble finding them, in spite of Ron's valiant struggle towards
orderliness.
+ Page 106 +
I have reason to remember one particularly crisp note which
arrived at the end of December. It proposed yet another
electronic journal, this one for the purpose of getting into
print research ideas that had not been funded. Or so it
appeared. I dashed off a "thanks but no thanks note," explaining
that the proposed journal sounded almost like a repository for
rejects.
I'm happy to say that my insult was forgiven. The author, Robert
Lindsay, took me to task for not reading carefully, but accepted
responsibility for having left some implications out of his brief
inquiry. The proposal he submitted, when fleshed out and
contextualized, became the first issue of the journal. It seemed
to strike the editors as the kind of piece we should be offering.
It was a sensible way to make use of the novel opportunities
opening up on the network.
6.1 Distribution Decisions
While the panelists were pondering the article about "Electronic
Journals of Proposed Research," Ron was preparing an efficient
mailing list. We couldn't just e-mail to the 300 ID's with a
distribution list; that would threaten to clog the network even
more than our redundant announcement had done in November. A
BITNET list server was the obvious answer [1]. We uncovered the
list server niche set up almost a year earlier; all we had to do
was learn how to use it.
I had already learned a few tricks from starting up a closed list
in the fall, so this venture looked easy. I deciphered enough of
the Parisian handbook, with Bob Pfeiffer's help, to customize the
message that subscribers would receive. We made my personal VAX
account the "owner," so that the EJOURNAL@ALBNYVMS editorial
account wouldn't trip over itself in communicating with
EJRNL@ALBNYVM1 (the list). Bob told us to ship the mailing list
to him when we were ready, and he would install it himself. We
sent it over.
+ Page 107 +
Meanwhile, approving notes were arriving from the editorial
panel. We set to preparing the texts to accompany the journal's
departments: supplements, letters, and reviews. The idea of
supplements has to do with recantations, objections,
endorsements, or whatever might deserve to be appended to an
essay or article already published in EJournal. The supplement
seems like a reasonable compromise between the permanent, frozen
text of the printed medium, and the indeterminate, perpetually
adjusted "con-text of electronic polylog." (Thanks to MBU and, I
think, John Slatin, for that post-dialogic term.) Whether
supplements will replace letters of indignation or approbation we
can't predict. We imagine that a letters section will permit
debate while issues are still warm, but it may be that anything
slower than instant e-mail feedback will lag too long to suit the
network community.
Mindful of the mailbox-clog problem, we had decided to devote
each issue to one substantial essay. Also aware of the
importance of easy citation, but fretful about clutter and
conscious of the ways that techniques for electronic text-
searching have been developing, we decided to announce only the
number of lines in each section of the issue. Since an
electronic publication needn't wait for, or rush to meet, a
quarterly or monthly schedule, I decided to identify each issue
with a volume number, based on a calendar year, and an
accompanying (serial) issue number, along with the month and year
of actual publication. The March 1991 "edition" is Volume 1,
Issue 1.
6.2 The First Issue is Published
After the issue layout was prepared, text was copy-edited and
checked by the author, subscription information was tested for
comprehensibility as well as accuracy, and a dummy issue was sent
back and forth to verify arrival appearance, we were ready. It
was at this point we learned that we'd sent a bad mailing list to
be installed on the list server.
+ Page 108 +
In order to be all-electronic, we had put only the e-mail address
of the recent subscribers into our mailing list, not the users'
names. Because the list server requires a "real" name as well,
Bob Pfeiffer sent them back to us after he had arduously checked
out the validity of every address on our list. Ron made up some
"real names," I inserted some that I remembered. I dropped by
Bob's office to say that we were ready to send out EJournal 1.1.
He said he was leaving for a month's vacation that afternoon.
Flustered, I shipped over the updated list. He squeezed its
installation into his countdown schedule, and the first issue was
ready to go out that evening.
However, as I mentioned at the beginning, the ownership question
tripped me up; I couldn't broadcast to the list from the account
where the laid-out issue was sitting. Once again, an assumption
about how easy it would be was optimistic. Again, the fix turned
out to be easier than we deserved.
7.0 Conclusion
Released in April 1991, EJournal 1.1 seems to have been received
reasonably well. We have a small e-mail folder of
congratulations. No one has complained. Many more people have
subscribed than have asked to be dropped from the list. On the
other hand, we haven't been flooded with submissions or other
editorial correspondence.
At the beginning of this essay I promised "a rationalized
interpretation of the response" to the first issue. There isn't
much to interpret, but several matters have come into focus.
Essentially, I am increasingly aware of EJournal's precarious
position.
First, we have broken from several paper-based conventions, which
leaves us without much in the way of a conventional constituency.
At the same time, we don't yet know if networkers generally, even
those whose home base is in the humanities or social sciences,
are interested in a conveyance that is even a tiny bit slower
than lists, newsletters, and personal e-mail.
+ Page 109 +
Second, we are not a version of an existing print-oriented
journal. Nor do we represent a professional society or an
existing academic field. The number of subscribers, approaching
350, suggests that we may have a constituency, but the paucity of
submissions may imply that there are more observers of the
journal than participants in its mission. Or there may simply be
many more participants in network activities than there are
observers of its implications.
Third, there has been an inversion of difficulties. For two
years, it looked as if getting started would be hard. Thanks to
the support and sympathy of many wonderful people, though, that
has turned out to be relatively easy, although not speedy. The
hard part is going to be bootstrapping the reciprocal needs of
those writers and readers for whom the network itself, the
cyberspace matrix, constitutes a "field" to be explored.
Notes
1. To subscribe to EJournal, send the following message to
LISTSERV@ALBNYVM1: SUB EJRNL Subscriber's Name. Submissions
and all editorial correspondence should be addressed to our
"office": EJOURNAL@ALBNYVMS.
+ Page 110 +
About the Author
Edward M. Jennings
Department of English
State University of New York at Albany
Albany, NY 12222
EJOURNAL@ALBNYVMS
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal. It is sent free of charge to participants of the
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum (PACS-L), a computer
conference on BITNET. To join PACS-L, send an electronic mail
message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First
Name Last Name.
This article is Copyright (C) 1991 by Edward M. Jennings. All
Rights Reserved.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1991
by the University Libraries, University of Houston, University
Park. All Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computer
conferences, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are
authorized to add the journal to their collection, in electronic
or printed form, at no charge. This message must appear on all
copied material. All commercial use requires permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 128 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kovacs, Diane, Willard McCarty, and Michael Kovacs. "How to
Start and Manage a BITNET LISTSERV Discussion Group: A Beginner's
Guide." The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 2, no. 1
(1991): 128-143.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 Introduction
The following article only attempts to outline the major steps
you must take in establishing a LISTSERV discussion group. It
assumes that if you are in any doubt you will be able to obtain
help on demand from an expert in your local computer center or
from an experienced colleague. The expert may be called the
"postmaster," the "LISTSERV owner," or something similar. If you
are fortunate enough to find a helpful expert, cultivate him or
her. The discussion lists LSTOWN-L@INDYCMS and ARACHNET@UOTTAWA
are designed specifically to provide list owners with access to
LISTSERV experts and experienced list owners (see Appendix A).
The following also assumes that you will be in charge of the
group (i.e., you will both manage or supervise the daily
operations and be responsible for its success). LISTSERV groups,
particularly those that are moderated, require someone who is
attentive (if not devoted) to these operations and an adept
editor. Note that the mechanical and the intellectual tasks
required by an electronic discussion group cannot be cleanly
separated; the editor/owner should be willing and able to
undertake both.
Keep organizational matters as simple as possible, and as loose
as possible, at least until you have a sure grasp of what your
group is all about. As editor/owner, you will certainly have
influence, but much will be determined by the membership as a
whole. In electronic communications, "vox populi vox Dei" is as
good an initial motto as you can have. At the same time, total
license communicates lack of attention and concern, even lack of
wit. The experts, such as we have them, agree that a successful
group requires an active, though not dictatorial, editorial
persona.
+ Page 129 +
At some point, you may want to use your discussion list as a
distribution mode for an electronic journal, or you may decide to
edit your discussion to the extent that it is actually an
electronic journal. This option requires a serious time
commitment on your part and detailed knowledge of your local
mailer/editor software.
If the tasks presented below seem daunting, take courage from the
fact that many novices have gone before you and survived (like
the authors of this document) not only to tell the tale, but also
to recommend the journey to others with enthusiasm. Editing a
discussion group (or what one of us likes to call an "electronic
seminar") can be a highly fulfilling experience. Many of us
think that we are witnessing, and may influence, the development
of a new medium with considerable promise for all disciplines.
The newness of the medium provides many opportunities for the
exercise of the imagination.
Now for the practical matters.
2.0 The Steps to Start
Determine that there is a need for a discussion list in an area
you are interested in (see Appendix B). There are several
thousand discussion groups already established. One of them may
already be fulfilling the need that you perceive.
2.1 Determine Your Time Commitment
Decide that you can commit 20-30 hours per week for the first
week or two in list planning and set up. Determine that you can
commit two to eight hours per week for list maintenance
thereafter. Two hours per week is the minimum you will spend in
maintaining an unmoderated list. You can expect to spend as much
as eight hours per week maintaining an active edited list.
2.2 Learn About E-Mail and Editor Software
You will also need to be familiar with the mailer and editing
software of your personal e-mail account. You must commit
sufficient time to learning how your e-mail mailer/editor works.
+ Page 130 +
You can run a discussion list from almost any kind of
mainframe/operating system combination (e.g., VAX/VMS, UNIX,
IBM/VM/CMS, and IBM/MVS). However, there are problems unique to
using each system. The LISTSERV software runs only on IBM
mainframes running VM/CMS on the BITNET. If your e-mail account
is on the BITNET, simple familiarity with your mailer/editor is
sufficient. You will run your discussion list from your own e-
mail account in interaction with the LISTSERV software running on
an IBM machine. For other combinations consult with your
LISTSERV owner, LSTOWN-L, or ARACHNET colleagues.
2.3 Find a LISTSERV Site
Locate a computer site running LISTSERV software (see Appendix
C). Your own site, or one quite close to you, is highly
preferable. At the start, you will need to have many
conversations via e-mail, telephone, or in person with your
LISTSERV owner (the person responsible for maintaining the
LISTSERV you will be using).
2.4 Read the Documentation
Send the command INFO LISTSERV to the LISTSERV at that site.
Retrieve the documentation files and read them. This
documentation may not be easy to understand, but you will profit
from a broad familiarity with it (see Appendix D).
2.5 Subscribe to a List for List Owners/Editors
Consider subscribing to LSTOWN-L@INDYCMS (technical help for
owners of LISTSERV groups) and ARACHNET@UOTTAWA (editorial help
for owners/editors of LISTSERV groups and electronic serials),
which you may join before your group is actually in operation.
You may also want to join an active, well-run group, such as
HUNANIST@BROWNVM or PACS-L@UHUPVM1.
+ Page 131 +
2.6 Arrange to Use a LISTSERV
Contact the LISTSERV owner at the chosen site and ask permission
to use the software and disk space for archives and files. Many,
if not most, sites will give you the processing time and disk
space free of charge. Dependence on operating grants or being
subject to other forms of supervision is to be avoided if at all
possible.
If your site does not have LISTSERV, but does have an IBM
mainframe running VM/SP with a Columbia Mailer and it is
connected to the BITNET, then you may want to ask your computer
center to acquire the LISTSERV software. The software is
available from Eric Thomas (ERIC@SEARN), the author of the
package. While the software is free, your computer services will
need to commit a small amount of time and personnel for set up
and maintenance.
2.7 Set Up the List
You will need to decide on or articulate the following issues
related to setting up the list (see Appendix E for the parameters
used in setting up LISTSERV lists).
2.7.1 Name the Group
It is conventional to have all names end in "-L" (as in "Ethics-
L") to denote a list, but as many or more groups break with this
convention as hold to it. Time spent on choosing a good name is
time well spent. Be sure to check with your LISTSERV owner to
see if the name is already in use.
2.7.2 Determine the Purpose of the Group
It is a good idea to have a purpose in mind, although you should
be prepared to expand or modify your original intentions, as we
suggested above.
2.7.3 Identify Potential Members
For whom is the list designed? For some lists, potential members
will have to be sought (e.g., through notices in professional
journals or announcements at conferences).
+ Page 132 +
2.7.4 Choose the Subscription Method
Should members be able to subscribe themselves or be subscribed
only by you? Open subscription allows people to come and go
freely as they wish, without bothering you. Closed or "reviewed"
subscription allows you to decide whom to admit or, perhaps more
significantly, to ask potential members for information and to
have a reasonable chance of getting it. You might, for example,
ask for a statement of interests or professional biography, which
can then be circulated to the membership and so help forge a
community.
2.7.5 Set the Scope of Discussion
What kinds of questions and topics do you want to be entertained?
In general, it is far better to have the scope quite widely
defined, so as not to put many restrictions in place at the
beginning.
2.7.6 Decide Whether to Moderate the Group
Should the group be moderated or unmoderated? The role of the
moderator more or less combines the duties of editing a
newsletter or journal with leading a seminar. The advantages of
a moderated group are chiefly focus and coherence. These
benefits can be of prime importance in a very active group, but
moderation takes care and time. An unmoderated group is
completely subject to the vicissitudes of its members, but it
requires almost no attention once it has been established. If
your group has a very specific focus (such as a particular piece
of software) you will not feel the need of a moderator as keenly.
2.7.7 Regulate the Source of and Access to Messages
Do you want the group to be open to messages from non-
subscribers? Do you want non-subscribers to be able to read the
contributions from members of your group?
+ Page 133 +
2.7.8 Establish Services
Will your LISTSERV owner allow computer space to run a file
server? How will you use the file server, and to what extent?
If your group is to be primarily conversational, you may not need
the file server for anything other than the monthly logbooks
automatically kept by LISTSERV. If your group is primarily
concerned with distributing stable information, you will need a
sufficient allotment of storage space. Beware of offering your
members too much personal attention, as this can consume much of
your time.
2.7.9 Get Editorial Help
Do you want to set up an editorial board or its equivalent? Can
you get others to help you (e.g., assist in long-range editing
tasks)?
2.7.10 Write an Introductory Document
Write a brief instructional document to introduce new members to
your group. This document should contain a concise description
of the group based on the decisions you have made. It should
also provide elementary instructions on how to use LISTSERV
(e.g., to order files from the server). You may also want to
articulate your editorial policies. Even if the group is
unmoderated, you may have to intervene occasionally to guide
discussion around an offensive or otherwise difficult topic, and,
on such occasions, it is useful to have a statement of policy to
refer to. (ARACHNET provides examples of such documents.)
Distribution of the instructional document can be done
automatically by LISTSERV. Ask your LISTSERV owner to help you
alter the DEFAULT $MAILFORM so that instead of the standard "Your
subscription . . ." memo, the LISTSERV will distribute your
instructional document to each new subscriber as they subscribe.
Talk to your LISTSERV owner and experienced list owners to learn
what other functions can be automated.
+ Page 134 +
2.7.11 Establish Error Handling Procedures
Who will handle errors? Will your LISTSERV owner have time?
With the help of LSTOWN-L, it is possible for you to cope with
errors yourself. Error handling is discussed below.
2.8 Get the LISTSERV Owner to Set Up the List
Ask the LISTSERV owner to set up your list. Then you should test
it.
2.9 Announce the List
Send an announcement of your new list to NEW-LIST@NDSUVM1 and to
ARACHNET@UOTTAWA. If your group touches on computing in the
humanities and you wish it to attract general attention, you
should also send an announcement to HUMANIST@BROWNVM. If your
group is related to any other existing discussions you may want
to forward copies of your announcement to them.
3.0 Daily List Maintenance
The following briefly outlines what tasks you can expect to
perform. Of course, different styles of management lead to
different amounts and kinds of work. This work will be much
easier if you have a computer and modem at home, since by nature
it is easily done in bits and pieces during odd moments.
3.1 Monitoring Contributions
The unmoderated list will need monitoring for inappropriate
postings and network problems every other day or so. Although
you cannot recall an offensive posting that has already been
circulated, you can and should respond directly to anyone who
makes such a posting (posting directly to the list about such
problems is considered bad etiquette, unless it is a general
problem). A light touch is better than a heavy hand, but list
owners/editors must occasionally take decisive action.
+ Page 135 +
The moderated list may need attention daily, depending on the
amount of activity. Contributions may simply be passed on to
your LISTSERV software without modification, or you can use
digesting and other software to clean up messages (e.g., to
remove verbose message-headers) and to package messages loosely
by subject. Digesting and other helpful software can be obtained
from colleagues, such as those on ARACHNET.
Depending on how your list is set up, you may need to monitor and
respond to requests for subscription and to distribute the
introductory document to new members. These tasks may be done
every other day or so.
3.2 Dealing with Errors
You will need to monitor and respond to errors arising from
addressing problems and misbehaving software. There are three
kinds of errors: (a) for "reviewed" subscriptions, errors you
make when you give LISTSERV the addresses of new members; (b) for
subscriptions made by members themselves (e.g., illegal node ID's
sent by software at the user's site); and (c) for other sorts of
network failures.
Whatever the cause, an incorrect address will usually be rejected
by network software (rather than simply dropped), and the
offending message will be returned (usually to you, the list
owner). In the beginning, you will doubtless need help from a
network expert. The worst consequence of such errors is a
"network loop," in which messages are echoed back and forth
between LISTSERV and mail software elsewhere on the network. As
a result, members can get deluged by junk mail rather quickly.
Note that loops and other causes of junk mail are much less
likely in moderated groups, since the editor is always there to
act as a filter. Loops can still occur in a moderated group
because of local mailer problems, in which case your subscribers
will need to talk with their local computer services people.
+ Page 136 +
4.0 Conclusion
Even as we write, new uses for computer mediated communications
are being developed. The possibilities are only limited by the
imagination and confidence of the people who use the machines.
The LISTSERV software provides the opportunity for motivated and
enthusiastic people with minimal technical skills to imagine and
create new vehicles for communication.
Appendix A. Useful E-Mail Addresses
ERIC@SEARN--Eric Thomas, the author of the LISTSERV software.
NEW-LIST@NDSUVM1--A list for the announcement of new lists.
LSTOWN-L@INDYCMS--A list for the sharing of information between
LISTSERV list owners.
HELP-NET@TEMPLEVM--A list for the discussion of common e-mail
problems.
ARACHNET@UOTTAWA--A list for owners of academic discussion lists
and editors of electronic serials.
Appendix B. How to Obtain a List of Discussion Lists
To obtain a list of all BITNET LISTSERV lists with a short
description of each list, send the command "LIST GLOBAL" to any
LISTSERV address (e.g., LISTSERV@BITNIC).
To obtain the "List of Lists" (a comprehensive list of discussion
lists that are available on the BITNET, Internet, and UUCPnet),
first and foremost, be sure that you have sufficient disk space
on the computer account that you will be requesting it from since
the list requires approximately a megabyte of space! To have the
parts of the file sent to you (it is broken into 11 parts to
facilitate sending it over the BITNET), send a message or mail to
LISTSERV@NDSUVM1 with the command "GET INTEREST PACKAGE NEW-
LIST."
+ Page 137 +
Appendix C. How to Locate a LISTSERV Site
Copy the following text and send it to LISTSERV@PSUVM (or NDSUVM,
KENTVM, or another LISTSERV site with the PEERS database). Leave
the subject line blank. Substitute your state for the word
"State" in the search.
//
Database Search DD=Rules
//Rules DD *
Search State in Peers
sendback print all
/*
You will be sent a file called DATABASE OUTPUT. This file will
contain information on all the sites running LISTSERV software in
the state you searched with. This information will include the
name and e-mail address of the person responsible for the
LISTSERV.
If your state yields no results, try adjacent states.
It is also possible to search the PEERS (or other) Database
interactively. To obtain the LDBASE software which will allow
interactive searching issue the following commands.
For VM/SP CMS systems:
TELL LISTSERV AT node GET LDBASE EXEC
TELL LISTSERV AT node GET LSVIUCV MODULE
The command to start the user interface is simply "LDBASE" to
access your "home" server, or "LDBASE node" to access the
LISTSERV server at another node.
For VAX/VMS systems:
SEND LISTSERV@node GET LDBASE COM
+ Page 138 +
The command to start the user interface is "@LDBASE." This will
install the required files in your directory and display more
detailed instructions about the program.
Other systems may not presently access the database in
interactive mode.
The Exec is self-documented, and it will ask you for the user ID
and node ID of the server you wish to access, after which it will
try to establish a network connection to that server's database.
This may fail if a line is down or if interactive database access
has been disabled at the installation you are trying to reach.
Appendix D. Some Useful LISTSERV Documentation
To get any of the files described below, send the command "INFO
topic" to any LISTSERV, where "topic" is the word in the Topic
column of Table 1 below.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1. INFO Topics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Topic Filename/Filetype Description
PResent (LISTPRES MEMO) Presentation of LISTSERV for new
users
GENintro (LISTSERV MEMO) General information about Revised
LISTSERV
REFcard (LISTSERV REFCARD) Command reference card
KEYwords (LISTKEYW MEMO) Description of list header keywords
FILEs (LISTFILE MEMO) Description of the file-server
functions
COORDinat (LISTCOOR MEMO) Information about LISTSERV
Coordination
DATABASE (LISTDB MEMO) Description of the database
functions
----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 139 +
Appendix E. Some LISTSERV List Options
The characteristics of a LISTSERV list are set in the LIST file
(e.g., the file for GOVDOC-L is GOVDOC-L LIST). The options
available are described in the KEYWORDS memo available from any
LISTSERV (see Appendix D). Some options mentioned in this
article are described below.
Sender=[Public,Editor]
If "Sender=Editor," all mail sent to the list address will be
forwarded to the person addressed in the Editor field, who can
then forward the mail back to the list if the posting meets
approval.
Editor=[e-mail address of editor]
If "Sender=Editor," this field is required. Only mail sent from
this address will be posted to the list. All other mail sent to
the list address will be forwarded to this address.
Subscription=[By_owner,Open,Closed]
If "Sub=By_owner," all subscription requests will be forwarded to
the first address in the "Owner=" field (and the attempted
subscriber will be so notified). If "Sub=Public," anyone will be
able to subscribe to the list. If "Sub=Closed," no one will be
able to subscribe to the list, though any of the list owners will
be able to add new subscribers.
+ Page 140 +
Ack=[Yes,No,Msg]
Defines the default value of the "Ack/NoAck" distribution option
for new subscribers. Subscribers will still be able to change
the option with the SET command. If "Ack=Yes," messages will be
sent when the user's mail file is being processed. Additionally,
a short acknowledgment with statistical information on the
mailing will be sent. This is the default. If "Ack=Msg,"
messages will be sent when the user's mail file is being
processed. Statistical information will also be sent via
messages, but no acknowledgment mail will be sent. If "Ack=No,"
a single message, but no acknowledgment mail nor statistics will
be sent when your mail file is being processed.
Errors-To=[Postmaster,Owner,e-mail address]
Defines the person or list of persons that are to receive
rejected mail for the list. The default value is "Postmaster,"
and it is recommended that the owners change it to "Owners" or
"Owners,Postmaster" as soon as they become familiar with LISTSERV
and the different types of e-mail errors.
Default-options=Repro
Putting this field in defines the default value of the
Repro/NoRepro distribution option of your list to "Repro." This
has the effect that anyone posting a note to your list will
receive a copy of their note. The normal default ("NoRepro")
means that a poster only receives a message acknowledging receipt
of his/her posting.
+ Page 141 +
Recommended Readings
Fuchs, Ira. "Research Networks and Acceptable Use." EDUCOM
Bulletin 23 (Summer/Fall 1988): 43-48.
Heim, Michael. "Humanistic Discussion and the Online
Conference." Philosophy Today 30 (Winter 1986): 278-88.
Hiltz, Starr Roxanne. Online Communities: A Case Study of the
Office of the Future. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp. 1984.
Katzen, May. "The Impact of New Technologies on Scholarly
Communication." In Multi-Media Communications, ed. May Katzen,
16-50. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1982.
Kerr, Elaine B. "Electronic Leadership: A Guide to Moderating
Online Conferences." IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication PC 29, no. 1 (1986): 12-18.
Kovacs, Diane K. "GovDoc-L: An Online Intellectual Community of
Documents Librarians and Other Individuals Concerned with Access
to Government Information." Government Publications Review 17
(September/October 1990): 411-420.
Landweber, Lawrence H., Dennis M. Jennings, and Ira Fuchs.
"Research Computer Networks and Their Interconnection." IEEE
Communications Magazine 24, no. 6 (1986): 5-17.
Mackay, Wendy E. "Diversity in the Use of Electronic Mail: A
Preliminary Inquiry." ACM Transactions on Office Information
Systems 6, no. 4 (1988): 380-397.
Pfaffenberger, Bryan. "Research Networks, Scientific
Communication, and the Personal Computer." IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication PC 29, no. 1 (1986): 30-33.
+ Page 142 +
Quarterman, John S. The Matrix: Computer Networks and
Conferencing Systems Worldwide. Bedford, MA: Digital Press,
1990.
Rafaeli,Sheizaf. "The Electronic Bulletin Board: A Computer-
Driven Mass Medium." Computers and the Social Sciences 2, no. 3
(1986): 123-36.
Rice, Ronald E. and Donald Case. "Electronic Message Systems in
the University: A Description of Use and Utility." Journal of
Communication 33, no. 1 (1983): 131-152.
Richardson, John. "The Limitations to Electronic Communication
in the Research Community." Paper delivered at the Information
Technology and the Research Process Conference, Cranfield, UK,
July 1989.
Spitzer, Michael. "Writing Style in Computer Conferences."
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication PC 29, no. 1
(1986): 19-22.
Sproull, Lee and Sara Kiesler. "Reducing Social Context Cues:
Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication." Management
Science 32 (November 1986): 1492-512.
Steinfield, Charles W. "Computer-Mediated Communication
Systems." Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
21 (1986): 167-202.
Turoff, Murray. "Structuring Computer-Mediated Communication
Systems to Avoid Information Overload." Communications of the
ACM 28 (1985): 680-689.
Updegrove, Daniel. "Electronic Mail and Networks: New Tools for
University Administrators." Cause/Effect 13 (Spring 1990):
41-48. [Available by e-mail from LISTSERV@BITNIC with the
command: GET EMAILNET UPDEGR-D.]
+ Page 143 +
About the Authors
Diane K. Kovacs
Humanities Reference Librarian
Kent State University Libraries
Kent, Ohio 44242
DKOVACS@KENTVM
DKOVACS@KENTVM.KENT.EDU
Michael J. Kovacs
Technical Advisor, GOVDOC-L, LIBREF-L, and LIBRES
781 S. Lincoln Street
Kent, Ohio 44240
LIBRK420@KENTVMS
LIBRK420@KSUVXA.KENT.EDU
Willard McCarty
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
University of Toronto
Robarts Library
130 St. George Street
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A5
Canada
EDITOR@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal. It is sent free of charge to participants of the
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum (PACS-L), a computer
conference on BITNET. To join PACS-L, send an electronic mail
message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First
Name Last Name.
This article is Copyright (C) 1991 by Diane Kovacs, Willard
McCarty, and Michael Kovacs. All Rights Reserved.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1991
by the University Libraries, University of Houston, University
Park. All Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computer
conferences, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are
authorized to add the journal to their collection, in electronic
or printed form, at no charge. This message must appear on all
copied material. All commercial use requires permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 171 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 2, no. 1 (1991):
171-176.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorcan Dempsey. Libraries, Networks and OSI: A Review,
with a Report on North American Developments. Bath, U.K.:
Library, University of Bath, 1991. ISBN 0-9516856-0-0. $60.
Reviewed by Clifford A. Lynch.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorcan Dempsey made a study trip to North America in May 1990 as
part of a British-Library-funded study of library networking
(i.e., use of computer networks by libraries) in North America.
Based on this trip, as well as on extensive literature research
and follow-on electronic mail and phone discussions, he prepared
the report reviewed here. The prospective reader should
understand that this book is in fact a published report. Some
sections assume considerable familiarity with the subject matter;
extensive quotations from the literature are included. Some
sections are quite detailed and discuss work in progress (and
some of this material will date quickly). Sometimes, the
coverage is a bit encyclopedic, which makes for slightly tedious
reading, but such detail is necessary in a comprehensive report.
The book opens with a brief discussion of the computer networking
context in both the U.S. and the U.K. and its implications for
library service. The perspective is practical and
service-oriented.
Chapter 2 is a brief (25 page), very readable overview of OSI.
Again, practical issues and real developments are emphasized,
rather than theory or religious positions. TCP/IP is also
briefly discussed, along with some TCP/IP-OSI interoperability
considerations. There is some blunt discussion of the extent to
which OSI can be expected to guarantee interoperability among
systems, and of important issues such as registration,
application interoperability profiles, and conformance testing.
Dempsey supports his arguments with well-researched facts and
statistics, and the concluding sections of this chapter, on the
future of OSI, offer one of the most realistic assessments of the
future I have seen in the library-related OSI literature.
+ Page 172 +
The exploration of OSI is continued in Chapter 3, where
discussion shifts from the overall OSI architecture and its
acceptance to specific protocols for messaging (X.400),
directories (X.500), file transfer (FTAM), and remote login
(VTP). It is an excellent survey that links these sometimes
abstract topics to real activities in the library world. Readers
unfamiliar with these protocols will find this chapter a good
introduction. Coverage, however, emphasizes Canadian
developments, and it is weaker on some of the present U.S. work
to integrate X.400 and X.500 technology into the existing
Internet infrastructure. There is little mention of parallel
protocols in use in the TCP/IP world.
Chapter 4 covers the Linked Systems Project, the National
Coordinated Cataloging projects, and related topics. This brief,
even-handed review emphasizes the technical rather than political
dimensions of LSP. The U.K. view of the project and of the role
of the Library of Congress in the library community is
particularly interesting.
Chapter 5 covers the Interlibrary Loan (ILL) Protocol (ISO
10160/10161), the National Library of Canada, and the Canadian
vision of networked libraries. The National Library of Canada
has been a very strong supporter of OSI and did much of the work
on the ILL protocol. The view of the world implicit in this work
is quite different from the U.S. vision (which is not much
discussed in this chapter). U.S. readers will find this chapter
uninteresting (irrelevant) . . . or provocative.
Chapter 6 covers Search and Retrieve (SR, ISO 10162/10163, better
known to many in the U.S. as Z39.50), which is the U.S. National
Standard version of SR and includes some extensions not yet in
the international standard. The chapter explains the functioning
of the protocol in general terms, places it in perspective, and
surveys some of the implementations currently underway. There is
some interesting assessment of the impact of Z39.50 in the U.S.,
Canada, and the U.K.
+ Page 173 +
Chapter 7 deals with libraries and the research networks (e.g.,
Internet, NREN, and BITNET). Dempsey covers the political
history of the NREN movement, use of LISTSERV technology in
libraries, and briefly discusses network-based publishing,
government data on the network, resource guides, the digital
library system proposal of Kahn and Cerf ("knowbots"), and the
activities of the Coalition for Networked Information. Again,
the comparisons Dempsey draws to U.K. activities are very
interesting.
Local systems--online catalogs, access to journal literature,
electronic information acquisition, and related matters--are
explored in Chapter 8. The points of the chapter are illustrated
by several case studies, including projects at Carnegie-Mellon
University and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Much of this
chapter simply sets the stage for the following chapter,
"Networks and Resource Sharing," by providing a picture of the
changing library services visible to the patron. I feel that
this chapter only weakly illustrates some of the budgetary
pressures and institutional planning issues driving many of the
developments under discussion.
Chapter 9 gives OCLC, RLIN, ILLINET Online, the Ohio Library and
Information System (OLIS) (currently in the planning stages), the
MELVYL system, CARL, and Irving as examples of systems serving
groups of libraries, and discusses some developments in Canada.
The focus in this chapter is on current systems and near-term
developments, not on possible longer-term activities such as site
licenses for electronic journals. While interesting, the
material does not seem to be connected to the rest of the report
as well as it might have been.
The report ends abruptly at this point; perhaps that is its great
flaw. As a reader, I want some overall conclusions and general
comments, giving Dempsey's view on the differences between the
U.S. and U.K. and on where he thinks the projects he has
described will succeed or fail. The absence of such a concluding
section is a great disappointment.
+ Page 174 +
To be sure, this report has some limitations. It provides little
coverage of the issues concerning fee-for-service information
providers or publishers. It tends to look only at the near-term
future, and it does not consider more radical shifts that might
take place later in the 1990's. The reader will not find
"science-fiction" here about virtual reality, multimedia network
documents that talk to each other, or intelligent agents.
Dempsey is not an electronic network evangelist. While he
produces an even treatment of many topics, his report does not
recognize the powerful social forces at work within the computer
networking "community" which are adding fuel to many of the
developments he describes.
The role of public libraries receives minimal coverage. There is
a discussion of Cleveland Free-Net, for example, but more depth
and more coverage of the policy issues here would provide a
complete picture. The relationships between network information
and scientific research are not really explored. Finally, there
are a few projects that should have been mentioned and seem to be
overlooked, such as the work of the Memex Institute.
Although I disagree with some of Dempsey's conclusions, he is
very careful to separate fact from opinion. I believe his facts
are generally very accurate, which is a considerable achievement
in an environment changing so fast and in which the literature is
so spotty and occasionally contradictory. Dempsey supports his
opinions so well, that despite our differences in opinions, I
find his perspective stimulating and thought-provoking and very
valuable. I can recognize that his "outsider's" dispassionate
viewpoint offers important perspectives that we might not want to
hear, but that we need to consider anyway.
This is a wonderful book that we should thank Dempsey for writing
and the British Library for supporting. (I do find myself
thinking, parochially, that it is strange that the first real
book on these topics has been written from a European perspective
and underwritten by the British Library. The topics covered are
terribly important to the library, information science, and
networking communities. Why hasn't this type of book been
written from a U.S. perspective?)
+ Page 175 +
This volume collects and synthesizes a tremendous amount of
information that has not appeared previously in any coherent
form. Simply providing this report for North America would have
been a great contribution, but Dempsey goes much further,
providing analysis and comparison between North American and
European attitudes and plans, which enriches the work with a new
set of insights.
Although it is not intended as a textbook, this would be a superb
text (perhaps supplemented by some journal articles) for the
classes studying the impact and implications of computer networks
and network information resources on libraries, which all library
schools should be planning for their curricula. The book
includes an extensive, very current bibliography, a summary of
relevant standards, and a good acronym list. It would be a
provocative point of departure for any number of classroom
discussions.
Library administrators and library technology planners should
read this book, as should those concerned with information
technology planning in universities. Library school students
(and faculty!) should read it. Those concerned with national
networking policy should read it. It should be equally important
to the computer networking community as a survey of the
development of the role of libraries in computer networks and the
evolving national information infrastructure, and I hope that
members of this community will also read it.
+ Page 176 +
About the Author
Clifford A. Lynch
Director, Division of Library Automation
University of California Office of the President
300 Lakeside Drive, 8th floor
Oakland, California 94612-3550
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal. It is sent free of charge to participants of the
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum (PACS-L), a computer
conference on BITNET. To join PACS-L, send an electronic mail
message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First
Name Last Name.
This article is Copyright (C) 1991 by Clifford A. Lynch. All
Rights Reserved.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1991
by the University Libraries, University of Houston, University
Park. All Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computer
conferences, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are
authorized to add the journal to their collection, in electronic
or printed form, at no charge. This message must appear on all
copied material. All commercial use requires permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 5 +
----------------------------------------------------------------
Okerson, Ann. "The Electronic Journal: What, Whence, and
When?" The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 2, no. 1
(1991): 5-24.
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
This paper is based on a presentation given at the OCLC Users
Council Annual Meeting in February 1991.
----------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 Introduction
A quick scan of topics of recent library, networking,
professional, and societal meetings leads to the inevitable
conclusion that electronic publishing is the "Debutante of the
Year." Supporting technologies have matured and present their
dance cards to eager potential suitors: publishers and content
creators. The newest entrant to the glittering ballroom is
academic discourse and writing, suddenly highly susceptible to
the nubile charms of the ripening medium. The season's opening
features the youthful search for the future of the scholarly
journal.
By "journal," I mean the scholarly journal. The scholarly
journal mainly communicates the work of scholars, academics, and
researchers, and it contributes to the development of ideas that
form the "body of knowledge." By "electronic journal," I
generally mean one delivered via networks, although those locally
owned through a static electronic format such as CD-ROM are not
specifically excluded.
This paper overviews several critical questions about the
electronic journal. What is it? What is its appeal? Where will
it come from? At what rate will it appear? When will it be
accepted? It suggests that for the first time in over 200 years
the paper scholarly journal can be supplanted or, at least,
supplemented in a significant way by another medium, and this may
lead to a new type of scholarly discourse.
+ Page 6 +
At the outset, consider a historical parallel for today's
scholarly information concerns. In an article of fall 1990,
Edward Tenner, an executive editor at Princeton University Press,
describes information stresses of the last century [1]. Between
1850 and 1875, the number of U.S. library collections with more
than 25,000 volumes increased from nine to one hundred, and the
number of libraries with more than 100,000 volumes grew
infinitely from zero to ten. This unprecedented growth occurred
during the time of a technologically advanced tool--the printed
book catalog. The printed book catalog was indisputably an
advance on the handwritten one. Nonetheless, the printed book
catalog became grossly inadequate to cope with ever-plentiful
scholarly output.
Although we view information management as a serious academic
concern today, the perception that knowledge is increasing far
more rapidly than our ability to organize it effectively and make
it available is a timeless issue for scholarship and libraries.
In the 1850's, Harvard pioneered the solution to the book catalog
problem by establishing a public card catalog. In 1877, ALA
adopted the present 75 x 125 mm standard for the catalog card.
Despite Dewey's anger about its shift to non-metric 3" x 5" size,
the card changed the entire face of bibliographic information,
from the bounded (and bound), finite book catalog to the far more
user-responsive, open, adaptable, organic--and exceedingly
convenient--individual entry. Even then, libraries were
technological innovators.
The Library Bureau was established in 1876 to supply equipment to
librarians, and even eager commercial customers lined up. In the
late 1880's, the secretary of the Holstein-Friesian Association
of America in Iowa City wrote to the Bureau that he had first
seen a card system in the Iowa State University Library in 1882
and had applied the idea to 40,000 animals in the
Holstein-Friesian Herd Book. "We are now using," he
enthusiastically exulted, "about 10,000 new cards per year, which
henceforth must double every two years." Mr. Tenner points out
that here was a cattle-log in its truest sense! After I related
this story to a group of librarians, a collections librarian from
Iowa State announced that the Holstein-Friesian Herd Book still
exists at the University library; it is in electronic form!
+ Page 7 +
The story effectively reminds us--again--how quickly users want
the latest information. Whether of books or cows, a catalog
printed every year or so would not do, even 100 years ago. The
unit card improved access by an order of magnitude, and online
catalogs today list a book as quickly as it is cataloged, often
prior to its publication. The book, or at least knowledge of its
existence, becomes accessible instantaneously.
One hundred years ago, perhaps even 20 years ago, articles were
published in journals because journals were the quickest means of
disseminating new ideas and findings. The information
"explosion" teamed with today's journal distribution conventions
mandates that the printed article can take as long, or longer,
than a monograph to reach the reader. As articles queue for peer
review, editing, and publication in the journal "package,"
distribution delays of months are the norm. One- to two-year
delays are not unusual. Under half a year is "fast track."
Meanwhile, as scholars demand the latest ideas, more and more
papers are distributed in advance of "normal" publication outlets
through informal "colleges"--distribution lists of colleagues and
friends.
The archival work of record is currently the paper one. The
printed journal is important because it has established a
subscriber tradition that reaches far outside the preprint crowd.
Since libraries subscribe to journals, they potentially reach any
interested reader and respondent. The scholarly journal's
familiar subscription distribution mechanism and built-in quality
filters (refereeing and editing) have also made its articles the
principal measure of research productivity. By publishing
critiqued ideas, authors not only distribute their work, they
also leverage this printed currency into the tangible
remunerations of job security and advancement.
+ Page 8 +
Nonetheless, by the time of formal print publication, the ideas
themselves have circulated a comparatively long time. Given
researchers' information expectations and the perception that
high-speed distribution is possible (and indeed already happens),
alternative, rapid means of sharing information will assuredly
displace the print journal as the sole icon or sacrament of
scholarly communication. The front-runner is distribution via
the electronic networks, such as BITNET and Internet, that
already link many campuses, laboratories, and research agencies.
For already established journal titles, advance descriptions of
articles will routinely become available (like cataloguing copy),
followed closely by prepublication delivery of the articles
themselves. The success of such a program will eventually alter
the fundamental characteristics of the paper journal. These
changes are already beginning.
At the heart of Mr. Tenner's story is the breaking down of the
catalog into its component parts, paralleled 100 years later in
the potential for unbundling the journal into its flexible
component parts--articles--that can be delivered singly or in
desired recombinations. Of course, the indexing and abstracting
services began this process long ago. After World War II,
photocopying made it practical to reproduce single articles.
Now, rapid electronic technologies will accelerate unbundling.
Soon the article (or idea) unit will supplant the publisher
prepackaged journal. Like the book catalog, it will be perceived
as a lovable but unwieldy dinosaur.
Like the records cast loose from book catalogs, articles will
need fuller and more unified subject description and
classification to make it possible to pull diverse ideas
together. These are urgent needs that reflect some of the most
serious problems of the journal literature: (1) inadequate,
inconsistent description of articles; and (2) the failure of the
present secondary sources to cross-index disciplines, even as
they duplicate title coverage.
+ Page 9 +
2.0 Two Visions of the Electronic Journal
One view of the electronic journal, a conservative view, is based
on today's journal stored as electronic impulses. This
electronic journal parallels and mimics the current paper journal
format, except that it may be article- rather than issue-based.
Because it is delivered via electronic networks, it is quick,
transmitted the moment it is written, reviewed, and polished.
Able to appear at a precise location, it is a key component of
the scholar's "virtual library." Where the subscriber does not
seek a paper copy, the electronic journal saves the costs of
paper printing and mailing. Its paper-saving characteristics
could eventually relieve the "serials crisis" which is
characterized by libraries' inability to repurchase institutional
research results because of the learned journals' skyrocketing
subscription prices. Of course, early experience with electronic
equivalents of paper information loudly and clearly proclaims
that the moment information becomes mobile, rather than static,
this transformation fundamentally alters the way in which
information is used, shared, and eventually created. Changing
the medium of journal distribution, even with so modest,
cautious, and imitative a vision, carries unpredictable
consequences.
Visionaries and electronic seers ("skywriters" such as
Psycoloquy's co-editor Stevan Harnad [2]) find mere electronic
substitution for paper archiving a timid, puny view of the
e-journal. In their dreams and experiments, the idea is
sprouted precisely when it is ready, critiqued via the "Net," and
put out immediately for wide examination or "open peer
commentary." Ideas that might have been stillborn in paper come
alive as other scholars respond with alacrity and collaborate to
improve knowledge systems.
Such a revolutionary e-journal concept offers the potential to
re-think the informal and formal systems of scholarly
communication, and alter them in ways that are most effective and
comfortable for specific disciplines and individuals, utilizing
electronic conversations, squibbs, mega-journals, consensus
journals, and models not yet dreamt of. Diverse forms of
academic currency co-exist, and fewer writings are considered the
"last word" on any subject.
+ Page 10 +
The visionaries' e-journal is comfortable intermedia; it opens
windows onto ideas attached as supplementary files, footnotes,
sound, and visual matter. Writing is not confined to any place
or time or group. Paper distribution either takes place
secondarily or does not happen at all. In short, an increasing
numbers of scholars imagine the whole process of scholarly
communication undergoing dramatic change, becoming instant,
global, interactive [3].
Not surprisingly, some academic editors believe that electronic
publishers ought to begin with a more "conventional" publication
strategy, which is likely over time to transform the scholarly
communications system. Charles Bailey of the Public-Access
Computer Systems (PACS) group of electronic publications as well
as Eyal Amiran and John Unsworth of the Postmodern Culture group
share this vision.
3.0 Rivaling the Scholarly Paper Journal
In existence for over 200 years, the paper journal has been given
the imprimatur and loyalty of the best scholars as authors and
editors. Continually expanding, it has resisted all attempts to
supplement it,
let alone supplant it. For a very nice discussion
of the largely unsuccessful projects that were targeted at a new
format or type of journal, see Anne Piternick's article in
Journal of Academic Librarianship [4]. For a detailed review of
electronic journal literature and a comprehensive bibliography
through about 1988, Michael Gabriel provides an excellent
overview [5]. Early electronic publishing proposals long precede
the Chronicle editorials by Dougherty [6] (we should marry the
technological capabilities of university computers and
university-sponsored research into a coherent system) and Rogers
and Hurt [7] (the packaged, printed journal is obsolete as a
vehicle of scholarly communication) with which librarians are so
familiar. They were developed in the 1970's in the information
science literature.
Early experiments fundamentally failed because they were
externally imposed, scholars were disinterested in writing for
electronic media, and they were unwilling to read it. They were
probably unwilling because of lack of pervasive equipment,
learned electronic skills, and critical mass. But today, there
are some thirty networked electronic journals, of which about
eight are refereed or lightly refereed, and there are probably at
least sixty networked electronic newsletters [8].
+ Page 11 +
Since the publication of Gabriel's book, the literature on
electronic, network-based communication has mushroomed. The most
comprehensive and highly readable report about what needs to be
done (in areas of technology, standards, economics, and social
acceptance) before the networked journal can become a genuine
option has been issued in draft form as an Office of Technology
Assessment Report by Clifford Lynch [9]. While exhortation and
skepticism about electronic publishing continue in the
conventional journal literature and have spawned at least one
scholarly paper journal of its own (Wiley's Electronic
Publishing) some of the best work and discussion is now, not
surprisingly, online, through various lists and bulletin boards
of editors and scholars interested in the future of scholarly
communication.
Even where articles on electronic publishing are headed for the
paper track, authors may make them available electronically
either in advance of publication or as an adjunct to
print publication. For example, a thoughtful essay by
psychologist William Gardner recently appeared in Psychological
Science [10]. Gardner views the electronic literature and
archive as more than a database; it is a single organization run
by scientists and applied researchers, who adapt the environment
to meet the needs of its users. His piece is noteworthy in part
because readers debated it on the Net months before it was
published in a print journal.
4.0 Who Will Publish Electronic Journals?
Four possible sources of electronic journals currently exist.
The list is very simple in that, for reasons of time as much as
experience, it does not detail the specific--and not
inconsiderable problems--connected with the options. However,
Lynch and others have provided this type of critique.
+ Page 12 +
4.1 Existing Publishers
Upon reflection, it appears that the majority of networked
electronic journals could originate with existing journal
publishers. Most journals, at least in the Western world, become
machine-readable at some point in the publishing process. For
these journals, some recent electronic archives already exist. A
number of scholarly publishers are experimenting with networking
options. In the commercial arena, publishers such as Elsevier,
John Wiley, and Pergamon are discussing--perhaps
implementing--pilot projects. Scientific societies such as the
American Chemical Society, the American Mathematical Society, and
the American Psychological Association are pursuing development
of electronic journals.
At the same time, vexing issues--uncertainty about charging
models, fear of unpoliced copying resulting in revenue loss,
questions about ownership, lack of standardization, inability to
deliver or receive non-text, and user unfriendliness or
acceptance--work off each other to create a chicken-and-egg
situation that keeps electronic conversion careful and slow. And
tensions abound. For example, some say one can place tollbooths
every inch of the electronic highway and charge for each use;
others say that at last the time has come to emancipate ideas
from the bondage of profit.
Nonetheless, solutions are underway by systems designers,
publishers, and standards organizations. For example, by
mid-decade there will assuredly be a reliable, affordable way to
reproduce and receive non-text; technology specialists assert
that "the technology is there." Non-technical (economic and
social) issues are the ones that will slow network acceptance.
As systems and standards develop, publishers will evolve
transitional pricing models that maintain profit levels. As a
consequence, publishers will offer the same article arrayed in
different clothing or packaging: paper journal collection,
single-article delivery, compendia of articles from several
journals, collections-to-profile, publications-on-demand, and
networked delivery to research facilities and institutions.
Parallel CD-ROM versions of a number of scholarly titles are
already becoming widely available.
+ Page 13 +
This flexible parallel publication activity will have major side
effects. Academic publishers (both commercial and
not-for-profit) unable to deliver electronically will be left
behind as personal user revenue grows. Paper subscription
revenues from Third World countries will not be enough to sustain
an academic publisher.
The term "subscription" will be replaced. At present, it is
currently used for a product that a reader or library buys and
owns. It also will come to represent--indeed, already has with
CD-ROM's--something which the purchaser does not own at all, but
has the right to use. Subscriptions may gradually be replaced by
licenses. The multi-site license will be applied not only to
electronic publications, but also to paper subscriptions that are
shared among institutions. Licenses are intended to compensate
the publisher for the potentially broad and possibly
undisciplined electronic copying of scholarly materials which
could violate the "fair use" provisions of the Copyright Act.
Unless libraries are prepared to pay the high differential prices
currently charged for CD-ROM's and locally mounted databases, the
language of such licenses will be increasingly important, as will
good library negotiators and lawyers.
Publishers assert that in the early days of parallel systems,
whatever the ultimate storage and distribution method of
networked journals might be, the price of information will be
higher than ever. After research and development costs are
stabilized and the print and electronic markets settle, who knows
what pricing structures will prevail? There will probably be an
enormous, unregulated range of fees. For instance, it is
conceivable that, like older movies rented for a dollar at a
video outlet, older science works will become cheap, and new
works, very much in demand, will be expensive.
Just as libraries found retrospective conversion to machine-
readable records to be a lengthy and expensive process,
publishers will find retrospective conversion of full-text
information to be costly, and it will not happen quickly, even if
library customers demand electronic documents. Retrospective
conversion will be a non-commercial activity, which will be a
joint venture between publishers and optical scanning conversion
services or the sole domain of conversion services.
+ Page 14 +
Currently, some publishers are experimenting with converting back
files into electronic form, mostly in collaboration with
universities or libraries. For example, Cornell, the American
Chemical Society, Bellcore, and OCLC are experimenting with
scanning ten years' worth of twenty ACS journals. The National
Agricultural Library has negotiated agreements with a handful of
society and university publishers for the optical scanning of
agricultural titles. Public domain work will be scanned and
converted first.
While today's electronic articles from mainstream publishers are
almost incidental or accidental and are not intended by
publishers to replace the products which comprise their daily
bread, they are opportunities for electronic experimentation,
market exploration, and, possibly, supplementary income.
4.2 Intermediaries
A number of intermediary organizations have negotiated copyright
agreements with publishers and are well positioned to deliver
their output to customers. Some of these organizations include
indexing and abstracting services such as the Institute for
Scientific Information (ISI) and the American Chemical Society.
The Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries (CARL) promises
document delivery in the near future as an extension of its
UnCover table of contents database service. This fall, the Faxon
Company, a major paper journal subscription agency, intends to
initiate an article delivery service. University Microfilms
International (UMI) clearly has copyright clearance for thousands
of journals to redistribute them in microform format; electronic
distribution is only a step behind. Other efforts include
full-text files available on BRS, Dialog, and IAC; the AIDS
library of Maxwell Electronic Communications; and the
Massachusetts Medical Society CD-ROM.
It is not entirely clear why publishers, when they become fully
automated and networked, would desire some of these intervening
or even competitive services, although the networks will breed
many other kinds of value-added opportunities. Rights and
contracts will be critical in this area. The current pattern
appears to be that publishers will assign rights in return for
royalties to almost any reputable intermediary that makes a
reasonable offer.
+ Page 15 +
General hearsay suggests that large telecommunications firms
(e.g., the regional phone companies and MCI) might wish to become
information intermediaries or even content owners (i.e.,
publishers), and rumors abound about Japanese companies making
serious forays in this arena.
4.3 Innovative Researchers and Scholars
In this category, I include the trailblazers who publish the
handful of refereed or lightly-refereed electronic-only journals
which currently exist or are planned. They are editors of
publications such as the Electronic Journal of Communication
(University of Windsor), EJournal (SUNY Albany), the Journal of
the International Academy of Hospitality Research (Virginia
Tech), the Journal of Reproductive Toxicology (Joyce Sigaloff and
Embryonics, Inc.), New Horizons in Adult Education (Syracuse
University, Kellogg Project), Postmodern Culture (North Carolina
State), Psycoloquy (Princeton/Rutgers/APA), and The Public-Access
Computer Systems Review (University of Houston Libraries).
Some regard these electronic-only journals as devils rather than
saviors. For example, they serve those who are already
information- and computer-rich, or even spoiled. Because network
communication can be clunky, cranky, and inconsistent, e-journals
serve the highly skilled or the tenacious. Rather than opening
up the universe, they may appear temporarily to limit it, because
only text is easily keyed and transmitted. Presently, editors of
electronic journals are academics who spend a great deal of time
being reviewers and referees, editors, publishers, advocates,
marketers. After all that effort, it is unclear whether these
activities, which are the path to tenure and grants in the paper
medium, will bring similar rewards in the electronic medium.
Powerful and persistent persuasion may be needed to induce
colleagues to contribute articles and referee them.
Today's electronic-only journals' greatest contributions are not
that they have solved many of the problems of the current
publishing system--or of the networked world--but that they are
brave, exciting, innovative experiments which give us a hope of
doing so.
+ Page 16 +
It is not entirely clear whether this handful of swallows makes a
summer--it feels like the beginning of a new warm season for
academic communications--or how long that summer will be. It is
an open question as to whether these academics will hand over
their work to university presses, scholarly societies, or outside
publishers.
External economic conditions may push scholars to start networked
electronic journals instead of paper ones. If the past year's
serial price increases continue, scholars will have an incentive
to create electronic journals, and they may appear faster than we
expect. Substantial cost savings can be realized if the new
start-up is electronically distributed on networks. Otherwise,
paper and parallel publication costs become substantial.
Currently, scholars' use of academic networks appears to be
largely free, and it is a good time to experiment. It is unknown
how long these good times will last; universities may not
continue to subsidize academics' network use. (Even
commercialized, the communications costs should appear as cheap
as long distance and fax.) In the meanwhile,
individually-produced journals may come and go, like New York
restaurants.
4.4 University-Based Electronic Publishing
At this time, it has been estimated that universities at most
publish 15% of their faculty's output [11]. This includes
discussion papers and periodicals emanating from individual
academic departments as well as formalized university outlets
like university presses and publications offices.
Nonetheless, to the considerable cynicism of existing publishers,
a vision of university-based electronic networked publishing is
expressed by many librarians and other members of the university
community in conversations about academe's regaining control and
distribution of its own intellectual output. Publishers'
skepticism is certainly justified in that, in spite of good
rhetoric, there are no vital signs of university electronic
journal publishing activity, apart from the publications of
individual academics described in the last section.
+ Page 17 +
However, there are some related electronic publishing experiments
by universities. The most interesting experiments are in the
preprint arena. One university research facility, the Stanford
Linear Accelerator, has supported a preprint database in high
energy physics for some fifteen years. Researchers worldwide
contribute preprints, that is, any article intended to be
submitted for publication. Database managers create
bibliographic records and accession each preprint. Using this
information, online subscribers can locate preprints, which they
can request either from the author or the database. Database
staff scan the printed literature routinely for new articles. A
preprint so identified is discarded from the library, and the
database record is annotated with the correct citation to the
formal journal article. Staff add about 200 preprints per week,
and the full database contains citations to 200,000 articles.
Some experimentation is underway by a couple of laboratories to
deposit the full text of preprint articles with the system.
(Absent a submission standard, particularly for non-text
information, this becomes complex.) If such a pilot is
successful, the articles in the database could be distributed
widely and quickly via the networks. Of course, the relationship
with existing scholarly publishers might be jeopardized because
of prior "publication" and perceived encroachments on the present
notion of copyright. SLAC staff are sensitive to these potential
problems, and they are being thoughtful about them.
Some scholars argue that a preprint creates demand for the
published version of a paper. In any case, since the preprints
have not been refereed or edited and they represent work in
progress, many scientists are hesitant to cite them, and,
consequently, they lack the validity of the "finished" paper. On
the other hand, a paper published in a prestigious university
database might eventually pre-empt the paper version, provided
some network review mechanism is added.
+ Page 18 +
A second major initiative is being created in mathematics. The
IMP project (Instant Math Preprints) will maintain a database of
abstracts on a network computer at a major university. At the
same time, authors of the mathematics articles will deposit the
full text of preprints with their local university computer
center, which will store them on a network computer. After
searching the abstract database, users will be able to retrieve
desired article files from host computers via anonymous FTP.
Presently, the project is proposed to extend to about ten key
research universities. The abstracts also will be searchable on
"e-math," the American Mathematical Society's electronic member
service. The benefits to researchers of both of these types of
preprint information are enormous. In high-energy physics and
mathematics, we may be viewing the substantial beginnings of
university-based scientific publishing.
5.0 Computer Conferences as Electronic Journals
Librarians and scholars are beginning to take seriously the
scholarly computer conferences (known as "lists") available
through the various networks, such as BITNET and Internet. Such
academic flora and fauna number in the hundreds and thousands and
grow daily [12]. While many of the original lists and their
exchanges earned the Net a reputation as an information cesspool,
an increasing number of lists are indispensable to specific
interest areas and ought to be available through library catalogs
and terminals. Indeed, some academics view the topical lists as
an entirely new kind of "journal." It is well to remember that
the ancestor of today's fancy scholarly journal was the diary or
logbook (the original "journal") in which the scholar or
scientist recorded data, thoughts, ideas, meetings, and
conversations, much as do today's networked electronic lists.
A growing number of colleagues testify that a few weeks of being
active on the networks changes one's working life. Some of the
benefits are: (1) accessing a wealth of informal information; (2)
linking to colleagues and growing ideas quickly, with a wide
variety of input and critique; (3) sharing an idea all over the
world in a matter of minutes; and (4) finding new colleagues and
learning who is pursuing the same interests in another
discipline. Surely, this is the excitement of discovery at its
most energetic and best. A number of librarians have recognized
the new medium's power and they are promoting
network-facilitating activities.
+ Page 19 +
It is certain that widespread participation and ownership of this
new method of communication have the potential to transform
scholarly writing and publishing far more dramatically than the
motivation to unbundle journals, publish quickly, or even reduce
subscription costs.
6.0 Speculations
These are very early days for this new information creation and
distribution medium; however, readers want guesses about the
future, and authors are tempted to satisfy the public and their
own egos by venturing them. The self-evident statement is that
the honorable, long-lived communication medium--the prestigious
scholarly journal--will surely be quite different than it is
today. It will be different because it will represent a new way
of growing and presenting knowledge.
Here is a possible scenario for the evolution of scholarly
journals.
6.1 1991 A.D.
o Paper journals totally dominate the scholarly scene.
o There are some parallel electronic products, mostly the
"static" CD-ROM format.
o Some full text (without graphics) is available online via
services such as Dialog and BRS.
o Some mainstream publishers are experimenting with electronic
publications.
o There are a variety of options for delivering individual
articles via mail and fax.
o The biggest single article suppliers are libraries, via the
long-popular and fairly effective interlibrary loan mechanisms.
o Over a thousand scholarly electronic discussion groups exist.
o Under ten scholarly electronic journals exist that are
refereed, lightly-refereed, or edited.
+ Page 20 +
o Two institutional preprint services are in development.
o OCLC, a library utility, positions itself through development
work for the AAAS as a serious electronic publisher of scientific
articles.
6.2 1995 A.D.
o Significant inroads into the paper subscription market, because
(1) libraries make heavy journal cancellations due to budget
constraints, and they feel "mad as hell" about high subscription
prices; and (2) it becomes possible to deliver specific articles
directly to the end-user.
o Librarians and publishers squabble over prices--ELECTRONIC
prices.
o For the first time, the Association of American Publishers
(AAP) sues a research library or university over either
electronic copying or paper resource-sharing activities.
o There are over 100 refereed electronic journals produced by
academics.
o In collaboration with professional or scholarly societies,
university-based preprint services get underway in several
disciplines.
o The Net still subsidized.
o Rate of paper journal growth slows.
o Many alternative sources exist for the same article, including
publishers and intermediaries.
o Bibliographic confusion and chaos reigns for bibliographic
utilities, libraries, and, by extension, scholars.
+ Page 21 +
6.3 2000 A.D.
o Computer equipment and user-sophistication are pervasive,
although not ubiquitous.
o Parallel electronic and paper availability for serious academic
journals; market between paper journals and alternatives (e.g.,
electronic delivery) is split close to 50/50.
o Subscription model wanes; license and single-article models
wax.
o Secondary services re-think roles; other indexing (machine
browsing, artificial intelligence, and full-text or abstract
searching) strengthens.
o Net transferred to commercial owners, but access costs are low.
o New niches are created: archive, scanning, re-packaging, and
information-to-profile services.
o Publishers without electronic delivery shrink or leave the
marketplace.
o Many collaborations, some confusing and unworkable, as
publishers struggle with development, conversion, and delivery.
o Major Copyright Law revision continues.
o Stratification of richer and poorer users, universities, and
nations.
7.0 Conclusion
Teilhard de Chardin writes:
No one can deny that a world network of economic and psychic
affiliations is being woven at an ever-increasing speed
which envelops and constantly penetrates more deeply within
each of us. With every day that passes, it becomes a little
more impossible for us to act or think otherwise than
collectively [13].
+ Page 22 +
Another writer has said that the only way to know the future is
to write it yourself.
We have some hints where the future of journals and scholarly
communications, which will move quickly beyond today's journal,
may lie. Those who have a vision for the future are uniquely
positioned to write the scenario.
Notes
1. Edward Tenner, "From Slip to Chip," Princeton Alumni Weekly,
21 November 1990, 9-14.
2. E-mail and list correspondence with Stevan Harnad, editor of
Behavioral and Brain Sciences as well as the refereed electronic
journal Psycoloquy.
3. Stevan Harnad, "Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication
Continuum of Scientific Inquiry," Psychological Science 1
(November 1990): 342-344.
4. Anne B. Piternick, "Attempts to Find Alternatives to the
Scientific Journal: A Brief Review," Journal of Academic
Librarianship 15 (November 1989): 263-265.
5. Michael R. Gabriel, A Guide to the Literature of Electronic
Publishing: CD-ROM, Desktop Publishing, and Electronic Mail,
Books, and Journals (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1989).
6. Richard M. Dougherty, "To Meet the Crisis in Journal Costs,
Universities Must Reassert Their Role in Scholarly Publishing,"
Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 April 1989, A52.
7. Sharon J. Rogers and Charlene S. Hurt, "How Scholarly
Communication Should Work in the 21st Century," Chronicle of
Higher Education, 18 October 1989, A56.
+ Page 23 +
8. For a complete listing of such journals and newsletters, see
the free electronic directory that is maintained by Michael
Strangelove (send an e-mail message with the following commands
on separate lines to LISTSERV@UOTTAWA: GET EJOURNL1 DIRECTRY GET
EJOURNL2 DIRECTRY). This information is also included in a paper
directory, the Directory of Electronic Journals, Newsletters, and
Academic Discussion Lists, which is available at low cost from
the Office of Scientific and Academic Publishing, Association of
Research Libraries, 1527 New Hampshire Ave, N.W., Washington, DC
20036.
9. Clifford A. Lynch, "Electronic Publishing, Electronic
Libraries, and the National Research and Education Network:
Policy and Technology Issues" (Washington, D.C.: Office of
Technology Assessment, draft for review April 1990).
10. William Gardner, "The Electronic Archive: Scientific
Publishing for the 1990s," Psychological Science 1, no. 6 (1990):
333-341.
11. Stuart Lynn (Untitled paper presented at the Coalition for
Networked Information meeting, November 1990).
12. Diane Kovacs at the Kent State University libraries
assiduously catalogs and organizes these electronic conferences.
Her work is available to all users for free through files made
available to discussion groups such as LSTOWN-L, HUMANIST,
LIBREF-L and others. The Association of Research Libraries
includes her information about these groups in their directory.
13. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Future of Man (New York:
Harper and Row, 1969).
+ Page 24 +
About the Author
Ann Okerson
Director
Office of Scientific and Academic Publishing
The Association of Research Libraries
1527 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
OKERSON@UMDC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal. It is sent free of charge to participants of the
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum (PACS-L), a computer
conference on BITNET. To join PACS-L, send an electronic mail
message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First
Name Last Name.
This article is Copyright (C) 1991 by Ann Okerson. All
Rights Reserved.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1991
by the University Libraries, University of Houston, University
Park. All Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computer
conferences, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are
authorized to add the journal to their collection, in electronic
or printed form, at no charge. This message must appear on all
copied material. All commercial use requires permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 54 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Savage, Lon. "The Journal of the International Academy of
Hospitality Research." The Public-Access Computer Systems Review
2, no. 1 (1991): 54-66.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 Introduction
The Journal of the International Academy of Hospitality Research
is a scholarly, refereed electronic journal, distributed via
BITNET and Internet, for researchers in the academic discipline
of hotel, restaurant, and institutional management and tourism.
As such, it holds several distinctions: (1) it is one of the
first, if not the first, among the refereed electronic journals
to be marketed at a subscription price; (2) it is aimed at a
small, well-structured academic market that has no particular
affinity for computers and electronic communication; and (3) like
a printed journal, it was planned to serve, and was marketed by
direct mail advertising to all in the discipline--not just those
who are computer literate and/or have access to BITNET and
Internet.
As a result of its development and philosophy, the Journal has
had experiences--both positive and negative--which may reflect
importantly on the future of electronic journals and the
directions which this movement should take in the years
immediately ahead. It is the purpose of this paper to present
and analyze those experiences.
2.0 Sponsorship and Purpose
JIAHR, as it is called, is sponsored by the International Academy
of Hospitality Research, a relatively new organization of some
twenty to thirty scholars, most of them leading faculty in
schools of hotel, restaurant, and/or institutional management
located in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It is
published by the Scholarly Communications Project of Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia,
in cooperation with the University's Department of Hotel,
Restaurant, and Institutional Management (HRIM). Launched in the
fall of 1990, JIAHR publishes original, refereed papers on all
aspects of hospitality and tourism research and is billed as the
only journal devoted exclusively to hospitality research.
+ Page 55 +
JIAHR serves a second purpose in electronic communication. The
Scholarly Communications Project of Virginia Tech (as the
University is known popularly) agreed to publish JIAHR as a
pioneer effort to explore--in a very practical way--the frontier
of electronic communication of scholarly information. In that
sense, the journal serves the entire academic community, not just
hospitality research. As a practical demonstration of the
concept of electronic journals, JIAHR was designed in part to
encourage the scholarly community to address a "real world"
example of what until then had been largely a concept: electronic
scholarly journals marketed and distributed via computer
networks.
3.0 Background
The idea of JIAHR emerged from concurrent interests of the
Scholarly Communications Project (SCP), and the University's HRIM
Department. The SCP was originated in the fall of 1988 to: (1)
expand the university's activity in publishing scholarly
information, and (2) to provide leadership and experimentation in
the use of electronic communication of scholarly information as a
means of holding down the spiraling costs of scholarly journals
and improving the quality of scholarly communication. The
project was placed organizationally within the responsibility of
Dr. Robert C. Heterick, Vice President for Information Systems,
widely known in the area of electronic communication.
The first substantial step toward achieving the project's
purposes was a bid in early 1989 to take over publication of a
print journal. That bid, made in competition with a large,
international commercial publisher of scholarly journals, was
submitted to the Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., of
Bethel, Connecticut, to publish the International Journal of
Analytical and Experimental Model Analysis, a highly technical
engineering journal. The Society approved the SCP's bid largely
because of the university's commitment to holding down prices of
scholarly journals and because of the commercial publisher's
record of escalating journals prices. Effective January 1990,
the SCP began publishing the journal for the society, printing it
on campus and distributing it by mail. A year later SCP became
its copyright owner.
+ Page 56 +
In the meantime, Dr. Michael D. Olsen, Head of the Department of
Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management, and the assistant
department head, Dr. Mahmood Khan, contacted the project director
about the possibility of launching a scholarly journal in
hospitality research. Dr. Olsen was president of the
International Academy of Hospitality Research, whose purpose was
to promote the interests of researchers in this field. Dr. Khan
was an IAHR fellow. Dr. Olsen was also associate editor of one
of the leading journals in the hospitality field, and a frequent
contributor to others. He and Dr. Khan had developed the concept
of such a journal, organized its editorial board, and formulated
its editorial policy. The project director offered the
suggestion that it be launched as an electronic journal, and
after much discussion that was agreed.
The decision to launch JIAHR as an electronic journal was based
on several considerations. The primary reason was economic; the
cost of launching an electronic journal was minuscule when
compared to that of launching a print journal. Other
considerations included: (1) those in the relatively new academic
field of hospitality research were more receptive to an
innovative publishing approach than scholars in more classic
disciplines; (2) members of the Academy welcomed the opportunity
to be part of a pioneering effort in the field of scholarly
communication; (3) the small size of the scholarly community--an
estimated 500 persons worldwide engaged in hospitality
research--was regarded favorably, as helpful in managing the
journal's development and planning its future; and (4) the
responsiveness of electronic communications--the speed of
transmission as well as the ease of two-way communications among
editors, authors, and readers--was considered an additional
asset. The idea was submitted to the membership of the Academy
in the April of 1990 and was soundly approved.
4.0 Planning the Journal
As president of the sponsoring Academy, Dr. Olsen appointed Dr.
Khan as Editor and Dr. Eliza Tse of the HRIM faculty as managing
editor. Plans for publication of the journal were announced in
May. A call for papers was published that summer, and a
committee was established to plan the journal's launching.
+ Page 57 +
The planning committee was composed of the managing editor and
representatives of the Scholarly Communication Project and
representatives from the University's computing center, library,
and faculty. A Steering Committee for the entire Scholarly
Communications Project, composed of the University's library
director, computing center director, director of communications
resources, faculty representatives, and persons representing the
University's printing programs, also provided leadership for the
journal, as did the Vice President for Information Systems.
In a series of about ten meetings in the spring, summer, and fall
of 1990, the planning committee worked out the details of the
journal's development. The following decisions were reached.
Each issue of the journal would consist essentially of a single
scholarly paper. The publication schedule would call for ten to
twenty papers (issues) each year. Each issue (one scholarly
paper) would be delivered in its entirety electronically to each
subscriber as an e-mail message, and the issue would be sent out
whenever it was judged suitable. The journal would be in ASCII
format, and graphics would not be accepted. The journal would be
marketed by a direct mail campaign. Subscriptions would be
maintained on a closed list server, and issues would be sent via
the list server to the BITNET and Internet addresses of
subscribers. The journal, according to minutes of an early
meeting, "should be of a nature that can evolve, step by step,
and in step with both technological advance and current practices
of scholarly life." Another important distinction was that, to
the best of the editors' ability, the journal would serve the
entire field of hospitality research, not just those in the field
who were sophisticated in the use of computers; subscribers
unable to receive the journal electronically would be sent issues
on a delayed basis either on paper or on disks.
Behind these decisions was a philosophy of trying to minimize the
adjustment of traditional readers to the innovations of an
electronic journal by preserving many of the "print journal"
customs: charging a fee, delivering the journal to a "mailbox,"
offering both individual and institutional subscriptions,
marketing by direct mail, and maintaining traditional copyright.
Quite consciously, the committee sought to reach out to journal
subscribers, authors, editors, and others "where they are," and
gently lead them down the path of electronic communication. The
committee thought that, to change people's habits, it helps to
work with the habits that need changing. By no means did the
committee feel this should be the only approach to electronic
journals, or even the best approach, but it was an approach worth
pursuing.
+ Page 58 +
The committee also agreed on a policy to archive past issues of
the journal in the university computing center and make the
archive available electronically to all current subscribers via
"GET" commands to the closed list server.
The committee agreed to copyright each issue primarily as a
matter of protection of the author and publisher's rights;
however, as a matter of editorial policy, the editors agreed to
be very liberal in granting copying privileges, until such time
that a copyright problem was perceived, at which time greater
restriction might be imposed. Subscribing libraries were allowed
to distribute the journal to their own constituents with little
restraint; however, the editors did not broadcast this policy
widely until there was greater experience with it.
The journal was registered with the Copyright Clearance Center,
and a notification that "Limited duplication is permitted for
academic or research purposes only" was placed in the journal.
An ISSN was obtained: 1052-6099.
5.0 Charging a Subscription Fee
One of the most important and controversial decisions was to
offer the journal, and to market it, at a subscription price. At
least one member of the committee argued that it should be made
available to subscribers without cost. The public announcement
of the journal with plans to charge a subscription fee received
some negative comment from observers nationally, especially in
the electronic media, who argued that scholarly information
distributed on BITNET should be in the public domain and that
BITNET and Internet should not be used for "commercial" purposes.
Despite this, the committee decided to charge $30 per year for
institutional subscriptions, $20 for faculty/individual
subscriptions, and $10 for student subscriptions. The decision
was made for several reasons.
First, the committee felt that if subscribers purchased their
subscriptions, they--and all others--would take the journal--and
all electronic journals--more seriously. A subscriber's
investment in the journal would serve as testimony to its worth
to authors, readers, libraries, and promotion and tenure
committees in the universities. Moreover, libraries and others
unaccustomed to electronic journals would be more inclined to
make special efforts to receive and accommodate an electronic
journal that they had paid for, than one they had not paid for.
+ Page 59 +
Second, marketing the journal for a fee would tend to "force the
issue" of electronic scholarly journals. Librarians everywhere
then were discussing the pros and cons of electronic
communication of scholarly information. The committee wanted to
place at least one network-based electronic journal in front of
the library community in the same way a printed journal was
presented--that is, through a marketing campaign and a
subscription "purchase." It was a custom libraries thoroughly
understood. What better way, the committee thought, to encourage
libraries to move into this new age of electronic communication?
Finally, some members of the committee disagreed with the
argument that BITNET and Internet should carry only material that
was "free." Such a policy, it was feared, might exclude much
serious scholarly work of significant value, while encouraging
information of less value. Because of the non-profit nature of
the journal, it is felt that JIAHR's pricing policy did not
conflict with network policy prohibiting use of the networks for
commercial purposes.
Financial considerations had very little weight in the decision
to charge a subscription price. Income from the sale of
subscriptions--amounting to less than $1,500 in the first
year--will never be more than a very small fraction of the
University's and the Academy's investment of time and resources
into the journal. The income does not go to the Scholarly
Communications Project but is returned to the University.
6.0 Editorial Policies
Fellows of the Academy serve, ex officio, as members of the
journal's Editorial Board, and they, plus other members of the
Academy as well as non-members, are asked to write papers for it.
Papers are submitted electronically, either as a file or on disk,
and are sent to one, two, or three referees for review. If it
survives this screening, the paper is given final editing and
placed as the feature item of an issue. Each paper is published
with an abstract, key words, and references. In each issue will
be found the list of the Editorial Board members, instructions to
authors, copyright information, and other information of value to
subscribers.
+ Page 60 +
The fellows of the Academy who comprise the Editorial Board, in
addition to Dr. Olsen and Dr. Khan, are Jon Bareham of Brighton
Polytechnic in the United Kingdom, Horace A. Divine of
Pennsylvania State University, Chuck Gee of the University of
Hawaii, Donald E. Hawkins of George Washington University,
Michael Haywood of the University of Guelph in Canada, William
Kent of Auburn University, Robert C. Lewis of the University of
Guelph, Ken McCleary of Virginia Tech, Robert C. Miller of the
University of Central Florida, Turgut Var of Texas A&M
University, and Brian Wise of Footscray Institute of Technology
in Australia.
7.0 Marketing
Marketing the journal began in September 1990, with the mailing
of printed brochures and a covering letter from Dr. Olsen to a
list of some 400 faculty members at 138 degree-granting hotel
schools worldwide as well as to their libraries. The brochure
was much like that of any printed journal, providing information
about the organization, purpose, editorial policy, and
subscription prices, with a special section on "the electronic
part." In addition to customary information, the return
subscription form requested the subscriber's e-mail address. Use
of credit cards was allowed.
In addition, Paul Gherman, Director of University Libraries at
Virginia Tech and a strong supporter of the Project, sent
personal letters to the directors of the Association of Research
Libraries calling attention to the journal as "the first journal
I am aware of to be distributed solely electronically on a
subscription basis." He added "I don't have to tell you the
importance to libraries of successful development of this kind of
journal." He also said that the journal would offer "new
challenges for librarians: how to handle it within your
institution; how to catalogue it; and I suspect you'll encounter
problems we've not anticipated . . ."
+ Page 61 +
Returns from the mailing came in slowly. By November, when it
was time to send out the first issue, there were about thirty
paid subscriptions, rather evenly divided among members of the
Academy, individual faculty members, and subscribing libraries.
In late March 1991, the journal had 53 paid subscriptions,
slightly more than anticipated in pre-publication planning.
Marketing efforts were halted deliberately after the one mailing,
as the publisher wanted to work closely with those subscribers
already on board. It can be noted that the success of the one
mailing (nearly a ten percent return rate if one includes Academy
members and a five percent return rate excluding them) indicated
that further marketing would produce additional subscriptions.
8.0 The Subscribers
Most subscribers were in the United States, but there were also
subscriptions from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hong Kong,
New Zealand, and Scotland. An analysis of those subscriptions is
revealing.
Among the subscribers were approximately thirty individual
faculty members, both within and outside the Academy membership,
and a lone student. Of these, only a few had e-mail addresses at
the time they subscribed. Six months later, approximately 25 of
the 30 individual subscribers had e-mail addresses, and others
were working to get them, showing the impact the journal was
beginning to have on subscribers who were unsophisticated in
computer use.
Nevertheless, a sizable proportion of the individual
subscribers--perhaps a fifth--appeared either unable or unwilling
to work out the problem of getting an e-mail address where their
electronic journal could be sent. The experience with these
individuals may cast light on the problems e-journals generally
face in the future, and possible solutions to those problems.
+ Page 62 +
The nature of their problems was almost as varied as the
individuals. Several faculty reported they did not have access
to BINET or Internet. Numerous subscribers did not know that
their institutions had access to BITNET and/or Internet, when in
fact they did. Some did not have access to the networks in their
departments. Several, after learning their institutions were on
BITNET and/or Internet, still were not successful in their
efforts to obtain e-mail addresses. A few faculty reported they
did not have time to check their e-mail. The lone student
subscriber, who successfully struggled to obtain an e-mail
address solely to receive JIAHR, asked to be telephoned whenever
an issue was sent out so that she would know when to check her
e-mail. One faculty member thought he was subscribing to a print
journal and withdrew his subscription when he learned it was
electronic.
Although these numbers are small, they may be significant. They
indicate that, even among interested faculty who are willing to
pay for an electronic journal, it is difficult for many to work
out the electronic part--to obtain and make good use of an e-mail
address in receiving an electronic journal.
The remaining 23 subscribers tell a far more encouraging story,
and their story may also have significance for e-journals
generally. They are, for the most part, 23 university
libraries--nineteen in the United States, two in Canada, two in
Europe, and two in Australia. Nearly all of them indicate they
are receiving the journal and are making it available to their
clientele. Many appear excited about the advent of an electronic
journal. Several indicate they are adjusting their procedures to
accommodate JIAHR. For some, JIAHR is serving as the prototype,
the vanguard, of what they anticipate will be numerous electronic
journals.
Because of the obvious implications of the Project's activities
for libraries, the Scholarly Communications Project was moved
organizationally on July 1, 1991 to the Virginia Tech Library,
where it can work more closely with library personnel and reflect
library objectives.
+ Page 63 +
9.0 Library Handling of the Journal
The Cornell School of Hotel Administration is sharing the journal
with its faculty and staff via a local area network, with the
enthusiastic permission of the publisher, and the innovation was
greeted with considerable excitement and praise. One state
university considered mounting the journal on the campus
mainframe either through a conferencing facility or on its local
BITNET list server. Another considered storage on a
microcomputer in the main library reference area. One library
asked permission to download individual issues onto a floppy disk
that would be made available for patrons as well as to make an
archival copy and a circulating copy. At Virginia Tech, JIAHR's
home base, a library task force, after lengthy study, recommended
that the library store texts of e-journals on the university
mainframe for the indefinite future and provide terminals for
dedicated access to those texts. Clearly, as one librarian put
it, questions and reports from libraries indicated "a transition
from paper to electronic mind-set."
Not all library reports were encouraging. One library subscribed
without access to either BITNET or Internet. Another tried to
cancel its subscription after it learned the journal was
electronic (until a faculty member interceded, unasked, in the
journal's behalf). Several libraries asked for second copies of
issues because they had lost the first, usually through equipment
failure or procedural error. Nevertheless, the tone of the
reactions of libraries was clearly encouraging; most subscribing
libraries indicated they are ready, willing, and eager to move
ahead with electronic journals. As evidence of this, one
library, Dartmouth, subscribed even though it has no hotel
school. Presumably, it subscribed for the opportunity to work
with an electronic journal.
Success or failure was not affected by geography. The journal
was delivered successfully in such places as Australia, Europe,
Hong Kong, and New Zealand as well as throughout the United
States and Canada.
The first issue of JIAHR was sent out via the list server on
November 26, 1990. An indication of the problems was that, when
asked, only a handful of the approximately thirty paying
subscribers reported they had received it in good order on the
first try. By the second issue, on February 20, 1991, it
appeared that about forty or fifty subscribers, including nearly
all of the libraries, received it in good order.
+ Page 64 +
10.0 Finances
Meanwhile, another significant--even if it is very
obvious--aspect of the journal's operation was becoming very
clear in the operations of the Scholarly Communications Project:
The SCP's print journal was costing more than $5,000 an issue for
printing and distribution; the corresponding cost of the
electronic journal was nearly nothing. The significance of this
enormous advantage cannot be overstated.
The second issue of the Journal announced that the journal was
archived electronically at Virginia Tech, and past issues were
now be available electronically to subscribers. The issue also
announced plans for a moderated discussion capability, which was
implemented in the summer of 1991.
11.0 Other Problems
There also were additional unfavorable developments. Of most
importance was a dearth of acceptable papers submitted for
possible publication in JIAHR. Although the publishers had
anticipated putting out ten to twenty papers, or issues, per
year, only three were published in the first six months.
Publication of a fourth paper had to be postponed because the
paper depended so heavily on graphics as to be of little value
without them. A number of other papers, submitted for
publication, were rejected in the review process.
JIAHR's editors assert that the electronic nature of the journal
is not a major factor in the lack of adequate papers. They point
out that hospitality research is a small field, and scholarly
production is correspondingly small. Print journals in the field
report similar problems. The quality of papers published in
JIAHR unquestionably is high. The editors believe that
submissions will increase as the journal becomes better known and
its quality is recognized. However, if the number of issues in
the first year is significantly less than promised, the publisher
will either extend subscriptions without charge or otherwise make
amends.
The inability to use graphics, although initially considered only
a minor handicap, is now considered of much importance. The
publisher and editors have placed increased emphasis on finding a
way to use graphics in the journal, perhaps by sending it out in
both ASCII and PostScript formats.
+ Page 65 +
12.0 The Future
The experiences in publishing JIAHR suggest several possible
directions for scholarly communicators and libraries to consider
as they plan for the future in electronic communication. Perhaps
the overriding conclusion is that future success of electronic
scholarly journals can be materially affected by concerted
efforts of libraries. The difficulties that
individuals--faculty, students, and others--have had trying to
receive JIAHR indicate that many persons in the hospitality
discipline--and probably others--are not fully prepared for
electronic journals. Assuredly, many are ready and enthusiastic,
but many are not. On the other hand, the interest, eagerness,
and ability that libraries have shown in handling JIAHR suggest
that the most efficacious way for electronic journals to reach
the scholarly community may be through libraries. This
conclusion has important ramifications.
The editors and publisher of JIAHR plan to work more closely with
subscribing libraries in the future to determine the ways that
they process and use JIAHR and other electronic journals. The
moderated computer conference which JIAHR introduced offers
opportunities for librarians to discuss among themselves and with
the editors some of the more effective ways of delivering
e-journals to readers. Together, they may be able to resolve the
problem of sending graphics, by PostScript or other means, for
maximum satisfaction.
Already, several subscribing libraries have helped individual
faculty at their institutions in receiving copies of JIAHR
electronically. This may suggest that electronic journals can be
sent to faculty through their libraries, which can then
distribute them (Cornell is doing this with JIAHR), and
individual faculty subscriptions can be either eliminated or
limited to those computer-literate persons who need little help.
Libraries can do much to promote the success of electronic
journals, and it is essential that they do so.
+ Page 66 +
If libraries and publishers can jointly work out the means of
delivering electronic texts to their faculty and students in a
satisfactory manner, the rewards can be enormous. It seems
apparent that such means can be developed. Like those at
Cornell, Virginia Tech, and many other universities, libraries
should be eager to subscribe to electronic journals (most
especially those that cost nothing!) and they should move
vigorously in accommodating them and making them available to
their clients. To build on-campus understanding and support for
e-journals, libraries can initiate special promotions for them on
their campuses, such as visual displays both in and outside the
library, special educational programs, faculty involvement in
establishing e-journal policies and practices, and seminars and
discussion groups. All involved in scholarly communication will
be the beneficiaries of such action, but none will benefit more
than the libraries.
About the Author
Lon Savage
Director, Scholarly Communications Project
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
1700 Pratt Drive
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0506
SAVAGE@VTM1
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal. It is sent free of charge to participants of the
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum (PACS-L), a computer
conference on BITNET. To join PACS-L, send an electronic mail
message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First
Name Last Name.
This article is Copyright (C) 1991 by Lon Savage. All
Rights Reserved.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1991
by the University Libraries, University of Houston, University
Park. All Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computer
conferences, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are
authorized to add the journal to their collection, in electronic
or printed form, at no charge. This message must appear on all
copied material. All commercial use requires permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 111 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tuttle, Marcia. "The Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues."
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 2, no. 1 (1991):
111-127.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 Introduction
Currently, serials librarians face two important issues: (1)
unacceptably high journal subscription prices, and (2) the
emergence of electronic publishing as a viable alternative to the
traditional paper journal. An electronic serial, the Newsletter
on Serials Pricing Issues, serves as a case study that
illustrates one way librarians are responding to both of these
issues. This article documents one effort to use electronic
technology to meet a critical scholarly need.
2.0 Brief History
At the 1988 ALA Midwinter Meeting, the Publisher/Vendor-Library
Relations Committee (PVLR) of ALA's Resources and Technical
Services Division (now the Association for Library Collections
and Technical Services) was called upon to assume leadership in
the library profession's fight against high journal prices. To
meet this challenge, it created a subcommittee. Members of the
subcommittee were Deana Astle, Mary Elizabeth Clack, Jerry
Curtis, Charles (Chuck) Hamaker, and Robert Houbeck, all of them
active in and knowledgeable about serials pricing. Curtis was a
subscription agent; the other members were academic librarians.
In Spring 1988, Caroline Early, PVLR Chair, asked me to chair the
unnamed subcommittee (later called the Subcommittee on Serials
Pricing Issues), which was charged with collecting and
disseminating information regarding serials prices. Members had
been appointed and a meeting had been scheduled for the summer
conference, but Early had not been able to find a chair. She and
I speculated about a newsletter as an appropriate means of
disseminating pricing information. We knew that Hamaker had
edited an informal letter on this subject for collection
development librarians. He was not able to continue this service
because of mailing costs. I accepted Early's invitation to chair
the subcommittee. At the July 1988 ALA Conference, the
subcommittee met for the first time and took the following
actions:
+ Page 112 +
1. Determined that its first concern was to serve as a
clearinghouse for information about serials pricing.
2. Decided that dissemination of pricing information through
a newsletter should be by both electronic and paper means.
3. Discussed publicity and distribution of a press release
to generate both news about and an audience for the
newsletter [1].
Having only limited experience with electronic mail on BITNET or
DataLinx, subcommittee members were neophytes when it came to
electronic publishing, but we very quickly decided that the
newsletter we produced should be distributed in both electronic
and paper versions [2]. In this way, it would get serials
pricing news quickly to those who could receive it
electronically, and it would also make the newsletter available
to those who could not receive the electronic version.
Simply making the decision to publish an electronic newsletter
was exhilarating. The subcommittee had not considered questions
of production, distribution, and publicity, but we had made a
leap of faith in committing our group to go electronic. We had
visions of a nationwide--no, worldwide--network of librarians and
others concerned with serials prices. BITNET would carry the
"official" edition of the newsletter, with other prospective
outlets being DataLinx, EBSCONET [3], ALANET [4], and the paper
edition.
At this point, our excitement went to our heads, influencing
other decisions. We did not want to be a real serial because we
would not publish forever, but only until the pricing crisis
abated. We anticipated that: (1) librarians' actions would lead
to publishers' decisions to slow price increases and/or
discontinue marginal titles, and (2) the U.S. dollar would gain
enough strength to eliminate apparent increases in prices of
foreign journals. Therefore, we did not want the newsletter to
have an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN). Nor did we
want it to have a regular frequency. If we could somehow avoid
numbering the issues, then it would not be a serial and would not
have to be bound by serials standards. (Yes, these decisions
were being made by four serials librarians, another librarian,
and a subscription agent!) The paper edition, in order not to be
a serial, would be dated memos, not issues; however, it would
have some regularity by being batched and distributed six times a
year. In the paper edition, the news would be cold; it was
intended only for persons and institutions without electronic
mail capability.
+ Page 113 +
Between the first meeting of the subcommittee and its next
meeting six months later, the group wrote a press release
introducing the Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues
(subsequently referred to as the "Newsletter"), and it planned
the content of the first issue. In February, ALA sent the press
release to more than 200 journals and organizations.
Announcements in the Chronicle of Higher Education and Library
Hotline proved to be the most successful, bringing many inquiries
and subscribers to all formats of the Newsletter. Several
persons requested that issues be sent by telefacsimile, but this
was not an option because of cost and time considerations.
Interested persons, most of them librarians, began to submit
notices and brief articles for publication. The first issue,
dated February 27, 1989, went to about 150 addresses, nearly 100
of them in paper format.
Minor editing on the word processor turned the very plain BITNET
edition of the Newsletter into a fair printed product. The
electronic mail system could not handle such niceties as
brackets, underlining, bold print, and certain other symbols, so
this information and a header were added before printing. I had
the first nine-page issue photocopied and mailed at my library's
expense. Immediately thereafter, my institution was placed under
a spending freeze. The RTSD office then agreed to distribute up
to 200 copies of each issue through December 1989.
The only serious problem the subcommittee faced with the
Newsletter was the expense of producing and distributing the
paper edition. During the fall of 1989, the mailing list reached
the maximum number of 200 paper subscribers that ALCTS had agreed
to fund, and we had to turn down further requests to subscribe.
Each paper mailing cost close to $800 in photocopying and postage
charges. At the 1990 ALA Midwinter meeting, the ALCTS Board of
Directors, on the advice of the Publications Committee, voted to
discontinue the paper edition, effective the end of 1989. Cost
and lack of timeliness were the two primary reasons given.
Number thirteen was the last issue of the Newsletter to be
distributed in paper format.
+ Page 114 +
Our subscription lists grew steadily, and editorial contributions
continued to arrive, primarily through BITNET. The first three
issues appeared a month apart, then a fourth issue was ready in
two weeks. The electronic publication schedule was, and would
continue to be, irregular because the subcommittee members
believed that it would be foolish to impose a communication
schedule for this type of publication.
From the outset, the Newsletter went to DataLinx subscribers who
requested it. A short time after the Newsletter was established,
I was able to arrange for selective distribution to EBSCONET
subscribers. It took longer to begin distribution of the
Newsletter on ALANET. Most recently, Readmore Academic
Subscription Services began to print and mail the Newsletter to
customers who request it.
3.0 Contents of the Newsletter
The Newsletter does not usually have true articles, and we have
no intention of becoming a refereed journal. This would defeat
our purpose. We interpret "serials pricing issues" very broadly,
as is illustrated by our coverage of peer review issues, the
merits of the academic reward system
, and acquisitions meetings
at ALA. Naturally, the Newsletter also covers specific price
increases and ways libraries are coping with the situation. We
are fortunate to have active subscribers who send "news" by both
e-mail and regular mail.
The Newsletter contains a variety of material. I ask readers to
report on relevant meetings and events. I seek permission to
abstract or reprint articles from internal or very small
circulation documents. I include related press releases, usually
in their entirety. I try to find authors for topics that are
suggested by readers. Other types of contributions include
readers' letters to journal publishers and publishers' responses;
abstracts of items from the non-library press (Science and Nature
are good sources); accounts of individual libraries' evaluation
and cancellation procedures; and "Hamaker's Haymakers," an
outgrowth of the previously mentioned collection development
newsletter.
+ Page 115 +
There is an informal, bulletin-board spirit about the Newsletter,
with questions and answers flying back and forth electronically,
with me in the middle. At times, I wish it were a bulletin
board, where readers could have more freedom and news would go
out quicker. However, an edited publication has significant
benefits, and a bulletin board would only be accessible to BITNET
and Internet users, limiting participation to persons having
mailboxes on those networks.
4.0 Production and Distribution of the Newsletter
I compose each issue on WordStar aiming for nine or ten single-
spaced pages (25 to 30 KB). The first revision is usually done
on-screen, but I eventually print a draft copy to revise. The
final copy is output as an ASCII file, and it is uploaded to a
campus mainframe computer using Kermit. From this computer, it
is transmitted to users on BITNET and interconnected networks
(e.g., Internet) via e-mail. This copy is also used for EBSCO
distribution; another ASCII copy is customized for ALANET. The
ALANET and EBSCO copies are sent via TYMNET. From the beginning,
I have had to rekey the Newsletter into DataLinx.
Issue distribution takes more time now than in the beginning,
perhaps five hours to send copies to four different systems. It
takes approximately four to five hours to edit each issue.
Subscription list maintenance requires two or three hours a week.
All together, each issue requires about fifteen to twenty hours
of the editor's time.
4.1 BITNET Distribution
For the distribution of the early issues, I created a simple list
of e-mail addresses and nicknames, but this list soon grew to an
unmanageable size. I conferred with our campus e-mail guru, who
has been indispensable for a wide range of problems. He
suggested using a list server for the Newsletter, a suggestion
that had also been proposed by some of our subscribers. The list
server would receive subscription and cancellation messages, and
I could use it to send out each issue. However, at the time, I
thought that the list server permitted users to distribute
messages to the subscriber list, so I rejected the idea.
Instead, a mail server was used. We named the list PRICES-L, and
I gave the guru a file of subscriber addresses. Use of the mail
server made distribution much easier.
+ Page 116 +
Using my BITNET address, I had the ability to send and receive
messages to and from Internet users. It was also possible to
communicate with users on other national and international
networks. Given these connections, the Newsletter attracted
BITNET subscribers in Canada, France, Sweden, Chile, Hong Kong,
Taiwan, and Israel; BITNET and JANET subscribers in the United
Kingdom; OZ subscribers in Australia; and ALANET subscribers in
Australia and other countries. And the list keeps growing. The
BITNET mailing list, which includes all the above-mentioned
networks except ALANET, is now over 760 subscribers.
When William Britten's article on library-related electronic
bulletin boards and newsletters appeared, I was surprised to read
that one could subscribe to the Newsletter simply by sending a
mail message to LISTSERV@UNCVX1.BITNET [5]. I quickly sent an
electronic message to the author telling him that it wasn't so.
He indicated that this was not true; he had just done it and so
had several other people. An inquiry revealed that users could
subscribe to the Newsletter directly, through either
LISTSERV@UNCVX1 or MAILSERV@UNCVX1. They just had to say:
SUBSCRIBE Prices-L. Apparently, both a list server and a mail
server had been set up to distribute the Newsletter.
Nonetheless, I preferred users to subscribe through me because I
sent a test message to them, a practice that proved worthwhile
for ensuring that e-mail addresses were correct, especially the
addresses of new e-mail users.
4.2 DataLinx Distribution
When one of its officers was named to the subcommittee, the Faxon
subscription agency welcomed the opportunity to distribute the
Newsletter to interested DataLinx subscribers, and this was done.
Unfortunately, DataLinx was based on a system designed many years
ago for Faxon's internal use. It incorporated an old e-mail
system, Courier, and it was not possible to upload documents to
this system. In order to distribute the Newsletter to DataLinx
subscribers, someone had to rekey the issue into Courier. This
procedure could take as long as five hours, at the rate of eight
to ten screens an hour.
+ Page 117 +
After I had sent several issues in this way, Faxon arranged for
me to upload the text in an ASCII file via Kermit to their
mainframe computer in Westwood, Massachusetts. A Faxon employee
then rekeyed the Newsletter and distributed it to the Courier
subscriber list. We followed this procedure for a few issues,
but the person in Westwood (as might be expected) did not have
the same interest in the Newsletter as its editor. Typographical
errors were more prevalent. Since the keying chore had to be
incorporated into an employee's normal workload, issue
transmission was delayed for several days.
Although we had no reader complaints about this change, I was not
happy with the situation. I decided to go back to the original
plan, whereby I would key the issue. This turned out to be a
good way to do some extra proofreading. By printing a copy of
the final document to be transmitted to the other networks and
using it to key the DataLinx edition, I was able to find and
correct additional errors and inconsistencies in the network
edition of the Newsletter. Since I was more conscious of
mistakes in that edition, I spent more time proofreading each
Courier screen, and this reduced mistakes in the DataLinx
edition. Since I have resumed keying the DataLinx edition, I
have usually not resented the extra time required.
4.3 ALANET Distribution
The RTSD Executive Director had given me an ALANET account for
Newsletter purposes, and I received a few inquiries about
subscribing that way. ALANET distribution was important because
it was the best way to reach publishers and subscription agents.
Unfortunately, one attempt after another to upload the Newsletter
to ALANET failed. I tried using ProComm to transfer the ASCII
file via Telenet. The system would locate the file on my word
processor, but it would not transfer it. Eventually, I made an
arrangement with a former UNC-CH Library staff member who was
working for EBSCO. When I sent him a message by ALANET that an
issue was ready, he came by my office, picked it up on a floppy
disk, took it to his home, and uploaded it to ALANET using
another communications program. Very quickly, this procedure
became tiresome. Finally, ALANET's Rob Carlson and I got
together by telephone and figured out what was wrong; it was
nothing more than changing a single setting on my copy of
ProComm.
+ Page 118 +
Because I had not gotten any responses from ALANET readers of the
Newsletter, I had no idea how many people this edition reached
and whether it was worth the money it cost ALCTS. At the end of
a recent ALANET edition, I added a message asking readers to let
me know if they used ALANET to access the Newsletter. Two weeks
after the issue appeared, I had six responses, three of which
informed me that they were planning to switch soon to BITNET.
This level of readership may not justify the cost of the ALANET
edition. However, I am concerned about readers in Australia who
receive the Newsletter on ILANET; the ALANET edition is
transferred to ILANET by Alan Ventress at the State Library of
New South Wales. So far, we have found no way to establish
communication between ILANET and BITNET.
4.4 EBSCONET Distribution
From the beginning, the subcommittee members wanted to have the
Newsletter available to EBSCO customers. Had I been an EBSCONET
subscriber, it might have been simpler to get each issue to the
proper staff member at EBSCO. Instead, we agreed that I would
send a paper copy of each issue to EBSCO, and personnel in
Birmingham would summarize the contents on an EBSCONET message
screen, then mail or fax complete issues to any EBSCONET
customers who wanted them.
Later, it proved far easier to upload each issue as an ASCII file
to EBSCO's mainframe computer in the home office. EBSCO staff
took over distribution from there. This procedural change saved
me from having to make any paper copies of the Newsletter.
Currently, EBSCONET distribution accounts for approximately 150
copies of the Newsletter.
4.5 Readmore Distribution
The third distribution arrangement with a subscription agent was
with Readmore Academic Subscription Services. After several
abortive attempts to upload a copy of the Newsletter to
Readmore's mainframe computer, I agreed to mail each issue as an
ASCII file on a floppy disk to the agent's New York office.
Starting with issue 30, Readmore personnel printed and
distributed copies of the Newsletter to customers who requested
this service.
+ Page 119 +
5.0 Copyright Questions
The Newsletter has avoided the twin problems of intellectual
property rights and subscription fees. The publisher does not
charge for subscriptions. The only expense to subscribers is
their cost for network access. In support of our mission, we
have not copyrighted the contents of the Newsletter. Each issue
carries this message:
Readers of the Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues are
encouraged to share the information in the Newsletter by
electronic or paper methods. We would appreciate credit if
you quote from the Newsletter.
From an early survey and from subscribers' messages and remarks,
I know that many more people receive the Newsletter than are on
the mailing list. It is also excerpted in local library
newsletters and professional association publications.
6.0 Electronic Publishing Issues
Both the producers and consumers of electronic publications would
benefit from the establishment of more standards in this area.
Some standards are already in place (e.g., ISSN), and they are
just as appropriate for electronic serials as for paper serials.
Other print-oriented standards are not appropriate for electronic
publishing, and new standards need to be developed.
For example, we were not surprised that readers wanted to cite
the Newsletter. However, we were not prepared for their
questions about a standard citation format. Users wanted to cite
the Newsletter in general as well as specific articles and news
notices.
The subcommittee members were forced to face standards issues as
they arose and to recognize that there were often no existing
solutions. We responded as we thought appropriate. Standards
will emerge as electronic publications mature, but a period of
experimentation is, I believe, a necessary prerequisite to formal
standards.
+ Page 120 +
6.1 ISSN
At the start, the subcommittee members decided that they did not
want an ISSN for the Newsletter because we saw it as a response
to a current and probably temporary problem. Unfortunately, the
rest of the library world did not view the situation that way.
We eventually did have to get an ISSN. About six months after
the first issue, Julia Blixrud, head of the National Serials Data
Project at the Library of Congress, "invited" the Newsletter's
editor to apply for an ISSN. Now, each issue displays the ISSN
correctly--and proudly--in the upper-right-hand corner.
6.2 Format and Arrangement of Electronic Documents
At the present time, no standard exists for the format and
arrangement of electronic publications. We need a standard
similar to the National Information and Standards Organization
(NISO) standard on Periodicals: Format and Arrangement to
regulate the presentation and appearance of electronic documents.
We need to determine what elements are essential and where they
should be placed for easiest access. As electronic journals and
newsletters proliferate and their editors experiment with format
and arrangement, a de facto standard may evolve, which could be
later formalized by NISO.
6.3 Citation Format
Librarians and other researchers are sticklers for the correct
form of citation, and a large number of messages to the
Newsletter concern the proper means of citing electronic
publications. Sue Dodd, of UNC-CH's Institute for Research in
the Social Sciences, may be the leading expert on bibliographic
control of electronic publications. She electronically
transmitted to me a copy of a talk she had given on this topic.
This talk, which had examples of citations to electronic
documents, made the point that electronic publications are, in
this respect, just like any other publications. For example, the
only unique requirement in citing the Newsletter is to note that
it is electronic.
Subscribers often ask how to cite specific items in the
Newsletter. This appears to be a difficult decision to make.
+ Page 121 +
The different electronic editions of the Newsletter do not have
standard page numbers. Since users print out the Newsletter from
different editions and use different methods to print it, page
numbers on printed copies do not always match, and consequently
they are meaningless. Moreover, a subscriber can very easily
edit or reformat the electronic document before printing it.
Citing line numbers in the electronic document is no more
satisfactory. Besides being awkward to calculate, the length of
the header in a BITNET message varies, and the header is counted
in the total number of lines. If the issue is forwarded by the
recipient to a colleague, the message header gets longer.
Thus, just as with paper serials, we need a standard article
identifier for electronic publications. There are other uses for
such a standard identifier. I believe that much of the serials
acquisitions of the future will be at the article level, not at
the journal level, and it will not be limited to acquisitions and
reference librarians. Library patrons will be acquiring their
own materials electronically.
Several groups are working on article identifiers for serials,
including NISO and ADONIS. Either they will work together, or
one group's recommendation will win out over the others and
evolve into a standard. This identifier will be as important in
electronic journal publishing as the ISSN is for all types of
serials.
6.4 Downloading
Different levels of user expertise in downloading, complicated by
many different institutional mail systems, have led to frequent
questions about downloading the Newsletter for redistribution and
retention. We have carried a few instructional items, but too
often what works at one institution and with one type of
communications software is not generally applicable. Users get
the best results when they seek assistance from their local
computer center.
+ Page 122 +
I have received inquiries about downloading the Newsletter to an
institution's local network for internal distribution. The
University of Michigan has done this, and I have discussed
procedures with several other universities. John James at
Dartmouth College sent this message:
Not everyone at Dartmouth uses BITNET. This is our
paperless method for handling the Newsletter on Serials
Pricing Issues. The BITNET copy is saved on the Library's
file server. Staff can access the file server and read the
newsletter online and, if desired, print portions of the
text. The complete backfile resides on the file server [6].
6.5 Security and Archiving
Security and archiving are two issues that are not easily
resolved. I have little idea of what people may do to the text
of the Newsletter after I send it to them. It would be easy to
change a few words and alter the sense of an item. As editor, I
retain online and disk copies of each issue, and I understand
that ALCTS downloads and prints an "archival" copy. I have no
answers to these two questions, but they must and will be
resolved. Perhaps a national archival database is the solution,
possibly associated with the Copyright Office of the Library of
Congress.
7.0 Reader Response
Response from The Newsletter readers, nearly all of which has
been positive and constructive, has been an unexpected and much
appreciated aid to the subcommittee's publishing effort. I value
this thoughtful comment from Chuck Hamaker:
I really enjoyed the last Newsletter, particularly the
"spot" announcements of how different libraries and
librarians were reacting to serials price increases. It
sounded active--for once--rather than just "Oh, my, how bad
it is." Also, several people had clearly done some of their
basic homework. It was good to see other libraries had
tracked specific increases for their collections (although
no one hazarded an overall estimate except UNC, if I
remember correctly). The Newsletter gave a real sense of
urgency and action, with a fair amount of competence in
terms of reactions. I was quite frankly surprised. I think
we've helped people focus some of their thinking over the
last year [7].
+ Page 123 +
While it is exciting for me to assist new users (so soon after I
was a new user myself!) and to make new e-mail friends, strange
things have happened. For example, users' attempts to subscribe
have gone out to the entire mailing list, leading to wonderfully
exotic messages back--some of which have, in turn, gone to
everybody, leading to more messages.
In the early days of the Newsletter, a number of subscribers
urged me to change the format to a bulletin board or a discussion
group. Because I felt strongly that submissions should be
edited, I refused to do this. After subscribing to two BITNET
discussion groups, I am even more determined to retain the edited
newsletter format. Without the intervention of an editor, a
large number of messages are disseminated, many of which are
careless and repetitive, leading to wasted time and frustration
on the part of the reader. Several subscribers have encouraged
me to continue the newsletter format for just this reason. For
example, one subscriber writes:
I subscribe to several listserv bulletin boards, which
inundate me with information on lots of library issues and
problems. They are a chore to keep up with, and I wonder
why I make the effort. Your newsletter, on the other hand,
is equally timely but much more succinct and to the point.
You do a great job [8].
One electronic publication that combines the best in discussion
groups and newsletters is the relatively new ACQNET, which is
edited by Christian Boissonnas at Cornell University Library [9].
Boissonnas receives submissions at his e-mail address, edits them
slightly (if at all), and batches them every few days into a
sequentially-numbered issue of 150 to 200 lines.
8.0 The Future of the Newsletter
The immediate success of the Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues
is assured.
+ Page 124 +
As stated earlier, the Newsletter has had very few commercial
publishers as subscribers. In order for the Newsletter to
accomplish its mission, publishers must be able to receive our
"news" and to respond to it. In recent months, more and more
publishers have made electronic contact asking to subscribe to
the Newsletter. They often use CompuServe; however,
increasingly, they have BITNET addresses through a nearby
academic institution or through their own node. European
publishers are beginning to subscribe either by using their own
BITNET or JANET addresses or through other networks that I have
not yet identified. In the United Kingdom, JANET now accepts
commercial accounts. I hope this is a trend that will spread to
the United States.
This growing ability for publishers and librarians to communicate
electronically is most welcome. Communication is essential if we
are to resolve the controversy over journal prices. Many of the
items in the Newsletter relate publishers' practices that seem
unfair to librarians. It is only right that the publishers
should be able to respond and fully explain their reasons for
such practices.
One editorial board member is able to print a limited number of
paper copies that are sent to certain involved publishers,
vendors, and librarians who have no access to electronic mail. I
feel certain that others do the same.
We are fortunate to be able to distribute the Newsletter through
three subscription agents. Not only do we have the vendors'
cooperation, but we know they read the Newsletter. We have had a
number of valuable contributions from subscription agents.
Several things will make the Newsletter better. More commercial
publishers need to subscribe to the Newsletter and contribute
responses to issues raised by librarians. We need to keep up
with developments in electronic technology--especially standards.
We need to seek additional means of distribution. We also need
to participate in resolving issues common to all types of
electronic publishing.
+ Page 125 +
9.0 Conclusion
New electronic newsletters, bulletin boards, and journals are
rapidly appearing on BITNET and other networks that will be part
of the proposed National Research and Education Network (NREN).
These electronic services differ in their purpose, editorial
control, and sophistication. An OCLC/American Association for
the Advancement of Science electronic publishing venture, which
will launch a science journal on OCLC's EPIC System, is breaking
new ground, with librarians and scientists cooperating in
producing the new journal.
Commercial publishers remain reserved about the short-range
feasibility of electronic distribution of scientific research
results; however, the ADONIS Project is a good example of the
type of electronic publication service that may be highly
appropriate for the coming national network. The project has
expanded its coverage from 219 biomedical journals from a few
publishers to more than 400 scientific journals from several
publishers. Owners have listened to ADONIS users and responded
to their requests for wider availability and personal computer
access. The articles, in CD-ROM format, may soon be available to
any purchaser, such as a library system or consortium, for use
with a CD-ROM juke box. Libraries could subsidize access or
charge for it, as they do for interlibrary loan, and scholars
would be able to identify and download articles on their own
workstations, paying a fee for retrieval, copying, and royalties.
The system is not ready today, but something like this seems well
suited for Internet and, in the future, NREN.
Electronic publishing will not happen on a large scale until the
value of a library is measured in terms of access as well as
ownership. The academic reward system is beginning to regard
quality over quantity, as is demonstrated by the increasing
number of institutions limiting the number of publications
considered in tenure and grant decisions. Compilers of library
statistics must change their standard to adapt to current
realities and possibilities. It will be a slow evolution, and
its lack of speed will deter the migration to electronic access
to information.
+ Page 126 +
It is clear that electronic publishing has a crucial role to play
in the national network, both as a way of refining scholarly
research and in distributing its finished products. Electronic
publishing efforts on networks are maturing, and they will
provide a valuable base of experience that will ease the
transition to retrieving journal article information through the
NREN. Electronic publishers recognize the problems of access,
control, security, and preservation, and we are working toward
resolving them. As user demand and confidence increase,
electronic publishing will continue to evolve as an alternative
to paper publishing.
Someone suggested that I include in my resume the fact that, as
editor of the Newsletter, I am on the cutting edge of electronic
publication. I am not sure I am ready to go quite that far, but
the Newsletter is definitely a part of the developing electronic
network, and those of us involved in its content and production
are helping to ease the way for those coming after. And we're
having a lot of fun doing it!
Notes
1. Subcommittee on Serials Pricing Issues, meeting minutes, 10
July 1988.
2. DataLinx is a system providing access to the Faxon Company's
publisher and title information files as well as to MARC serial
records and other files. Part of DataLinx is Courier, an
electronic mail service.
3. EBSCONET is EBSCO Subscription Services' online title and
publisher information file.
4. ALANET is the online network of the American Library
Association.
5. William A. Britten, "BITNET and the Internet: Scholarly
Networks for Librarians," College & Research Libraries News 51
(February 1990): 103-07.
6. "From the Editor," Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues, no.
10 (30 September 1989). (Request from editor:
TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET.)
+ Page 127 +
7. Charles Hamaker, BITNET e-mail message, 3 October 1990.
8. Margie Axtmann, BITNET e-mail message, 1 June 1990.
9. To subscribe to ACQNET, send a message to Christian Boissonnas
at CPC@CORNELLC.BITNET.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note: In May 1991, The Newsletter on Serials Pricing
Issues ceased to be an ALA publication. Marcia Tuttle is now the
publisher of this electronic serial. ALA's ALCTS Division now
publishes ALCTS Network News as its electronic newsletter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
About the Author
Marcia Tuttle
Serials Department
C.B. #3938 Davis Library
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill,NC 27599-3938
Telephone: (919) 962-1067
FAX: (919) 962-0484
BITNET: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET
Faxon's DataLinx: TUTTLE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal. It is sent free of charge to participants of the
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum (PACS-L), a computer
conference on BITNET. To join PACS-L, send an electronic mail
message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First
Name Last Name.
This article is Copyright (C) 1991 by Marcia Tuttle. All Rights
Reserved.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1991
by the University Libraries, University of Houston, University
Park. All Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computer
conferences, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are
authorized to add the journal to their collection, in electronic
or printed form, at no charge. This message must appear on all
copied material. All commercial use requires permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------
