Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
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!
A case study from the most recent Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship:
Proliferation of online access to primary literature has provided great opportunities for science libraries. Merging these resources with previously held formats, and negotiating with vendors for this access, remains a challenge at many institutions, regardless of size. This article highlights Haverford College\'s attempts to integrate these resources in an effort to enhance accessibility and to reduce costs inherent in this duplication of formats. Areas addressed include material formats, faculty and department cultures, consortial arrangements, users\' habits, implications for the online catalog, financial imperatives and communication patterns between our main and branch libraries. Initiatives currently underway are highlighted, as well as indications of how they will shape our future behaviors.
The American Physiological Association objected to E-Biomed because it would have undermined both our ability to safeguard the integrity of journal contents and the economic viability of our scholarly journals and the service activities that they support. As with many other scholarly societies, APS uses journal revenues to run and subsidize other programmes, particularly in the areas of education, outreach to under-represented minorities, public affairs, student awards and scientific meetings. . .
Matt Eberle writes \"September 1st is the deadline for the Public Library of Science demands to be met. 25,000 scientists have pledged to publish in, edit, review for, and subscribe to only journals that agree to make articles available after a 6 month embargo.