Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
Lee Hadden writes:\" In a rare example of cooperation between magazines from different
publishers, Cosmopolitan (Hearst Corp) and Maxim (Dennis Publishing), got
together to create a new publishing alliance. They both have decided to run
articles in their March issues declaring the war between the sexes is over.
The two magazines hope the peace treaty, may also push the boundaries of
We will see if the media is the message.
Maxim, often called \"The Cosmo for Men,\" and Cosmopolitan (which is
not known as the \"Maxim for Women\"), both tend to place the opposite sex on
a pedestal, yet as an object of mystery to be figured out, rather than
simply ogled. Both are also renowned for their R-rated, come-hither cover
Read more about it in today\'s Wall Street Journal. \"Hey Babe, Your
Pages of Mine? How the First Encounter Unfolded: In Curious Editorial
Coupling, Cosmo, Maxim Magazines Declare War of the Sexes Over.\" By Matthew
Rose. Monday, January 14, pages B1 and B3.
See you at the front lines...\"
Geoff Harder writes \"According to the Sunday January 6, 2002
edition of The Observer: \"Reed Elsevier, the Anglo-Dutch publisher, and Amsterdam-based rival Wolters Kluwer are expected to merge by the end of the year, according to investment bankers.\" A lot of power in the hands of a very few... The full story can be found Here.\"
Lee Hadden writes: \" Primemedia wants to reduce its large debt obligation, so is planing to
sell the popular magazine, \"Modern Bride,\" for about $50 million. The title
has attracted interest from several publishers, including some competitors.
Also on the block are several other titles in the hunting and photography
titles. Many of these are very popular titles in public libraries.
Read more about it in today\'s Wall Street Journal, December 18, 2001,
Someone passed along Journal of Electronic Publishing, a new journal [ok, so it\'s new to me, but it ain\'t so new] I wasn\'t aware of.
\"The Journal of Electronic Publishing is for the thoughtful forward-thinking publisher, librarian, scholar, or author -- in fact, anyone in this new business -- facing those challenges. We aim to range widely in our coverage, but the emphasis will be on the broader issues that should shape policy, and on professional, scientific or academic publishing, both books and journals.
JEP faces the same problems as any electronic publication, and we intend to make a virtue of that by using the Journal as a testbed to try ideas and to show to you, our readers, what happens when we do. We hope for successes, of course, but we will report on our failures, too.\"
Al Winchell may be onto something. After deciding he\'d had it with overpriced computer books \"written in computerese with 95 percent of its information relevant only to the beanie with spinner crowd, and so techie that much of the information was a potential intro to the Windows Blue Screen of Death,\" he decided to develop The GoodBoot Computing Journal,\" an ongoing publication for real computer users. According to the author, \"the Journal provides computer information written in King’s English. It has graphics that correspond with what one will actually see on their monitor. Each tutorial is presented in short bursts allowing one to master a technique quickly without having to miss a single golf outing.\" He provides more description in the article as well as subscription information. More
The Chronicle of Higher Ed. is reporting on a new site called faculty of 1000 that has 1,400 biologists who volunteered to rates the quality of scientific papers in the life sciences by essentially allowing them to vote on which papers they think are most interesting.
Full Story, and also check out The Faculty of 1000 Site.
Lee Hadden Writes: \"
There are several new items about scientific publishing in the October
18, 2001 issue of Nature:
\"Journal editors defect in protest at subscription costs\" on p.
\"The best and worst of times--What winners will emerge from the
battles over access to scholarly date?\" by David R. Worlock, on p. 671;
\"Lessons for the future of journals--Science journals can continue to
thrive because they provide major benefits,\" by Carol Tenopir and Donald W.
King, on p. 672.
If you have an e-subscription to Nature, you can access the journal
The Chronicle of Higher Education
has More Good News on the journal front, at least half the editorial board of Machine Learning, signed a resignation letter this month because the journal\'s subscription fee was so high that scientists\' articles were not reaching a wide-enough readership.
The publisher responded by saying that it would increase the number of journal pages and reduce the annual subscription rate for individuals. The subscription rate for universities and research centers remains at $1,050.
Library Journal reports (briefly) on the 10/1 Forum on Publishing Alternatives in Science at Johns Hopkins:
\"We gave our intellectual property away to private firms and scholarly societies,\" said David E. Shulenburger, provost of the University of Kansas . . . \"They have found they can sell it back to us at prices that will produce profits and/or support the cost of other activities.\" Shulenburger had the figures to back up the assertions. From 1986 to 1999, the number of journals grew from 103,700 to 161,000 (55 percent). While the Consumer Price Index increased 49 percent in that period and the price of healthcare went up 111 percent, the cost of scholarly journals increased 175 percent.
More (registration required).
Slashdot pointed the way to this most excellent letter of resignation from Machine Learning journal Editorial Board. Forty people have resigned from the Editorial Board of the Machine Learning Journal (MLJ). They say when the journal started fifteen years ago research papers did not circulate easily, but now, articles circulate easily via the Internet. They gone on to say MLJ publications are under restricted access, because universities and research centers pay a yearly fee of $1050. This works to limit contact between the current machine learning community and the potentially much larger community of researchers. They also point out none of the revenue stream from the journal makes its way back to
authors. They see little benefit for a mechanism that ensures revenue for a third party by restricting the communication channel between authors and readers.
Great to see this, I only hope we see it more often!