[735] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
What's Going on Here?, Part I
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Mon Jul 13 18:49:00 1992
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 17:40:01 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
2 Messages, 162 Lines
*-----
From: "Walt Crawford" <BR.WCC@RLG>
Subject: Re: PACS Review annual print editions
Regarding David Tyckoson's complaint about print publication of annual
volumes of Public-Access Computer Systems Review (PACS Review for short,
*not* "PACS-L Review")...
As the member of the PACS Review Editorial Board who argued most
strenuously in favor of the annual volumes, I would like to respond.
What follows is only my own opinion; others on the Editorial Board may
well disagree.
First, some excerpts from my December 1990 message to the Editorial
Board that apparently helped to sway the discussion...
--------------------------Beginning of quoted material------------------
... I thought that the primary purpose of PACS Review was to provide
a substantial new journal for patron access issues, along the way
showing that an electronic journal could attract good articles and
maintain "citeability." Now, if that is the purpose--if the content
of the journal is primary--then my thoughts below are pertinent.
If, on the other hand, the primary purpose of PACS Review is to
publish an electronic journal--that is, if the medium is indeed the
message--then ... you can skip the rest of this message...
Re: "Undermining the Electronic Journal"
I honestly don't understand this argument. We're not providing
simultaneous print, and *none* of the articles were submitted on the
assumption that they would eventually appear in print...
What am I missing here? Does it undermine a professional journal when
its articles are reprinted in book collections? Does it undermine a
conference to have selective proceedings available in hardcopy?...
Reasons FOR a print annual
1. Some very good material has appeared in PACS Review, material that
would serve public libraries, special libraries and small academic
libraries (possibly even school libraries), not just the Internet
Elite.
2. Reaching out beyond the "tightly focused" audience will serve the
profession. I don't know whether we'd sell 500 copies or 5,000
(probably closer to the former than the latter), and I don't know
what the distribution would be between PACS-L people who want a
convenient archival version and people who don't have ready access to
Bitnet...but I'll bet it reaches hundreds of others.
3. Frankly, I think the print annual will ... be recognized as a
worthy contribution in its own right--and that can only *enhance* the
validity of PACS Review.
Bottom line: I'm a library professional, and my primary interest in PACS
Review is to serve the profession. Many (actually, MOST) of those who
could be served by PACS Review don't have direct access to it in
electronic form. A print annual bridges that gap and establishes
valuable outreach; it also shows the profession that the electronic
journal does work (that is, does attract good material). Seems to me
that's a win-win situation.
--------------End of quoted material---------------
Three critical points here:
(1) Unlike EJournal, PACS Review is *not* just about electronic
publishing; it's primarily about public access computer systems.
(2) The *overwhelming majority* of libraries just getting involved
with public access computer systems *do not have access to the
Internet*; thus, maintaining "electronic purity" is, in practice,
elitist. (Incidentally, anyone who thinks the Internet is "free"
needs to talk to their campus/institution administration.
Usage-insensitive, perhaps; free, not by a long shot.)
(3) Unlike book projects for commercial library publishers, *no* person
or for-profit firm makes a dime from the hardcopy publication.
*All* labor is donated; that includes all of my time for adding
Ventura tags to the articles, adding index points (the major task),
and preparing print pages. Folks at Houston donate extra time for
proofreading and shepherding the no-dollar publishing contract.
The paperback annual volumes (on permanent paper) cost $20 each
(less for LITA members) for 200+-page short-run books with significant
value added (reformatting and indexing); LITA's not exactly gouging!
At this point, I find I have little patience for the argument that
worthwhile electronic publications should not be sullied by print
publication. It strikes me as elitism on the one hand, and as showing
preference for medium over message on the other.
-Walt Crawford- (br.wcc@rlg.bitnet; br.wcc@rlg.stanford.edu)
*----
From: Katy Silberger <JWEZ@MARISTB>
Subject: What's Going on Here?
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> FROM DAVID TYKOSON'S POSTING:
> I am very disturbed by two announcements that came in yesterday's
> PACS-L mail. Maybe it's just my end-of-the-week blues, but I think that we
> are seeing a subtle shift in the status and value of the Internet. The
> two messages to which I am referring are: 1. That the back issues of
> PACS-L Review have just been published in print form, and 2. That the
> next edition of Zen and the Art of the Internet has just been published
> in PRINT form ONLY! What's going on here?
>
> To my mind, this sends some messages about the use of the networks
> that I find disturbing. First, the publication of PACS-L Review in print
> form says that this journal has enough useful material that it can now be
> published in a "real" format. cation
I don't share you alarm at documents migrating in formats.
In fact libraries collect many journals in more than one format. Many
libraries buy microfilm for long term storage of periodicals and
other documents. I don't see PACS-L existing in both electronic
and paper format to be a threat to the e-format. There are lots
of different information needs. Some people who need PACS-L in
paper may not have anyway of conveniently and consistently accessing
PAC-L electronically. They may need it in paper, not because they
are Luddites, but because money is short and not all institutions
can make adequate access to the INTERNET available. I wouldn't want
those folks cut off if they are interested. I can easily imagine
a senario in which libraries collect journals in paper format AND
e-format for patrons who want to be able to do research from a CRT,
and frequently from remote locations.
> An even more threatening statement is the publication of Zen in
> print only. What this says to me is that some publishers have found out
> that there is money to be made on them thar networks, so they are going to
> try to make us pay for information that has been available "free" to
> everyone in the past. st
The author of "Zen..." has a right to financial benefit
for his efforts. B. Kehoe wrote a good guide, shared it with many
of us, and if he wishes to enter into a contract with a print
publisher so that he receives remueration, I see that more as
his personal decision rather than a symbolic act signalling the
end of free exchange of information on the INTERNET. At present
an author doesn't have any options to publish a book electronically
on the INTERNET which would pay her/him royalties. This may be
a time for the INTERNET community to undertake plans to make
e-publishing economically viable for authors. I don't think that
it is realistic to expect people to spend hundreds of hours
working on documents which they then make freely available to anyone
wanting a copy. Authors need to eat.
What I believe we saw with the first few versions of "Zen..."
was a phenomenon which Steven Harnad calls "Scholarly Skywriting".
Kehoe made his initial revisions of the document available to a
vast pool of potential peer reviewers. He was able to receive
feedback at a much faster pace than occurs in traditional publishing
from a greater number of peer reviewers; peer reviewers with diverse
areas of expertise. This was a case in which e-publishing and
traditional print publishing complemented each other nicely. I
think that the happiest outcome would be for print publisher to
feel that INTERNET is NOT A THREAT, but a productive complement
to the publishing industry, and that they would ultimately lend their
support, rather than fight further development of the INTERNET.
Katy Silberger
jwez@maristb
