[275] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
E-Journals
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Carl Briggs, public relations)
Mon May 18 09:56:59 1992
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 08:52:49 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
From: "Carl Briggs, public relations" <BRIGGS@AB.WVNET.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
From: AB::BRIGGS "Carl Briggs, public relations" 16-MAY-1992 10:14:56.06
To: BRIGGS
CC: BRIGGS
Subj:
Return-path: <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU>
My thanks to Will Stuivenga for the response and the
clarifications.
A few comments:
> I'm not sure that BAR (common acronym for above named journal)
> can be described as "newly established" since it's been in
> existence since 1975.
Perhaps "newly established" is too relative a term. I'm sure it's
new compared to, say, _Scientific American_ or whatever. My
background is in newspapers, many of which go back a century or
more, so I tend to see everything since the 1960s explosion of
"alternative publishing" as more or less of an "upstart," begun
chiefly to go against the established organs of communication.
Less than 20 years old may not be "new," then, but it's certainly
not "old," so I'll have to consider a term somewhere in between.
> While BAR does allow a large amount of space for reader letters,
> I don't think the percentage of total space any where near
> approaches 50%. I don't have my latest copy near at hand to
> count pages, but the majority of the space is devoted to
> informational articles aimed at a non-expert (in archaeology)
> audience, not to the letters and opinion section.
True, in space commitment, the "letters to the editor" section is
not large. However, it's lively and sometimes controversial, and
is (supposedly) one of the real draws. I can imagine what an E-
journal "letters" section might look like, particularly if people
_really_ get into it.
On the "non-expert" part: excellent point. Thus, while the
"experts" have their own, more established journal, journals, or
means of communication, an "outsider" created his own, primarily
for a lay audience, and found a niche. I'm sure plenty of
"experts" read it, though.
> BAR is NOT an E-journal, but a normal print journal, so I hardly
> see how it supports this thesis. A thesis with which I am
> generally in agreement, but not one particularly supported by
> references to BAR. BAR HAS had a significant effect on
> "releasing" the Dead Sea Scrolls, and this is to its credit.
Right on the point that, as of yet, BAR is not an E-journal.
However, while I was not clear on this, the development of BAR
resembles the development of a "discussion list," via paper, where
a guy just invents his own journal. If the editor had access to a
list, he probably would simply transfer the non-refereed
information to electronic form. I appreciate the reference to
"normal print journal." The acceptability that BAR has attained
can be attained by other journals, created or as yet uncreated.
I also appreciate the support of the thesis, which of course is not
mine by any means. If someone is looking for a "new journal"
success story, the BAR is one, and its "guerilla" scholarship
approach could be imitated by others who dare to do so.
As it stands now, there seem to be few established publications for
dissenting scholarship. One of the best seems to be _The New York
Review of Books_, which goes after the Human Genome Project in its
latest issue. In doing so, it goes after at least one key science
journal that depends heavily on advertisements from biotech
supplies. E-journals, of course, don't need to please advertisers.
Now that some ancient scrolls have been "freed," perhaps we can go
about "freeing" some more contemporary ideas that presently are
being shut out of the debate. The E-journals can free these ideas
in the same way that BAR has done with the scrolls.
carl briggs
BRIGGS@AB.WVNET.EDU
