Scholarly Electronic Journals - Trends and Academic Attitudes: A Research Proposal
[Comments? to] McEldowney, UVa
UNCG LibSci 569 M. Shontz / K. Wright Spring 1995
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The number of electronic journals has grown steadily in the 1990s. A large part of this increase has been in scholarly or academic electronic journals. The five issues of the Association of Research Libraries' Directory of Electronic Journals, Newsletters and Academic Discussion Lists from 1991 through 1995 documents this growth. In a period of shrinking or stable university and library budgets, and of rising costs in serial print subscriptions, it is important for academic libraries and for researchers to understand the trends and implications of the digital information revolution. Some academics are very aware of these trends in scholarly communication and actively participate in their production. Other academics remain less aware of these new trends and do not participate in their production. Science journals are much more expensive than non-science journals. It is therefore important to make a distinction between the trends in the growth of science versus non-science electronic journals, and attempt to determine whether science scholars are participating more or less than non-science scholars in the production, writing, and reading of electronic journals. Information or answers to these issues will help academic librarians and researchers to anticipate trends in serials collection and subscription, and help in financial planning and budgeting. This research project will collect information on the number of scholarly electronic journals, newsletters, and other electronic communications, as they have changed over time, in order to show growth rates. A questionnaire will be developed to provide information on the factors of acceptance or resistance among scholars toward electronic journals. The purpose of this study is to investigate the growth rate of scholarly electronic journals and survey the positive and negative attitudes of academics toward electronic journals. A secondary purpose and priority is to discover any difference between the hard-science and non-hard-science academics in their attitudes and participation in electronic journals. TERMS This Proposal generally accepts and relies on the categories and definitions of "electronic scholarly journals" as presented in the ARL Directories form 1991 through 1995. Following are some of the main points from these Directories about these terms and their meanings. Chapter II more fully reviews opinions about these terms and categories. "Electronic journals" are self-defined; those who produce such journals name them in that way. These journals are generally accessed electronically through communication devices or telephone lines. The same definitions are true for electronic "newsletters," "listserves," and other electronic forums. At times the boundaries between these named formats are not clear, and blend or shade into each other. This Proposal concentrates on electronic journals. Electronic journals come in many forms. Some of these electronic serials are traditional paper journals simply made available electronically; others are sample selections, or just the table of contents of the paper journal; still others have no equivalent paper copies. "Scholarly" and "academic" mainly refers to research, writing, and ideas produced at universities and colleges by faculty members. It, however, can also include writings of graduate students, independent researchers, and researchers affiliated with non-academic institutions such as foundations and laboratories. "Hard-science" disciplines, sometimes called the "natural sciences," include physics, biology, chemistry, medicine, etc. The "non-hard-sciences" includes humanities such as philosophy, language, history, and the arts, as well as social sciences such as anthropology, sociology, political science, etc. Even here the boundaries are sometimes not completely clear and distinct, such as with business journals and computer science journals. This Proposal includes computer science under "hard-sciences," whereas business and news journals are classed under "non- hard-sciences."
ASSUMPTIONS and LIMITATIONS The collection of the number of scholarly electronic journals is based almost solely on the ARL Directory and its affiliated collection forums (New Journals List). It is assumed that these lists will continue to be produced in the future in a similar and comparable format. Other lists might complement or support the ARL collection; or even replace it in the future. It is assumed that the electronically archived lists will continue to be accessible. Since the Directory does not list electronic journals by disciplines, or categorize them as 'hard-sciences' or 'non-hard-sciences,' but does provide broad subject disciplines for Listserves, it is assumed the division of Listserves into subject disciplines would approximate the same divisions for electronic journals. This Project has not divided electronic journals by discipline. The survey of academics will be limited to institutions of higher education in Virginia and to the directors or their assistants in the hard- and non-hard-science schools or disciplines. It is assumed that these academic directors or their assistants will be familiar with the term "electronic journals," and that their responses will be truthful.
=========================================================================== References (Chapter I) Directory of electronic journals, newsletters and academic discussion lists. 1991-. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Scientific and Academic Publishing. NewJour announcement list (New electronic journals) [Online]. 1995. Available: Gopher. File: gopher://ccat.sas.upenn:5070/ll/journals/newjour
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
There is a large and growing amount of literature on electronic publishing, and even on the more specific subtopic of electronic scholarly journals. Most of this is recent, having been written in the last five to seven years. While this literature covers a wide range of topics, such as how to start an electronic journal, on pricing and cost, on cataloging, or on the relationship between print and electronic journals, hardly any of the literature consists of reports on research studies or surveys on electronic scholarly journals. A first section of this chapter will deal with the definitions and concepts of electronic scholarly journals, while a second section will review research studies.
I. Definitions and Categories: Clear or Blurred? Most of the writers about electronic scholarly journals show how new, and especially how transitional, this topic is - there is little agreement or definition on what an "electronic journal" is and what is "scholarly." Similarly the boundary lines between electronic journals and other forms of scholarly communication and writing, such as newsletters, news groups, discussion groups, and electronic conferences, are not always clear. Cataloging or categorizing journals between "scientific" and "humanities" similarly is rarely simple. Formats also often overlap with the interaction of print and electronic writers, publishers, and publications. Finally, there are few research studies and surveys which examine the attitudes and behavior of scholars toward electronic journals and publishing. Most of the literature describing the recent growth in electronic journals emphasize three important factors: money, technology, and convenience or speed (Okerson 1991, ii). In recent decades print journal prices have continued to rise beyond inflation, especially for scientific journals. That negative cost factor has driven many scholars and academic librarians to embrace and even strongly promote the alternative of "free" electronic publishing (Quinn 1994, line 12). At the same time technological changes, especially in communication hardware (the Internet) and software (access and viewing programs), have continued to attract more and more scholars to participate in electronic scholarly communication and publication. There has been a steady move up the technological scale from the early (late 1980s) low-end electronic publications available as ASCII files, to being organized and searchable on gophers (1992), to being tagged and graphically viewable at World Wide Web sites (Okerson 1994, 10). Many electronic journals, especially in the introductions of their first issues, emphasize the speed of publication of new ideas. Frank Quinn emphasizes "electronic communication is cheap, fast, and accessible." (Quinn 1994, line 18) Rather than it taking 3 to 4 years for a scholar's article to appear in a print journal, articles can be published immediately, whether grouped and massaged by a cyber- editor under an electronic journal, or independently and "privately" published and made globally available on the Internet. Definitions of "electronic scholarly journals" are still in transition. Michael Strangelove provides one of the clearest definitions, saying an e-serial (electronic serial) attempts "to emulate the characteristics of their print counterparts through organization, periodicity and tropical focus" (Strangelove 1993, 53). Like print, they also have "the intervention of editors, reviewers, and so forth." He sees e-journals as a subset of e- serials, and describes them as "not merely informational in design but . . . add to the corpus of a discipline through the organized dissemination of original research or knowledge" (Strangelove 1993, 53). Others describe an electronic journal simply as looking "like a paper journal, except for format" (Quinn 1994, line 146). Even a standard agreement on "scholarly" does not exist. Peter Byrnes, of the University of Virginia's Online Scholarly Initiative defined "scholar" as "faculty of the University of Virginia" (Byrnes 1995). Don Schauder sees "scholar" as being the same as "scientist" or at least overlapping, and prefers to use the term "professional." Schauder's "'Professional' denotes the academic profession, and particularly its research component, ranging across the entire spectrum of pure and applied disciplines" (Schauder 1994, 73). Ann Okerson defines "scholarly" as "being of 'scholarly' interest" (Okerson 1992, i). Such self-definitions seem to abound: if the "editor" of a set of electronic files claims they form an "electronic journal," then they are an "electronic journal" by definition. The Directory has made several distinctions and categories, over its five editions (1991-1995). There are two broad sections of 1) Journals and Newsletters and 2) Academic Discussion Lists and Interest Groups. Only the second section is subdivided into subjects or disciplines. Again definitions and rationale for these categories are not always clear. Sometimes discussion lists later become newsletters, and even have a selected electronic journal spinoff. The only electronic form of scholarly communication which seem to be excluded from this list is "private" electronic mail and messages. Otherwise there is a broad range, continually changing and interacting, of scholarly electronic communication from loosely organized discussion groups to highly organized and peer-reviewed electronic journals. As Ann Okerson mentioned in the third edition (1993) of the Directory, two trends are "(1) blurring boundaries between the different types of electronic serials, so that it is difficult to categorize them by the same taxonomies as those used for paper serials; and (2) blurring boundaries between formats" (Okerson 1993, i-ii). Concerning the categories of "scientific" versus "humanities" electronic journals, Don Schauder decided that, of the 41 electronic journals in the 1993 Directory, 26 (63%) "fell broadly into the Humanities," 11 (27%) "into the Sciences," and 4 (10%) "were difficult to categorize by subject" (Schauder 1994, 78). A recalculation Schauder's numbers and percentages indicates his 17% for 11 Sciences of 41 E Journals is clearly 27%, thus reducing his "difficult" from 20% to 10%. Schauder, in his own survey, uses these 4 variables of "subject field" - Arts; Biological Science and Medicine; Physical Sciences and Engineering; Social Sciences, Law and Business. (Schauder 1994, 88.) There is no explanation as to why these categories were chosen or grouped in this manner. While the Directory does not divide electronic journals and newsletters by subject or discipline, it does for its second section of discussion groups and lists. Again, there is little discussion of the rationale for deciding these categories and adding to them over the five editions. In the first two editions (1991,1992) there were four major categories of 1) Social Sciences and Humanities; 2) Biological Sciences; 3) Physical Science; and 4) Business and Miscellaneous Academia. In the third edition (1993) a new, fifth category of Computer Sciences was added; while the fourth edition (1994) also added a sixth category of Education and Library and Information Science. Humanities and Social Sciences were also separated in the fourth edition. Other minor changes and categories were made over the years. (See "Table of Contents" of the Directory each of the editions.) With the above subject or discipline categories of the Directory, it is somewhat difficult to determine a simple division between the "sciences" versus "humanities," or versus the "non-sciences." Is Computer Sciences a "science?" What is meant by "Miscellaneous Academia" and is it a science or non- science? If specialized discussion groups are hard to categorize, even more difficulty and confusion is encountered with electronic journals. As Okerson stated there is a blurring of categories. In the fourth Directory Jean-Claude Guedon asked "Why are Electronic Publications Difficult to Classify?" But he did not provide an answer, even though he reviewed the differences between manuscript, then print, and then electronic forms. Rather he suggested that "electronic publishing will need a classification scheme that is specific to its own nature." And since that electronic nature is continuing to evolve, classifications will continue to evolve for it. (Guedon 1994, 17- 23.) Finally, one might consider the definition, categories, and distinction between electronic and print formats for journals. Already Okerson suggested that the boundaries between these formats have been blurred. She further stated
. . . some electronic serials are electronic only, but various of them either index or review paper publications, and others move between electronic and more traditional formats. Some electronic journals produce paper or microform spinoffs and some paper journals appear selectively in electronic form. (Okerson 1993, ii.)
In addition, some paper journals also appear electronically or are published also in electronic form, such as the Directory, which was originally produced as paper copy and then loaded electronically on the Internet. The boundaries between electronic and print continue to collapse. Most scholars by the mid-1990s work in an electronic format or environment while writing, whether to produce a book, an article, or a letter or E-Mail message, or almost any form of information. Most publishers, even paper or traditional publishers and vendors, use electronic programs and formats to produce paper or electronic scholarly journals. It is becoming extremely rare for a scholar to be able to provide only a non- electronic copy of a scholarly communication or article (such as written by hand or by typewriter, as was acceptable in the early 1980s. Don Schauder reminded us of two insights 1) the boundaries between "informal" communications among scholars and the "formal" publication of articles are blurring (Schauder 1994, 83), and 2) publications by "printed journals is extensively electronically assisted" (Schauder 1994, 94) Almost every publication in the mid-1990s, whether print or electronic, is from a digital or wordprocessed source. As he concluded, "Electronically assisted publishing of professional articles is the mainstream mode for journal publishing in the scholarly communication industry" (Schauder 1994, 94).
II. Research Studies or Surveys on Electronic Journals This research project intends to survey scholars on their attitudes and behavior toward electronic journals. So far, only three research studies have been identified which are close to this goal. They are 1) Janette R. Olsen's 1992 Cornell dissertation "Implications of Electronic Journal Literature for Scholars" (Olsen 1992). 2) Pam Waddell's 1993 article titled "The Potential for Electronic Journals in UK Academia" (Waddell 1993). and 3) Don Schauder's doctoral dissertation as summarized and reported in the article "Electronic Publishing of Professional Articles: Attitudes of Academics and Implications for the Scholarly Communication Industry." (Schauder 1994). Only the third research report has been received and reviewed by this Research Project author. J. Olsen's dissertation may be of importance to scholars in the United States while P. Waddell's would similarly be important to scholars in the United Kingdom. The second half of Schauder's article is concerned with a survey of professionals in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Schauder's detailed and extensive article summarized his doctoral dissertation. It fell broadly into two parts of A) a review of the "state-of-the-art" of the history and development of professional or scholarly article writing and publishing, bringing it to the present (late 1993), and B) a July 1992 survey of professions and their attitudes toward electronic publishing. The research design, definitions, and results of the survey are reported in detail (Schauder 1994, 87-92). This appears as a very substantial and good survey, in which 743 senior academics were given a questionnaire (fairly equally divided between Australia, United States, and the United Kingdom), of which 582 or 78 percent usable responses were returned. Besides several information questions, Schauder asked some attitudinal questions concerning professional journal access and use. Since this survey was conducted almost three years ago, and since the electronic publishing industry changes rapidly, this survey might be a good one to replicate. In June 1995, Schauder emailed,
Yes, I think replication of the study would be a good idea. However the questionnaire could definitely be shortened and improved. Many things have changed (e.g. the rise of the Web, Adobe Acrobat) since the study was undertaken. I would warmly encourage follow-up or replicative work, and give every assistance (Schauder 1995, Email, 23 June)
Schauder faxed a copy of the 11-page questionnaire, upon request. While shortening and improving the Schauder survey might rise the percentage of responses, etc., it is difficult to see exactly where the questionnaire might be cut; and any change to the Schauder survey could destroy some of its comparability to the first survey. It is also suggested that the Schauder survey could be replicated using an electronic questionnaire form on the Web, or by email, or through File Transfer Protocol, specifically targeting selected responders and using password protections to verify and maintain identity of respondents. Andrew Treloar, a researcher in association with Schauder, is continuing research and writing on some of the issues of the Schauder survey (Treloar 1995). The Schauder survey provides some interesting suggestions and methods which were considered in designing the survey of this Research Project. Conclusion While the library literature concerning electronic scholarly journals is large and growing, it is almost entirely restricted to theoretical writing. Very little research surveys and reporting have been designed or reported as yet on the growing publication of electronic journals.
================================================ REFERENCES (Chapter II) Byrnes, Peter. 1995. Death of the monograph. Lecture and Q&A, 201 Clemons Library, University of Virginia, 3-4 pm, 3 May. Directory of electronic journals, newsletters and academic discussion lists. 1991-. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Scientific and Academic Publishing. Guedon, Jean-Claude. 1994. Why are electronic publications difficult to classify?: The orthogonality of print and digital media. In Directory: 17-22. Okerson, Ann. 1991. Foreword. In Directory: i-iv. Okerson, Ann. 1992. Foreword. In Directory: i-iii. Okerson, Ann. 1993. Foreword. In Directory: i-ii. Okerson, Ann. 1994. Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz. or, there is a there there. Surfaces. Olsen, Janette R. 1992. Implications of electronic journal literature for scholars. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Quinn, Frank. 1994. A role for libraries in electronic publishing [Online]. Available: Gopher. File: gopher://e- math.ams.org:70/00/genInfo/e-pubs/quinn2 Schauder, Don. 1994. Electronic publishing of professional articles: attitudes of academics and implications for the scholarly communication industry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45 (March): 73-100. [Also , Email June 1995 Extract]. Strangelove, Michael. 1993. Electronic journals and newsletters, introduction. In Directory: 53-58. Treloar, Andrew. 1995. Electronic scholarly publishing and the World Wide Web. Proceedings of AusWeb95 - The First Australian World Wide Web Conference. Spring [Online]. Available: URL. File: http://www.scu.edu.au/ausweb95 /papers/publishing/treloar/ Waddell, Pam. 1993. The Potential for electronic journals in UK academia. In Libraries and IT: Working Papers of the Information Technology Sub-committee of the HEFC's Libraries Review: 239-271. Bath, UK: The Office for Library and Information Networking.
In order to collect information on electronic scholarly journals two methods will be used. First, data and lists of present and past published electronic journals will be compiled and analyzed to identify growth trends. Second, scholars will be surveyed to discover their attitudes concerning electronic journals. Subsequently in this chapter, these are referred to as List and Survey. The List The numbers and titles for the List will be collected and analyzed from the Directory of Electronic Journals, Newsletters, and Academic Discussion Lists (1991-1995), as produced annually. It will be supplemented as necessary and as they become available (sometimes on a daily basis) from the NewJourals-ListServe. This List will provide a longitudinal view of past, present, and future trends in electronic scholarly publications. This List will be analyzed, in June 1995, to determine if it still adequately provides the significant reference source for electronic scholarly journal publication. At such time the Directory will be retained or replaced by a more appropriate reference source. This precaution is necessary as lists and sources are often not stable electronically, and reconsideration of those lists and sources should be undertaken periodically. The List will be the total (population) list as available for electronic scholarly journals, not a sample. Only the 1992 or Second Edition of the Directory provided some detail on the deletion of E-journal entries, as well as name changes, revised entries, new entries, and inactive e-journals and newsletters (Directory 1992, 9-11). Otherwise this important information about changes over time do not seem to be available to the general public. The Survey This Research Project will conduct a survey of scholars' attitudes and behavior toward electronic scholarly journals. The survey will consist of an information and attitudinal questionnaire. (See Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire) Survey Population and Sample The survey population will be members of the faculty at the 77 institutions of higher education in the Commonwealth of Virginia, in the United States of America. The sample will be of four persons at each of those institutions - two each in the 'hard-sciences' and two each in the 'humanities' or 'non-hard- sciences,' with one being the head of a department or school of that subject or discipline, and the other being a 'non-head' faculty member in the same department or school. These respondents should provide views of faculty administrators as well as teaching faculty. The surveys will be filled out and returned independently in order to maintain some anonymity. The 308 questionnaires will be sent out first in mid-September 1995. A second will be sent out in late October, if it appears that there is less than a 50 percent response rate. The analysis of the questionnaires and a report on it will be made during December 1995 and be made available in [: This survey and report was NEVER done: This paper was only a research Proposal, not an actual reserach activity-->] March 1996 on World Wide Web.
Variables Two variables are mentioned above - whether the respondent is in sciences or non-sciences, and whether or not the respondent is a director. These two first variables will be requested in the questionnaire under the first two questions. Therefore, questions 1, 2, and 3 are mainly information questions, while the questions from 4 through 6 are largely attitudinal combined with some informational requests. Data Collection. The questionnaire will be sent out in mid-September 1995 by when most scholars will have returned to their faculty activities. If, within a month, less than 50 percent have responded, a second mailing will be done in late October 1995. A single researcher will receive the filled out questionnaire. Validity and Reliability. The questionnaire will be pre-tested at a North Carolina university, utilizing 4 faculty, two each as heads and subordinates in departments in the sciences and non-sciences. ================================================ References (Chapter III) Directory of electronic journals, newsletters and academic discussion lists. 1991-. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Scientific and Academic Publishing.
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The analysis of the data collection of the lists of electronic scholar publishing will indicate trends in past, present, and future electronic publishing. It will consist of tables and graphs. The analysis of the data collected and tabulated from the returned questionnaires will be presented in tables and graphs. These will indicate numbers and percentages of the Virginia sample scholarly population involved in scholarly electronic publication, and the degree of their involvement. While the survey questionnaire remains only a proposal and not an actual survey, the Directories have been published. Numbers have been collected from the five annual Directories, 1991 - 1995. They are presented in the following tables and graphs. The graphs are accessible on the Web (McEldowney 1995b and 1995c). Table graphics - ALL 3 TABLES Table A Table B Table C ================================================ TABLE A. Growth of Academic Electronic Journals and Newsletters* Jly 1991 Mar 1992 Apr 1993 May 1994 May 1995 Electronic Journals 27 36 45 181 306 Electronic Newsletters 83 97 195 262 369 Total 110 133 240 443 675 ===============================================
TABLE B. Growth of Scholarly Electronic Listserves with Subjects or Disciplines* Jly 1991 Mar 1992 Apr 1993 May 1994 May 1995 --Soc & Humanities 381 470 610 717 1145 --Education & Lib Science --- --- --- 275 365 --Business 24 72 51 82 117 --Sciences Computers --- --- 126 311 359 --Biological 104 125 124 155 222 --Physics 71 102 151 245 272 Total 517 769 1062 1785 2480 Percentage-- Non-Sciences 66.2% 70.5% 62.2% 60.2% 65.5% Sciences 33.8% 29.5% 37.8% 39.8% 34.4%
================================================ TABLE C. Scholarly Electronic Journals and Communication* Jly 1991 Mar 1992 Apr 1993 May 1994 May 1995 --Journals & Newsletters 110 133 240 443 675 --Listserves & Discussions 517 769 1152 1784 2480 Total 627 902 1392 2227 3155 *Numbers found in Directory 1991, 1-3, 69-70; Directory 1992, 1-4, 83-84; Directory 1993, 47-51, 141-42; Directory 1994, 55-62, 223-24; Directory 1995, 89-100, 347-348.
Graphs of Electronic Journals and other Scholarly Publications
for ALL Three Charts of Electonic Publications 1991-1995
- Journals and Newsletters 1991-1995
- Listserves by Discipline 1991-1995
- Electronic Publication of Journals, Newsletters, and Listserves 1991-1995
References (Chapter IV) Directory of electronic journals, newsletters and academic discussion lists. 1991-. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Scientific and Academic Publishing. McEldowney, Philip. 1995b. Electronic publications, 1991-1995, Charts [Online]. Available: URL. File: http://poe. acc.virginia.edu/~pm9k/libsci/charts.html McEldowney, Philip. 1995c. Electronic publications, 1991-1995, Tables [Online]. Available: URL. File Tables: http://poe. acc.virginia.edu/~pm9k/libsci/tables.html Survey of Virginia Scholars on Electronic Journals. September, October 1995. [NOTE: Never published, only PROPOSED!]
This research project will reveal two aspects of the new, emerging electronic scholarly journals. One is the annual snapshots of the types and numbers of electronic scholarly communications since 1991, and the trends in their growth rates. The second will be the attitudes of scholars toward this emerging scholarly communication, both their level of participation and their views on the advantages and disadvantages of the electronic communication. The tables and graphs developed from numbers in the annual Directory for five years reveal a steady increase in the number of electronic scholarly titles and discussion groups (Table C). The rate of increase seems fairly constant and shows no sign, as yet, of leveling off'. The numbers for 1995 are five to seven times the numbers from the first Directory in 1991. If there was ever any doubt, these graphs indicate a robust growth in electronic scholarly communication. One unexpected result is that the percentage of hard-science to non-hard-science Listserves (Table B) remains fairly steady and at about only one-third of the total Listserves. This is significant and indicates librarians and researchers who may have anticipated cost savings from expensive science print journals may not be able to find those savings in cheaper electronic science journals and communications. The survey of Virginia university faculty might reveal a high use of electronic communication, some of which may fall outside the electronic communications listed in the annual Directory. Science faculty may have a more positive attitude toward electronic communication, and therefore may use the available electronic resources more than do non- science faculty. It would be a significant finding if the survey revealed an equally positive attitude toward electronic journals by non-science faculty. The graphs from the Directory reveal interesting comparisons between the science and non-science electronic communications; the Survey might confirm some of these same characteristics or contradict them. The close and complex relationship of electronic scholarly production and faculty attitudes will aid in understanding the nature and future of this electronic age. It is unfortunate that so few research surveys and studies have been made of scholarly electronic activities and attitudes. The topic of electronic scholarship is certainly very actively debated. Stevan Harnad claims we are in a "post-Gutenberg" age in electronic scholarly or esoteric publishing (Harnad 1991), and has made the 'Subversive Proposal' that scholars everywhere publish their research and ideas, electronically and free. As Harnad stated
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
If every esoteric author in the world this very day established a globally accessible local ftp archive for every piece of esoteric writing he did from this day forward, the long-heralded transition from paper publication to purely electronic publication (of esoteric research) would follow suit almost immediately. (Harnad 1994)
Such ideas are interesting and exciting. Still, more might be done to discover the meaning, significance, and implications of these developments. One way is through tracking trends such as the annual Directory. However, even the Directory does not cover all forms, such as electronic preprints (Ginsparg 1995). The Survey proposed in this Project might be repeated annually or bi-annually to provide information on scholarly electronic activity among the faculty at the universities in Virginia. The Survey might also be extended to be a national survey. ================================================ References (Chapter V) Directory of Electronic Journals, Newsletters and Academic Discussion Lists. 1991-. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Scientific and Academic Publishing. Ginsparg, Paul. 1995. First steps towards electronic research communication. In Directory, 1995: 1-10. Harnad, Stevan. 1991. Post-Gutenberg galaxy: the fourth revolution in the means of production of knowledge. The Public Access Computer Systems Review 2, no. 1: 39-53. Harnad, Stevan. 1994. (The subversive proposal) [Online]. Available: FTP. File: ftp://cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/Subversive.Proposal/e- print.01.harnad.public-e-print-archives-subversive-proposal. 09 November. Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing. 1995. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Scientific and Academic Publishing. Treloar, Andrew. 1995. Electronic scholarly publishing and the World Wide Web. Proceedings of AusWeb95 - The First Australian World Wide Web Conference. Spring [Online]. Available: URL. File: http://www.scu.edu.au/ausweb95/papers/publishing/treloar/
QUESTIONNAIRE on Electronic Scholarly Journals
This survey seeks your opinions about electronic scholarly journals. Your responses will provide important information on the attitudes of scholars about electronic publications. University officials, researchers, librarians, and publishers, all are very interested and concerned about the directions and impact of electronic journals in the future. Please take a few minutes to fill out this questionnaire and return it to the address below. All efforts will be made to maintain confidentiality of responses. The results of this survey will be reported in [: This survey and report was NEVER done; this paper is only a PROPOSAL.] March 1996 at this URL http://poe.acc.virginia.edu/~pm9k/libsci/ejSurvey.html Please fill in the blanks and return the questionnaire to the address at the end. Space is provided near the end of the questionnaire and on the back pages for additional comments.
First identify your type of discipline and your position A. Hard-sciences ____ Or Non-Hard-science ____ B. Director or Head ____ Or Non-director _____ ============================================================= 1. In the last 5 years, have you published journal articles? _____ Yes ____ No (if "No," go to question #3). 2. If yes, have any of these been in electronic format or journals? _____ Yes ____ No ================================================ 3. Do you use a computer or wordprocessor for scholarly writing and communication (letters, papers, reports, class work)? ___ Very Often ___ Often ___ Sometimes ___ Rarely ___ Never
4. Place the appropriate number (1 to 5) next to the activity which describes yourself. 1.Alot 2.Often 3.Some 4.Rarely 5.Never ___ Use Email ___ View Newsnet groups ___ Write to Newsnet groups ___ Subscribe to Listserves ___ Send messages to Listserves ___ Use FTP (File Transfer Protocol) to receive or send materials ___ Use or view gophers ___ Use or view Web sites ___ Create an HTML (HyperText Markup Language) document ___ View electronic journal(s) 5. Do you encourage and support other scholars to publish electronically? ___ Yes. ___ No.
================================================ 6. Following are two suggested lists of advantages or disadvantages of electronically published or publishing scholarly articles. Please add any items to the lists. RANK each list separately with 1 as the lowest and 10 highest or most important. Advantages of Disadvantages of electronic scholarly electronic scholarly articles articles ___ Speed of publication ___ Poor quality ___ Access - 24 hours a day ___ Not refereed ___ Convenience --- Copyright concerns ___ Quick response to ideas ___ Plagiarism ___ Paperless ___ Lack of technical skill/training ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Format not user friendly ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Comments (below and on the back of pages) =============================================================== Return questionnaire to: Philip McEldowney Phone 1-804-924-4987 Alderman Library Email philipmc@Virginia.edu University of Virginia Charlottesville, Va. 22903 ===============================================================
Links to resources on Electronic Scholarly Journals
Amiran, Eyal, Elaine Orr, and John Unsworth. 1991. Refereed electronic journals and the future of scholarly publishing. Advances in Library Automation and Networking 4: 25-53.
Manoff, Marlene. 1992. Electronic journals: postmodern dream or nightmare. Academic and Library Computing 9 (September): 10-12. McEldowney, Philip. 1995a. Electronic journals - references and links [Online]. Available: URL. File: http://poe.acc.virginia.edu/~pm9k/libsci/ejref.html McEldowney, Philip. 1995b. Electronic publications, 1991-1995, Charts [Online]. Available: URL. File: http://poe.acc.virginia.edu/~pm9k/libsci/charts.html McEldowney, Philip. 1995c. Electronic publications, 1991-1995, Tables [Online]. Available: URL. File: http://poe.acc.virginia.edu/~pm9k/libsci/tables.html McEldowney, Philip. 1995d. Scholarly electronic journals - trends and academic attitudes: a research proposal [Online]. Available: URL. File: http://poe.acc.virginia.edu/~pm9k/libsci/ejs.html McKnight, Cliff. 1993. Electronic journals--past, present . . . and future? Aslib Proceedings 45 (January): 7-10. McMillan, Gail. 1991. Embracing the electronic journal: one library's plan. The Serials Librarian 21, nos. 2/3: 97-108. Metz, Paul. 1991. Electronic journals from a Collection Manager's point of view. Serials Review 17, no. 4: 82-83. NewJour announcement list (New electronic journals) [Online]. 1995. Available: Gopher. File: gopher://ccat.sas.upenn:5070/ll/journals/newjour Okerson, Ann. 1991. The electronic journal: what, whence, and when? The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 2, no. 1: 5-24. Okerson, Ann. 1991. Foreword. In Directory: i-iv. Okerson, Ann. 1992. Foreword. In Directory: i-iii. Okerson, Ann. 1992. Publishing through the network: The 1990s debutante. Scholarly Publishing 23 (April): 170-177. Okerson, Ann. 1993. Foreword. In Directory: i-ii. Okerson, Ann. 1994. Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz. or, there is a there there. Surfaces. Okerson, Ann. 1995. Foreword. In Directory: i-iv [Online]. Available: URL. File: http://poe.acc.virginia.edu/~pm9k/libsci/for.html Olsen, Janette R. 1992. Implications of electronic journal literature for scholars. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Parang, Elizabeth, and Laverna Saunders. 1994. Electronic Journals in ARL Libraries: Policies and Procedures. SPEC Kit 201. Washington, DC: Office of Management Services, Association of Research Libraries. "Paperless papers: Electronic Science Journals," The Economist, 16 Dec 1995, p. 78-80. Peek, Robin P. 1994. Where is publishing going? a perspective on change. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45, no. 10: 730-736. Quinn, Frank. 1994. A role for libraries in electronic publishing [Online]. Available: Gopher. File: gopher://e- math.ams.org:70/00/genInfo/e-pubs/quinn2 Rodgers, David L. 1994. Scholarly journals in 2020. The Serials Librarian 24, nos. 3/4: 73-76. Rowland, Fytton. 1994. Electronic Journals: Neither Free Nor Easy. EJournal 4, no. 2 (1994). Schauder, Don. 1994. Electronic publishing of professional articles: attitudes of academics and implications for the scholarly communication industry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45 (March): 73-100. Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing. 1995. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Scientific and Academic Publishing. Strangelove, Michael. 1993. Electronic journals and newsletters, introduction. In Directory: 53-58. Treloar, Andrew. 1995. Electronic scholarly publishing and the World Wide Web. Proceedings of AusWeb95 - The First Australian World Wide Web Conference. Spring [Online]. Available: URL. File: http://www.scu.edu.au/ausweb95/papers/publishing/treloar/ Waddell, Pam. 1993. The potential for electronic journals in UK academia. In Libraries and IT: Working Papers of the Information Technology Sub-committee of the HEFC's Libraries Review: 239-271. Bath, UK: The Office for Library and Information Networking.To the Library Science Papers page