Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 07:17:05 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: DR- Begin Discussion of Paper 5 CHEMCONF '96 New Initiatives in Chemical Education An On-Line Symposium, June 3 to July 19, 1996 Sponsored by the American Chemical Society's Division of Chemical Education Organized by: Donald Rosenthal, Department of Chemistry, Clarkson University, and Tom O'Haver, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, The University of Maryland at College Park. It is Thursday, June 20, 1996. I wish to thank Brian M. Tissue for his paper. Discussion of Paper 4 is now over. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There will be additional time for General Discussion between July 15 and July 19. Also, no activities are planned on Saturday and Sunday, June 22 and June 23. Those wishing to engage in casual General Discussion of Symposium related topics may do so via CHEMCONF. >From 8 AM Eastern Daylight Saving Time (EDST) today until 8 AM EDST on Saturday, June 22 you have an opportunity to discuss Paper 5: "What Should a Chemical Education Journal Be in an Age of Electronic Information" by John W. Moore, Elizabeth A. Moore, Jon L. Holmes, Nancy S. Gettys, Mary Saecker, Carol Steinhart, Amanda Reinert and Lin W. Morris Your discussion and questions should be sent to: CHEMCONF@UMDD.UMD.EDU or CHEMCONF@UMDD.BITNET In order to insure that this On-Line symposium functions smoothly PLEASE READ THESE BRIEF INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The SUBJECT LINE can be useful in keeping track of various discussion threads. For example: P5 - GJ - D - I. Our Audience - More space for newer areas P5 indicates the message pertains to Paper 5. GJ are the initials of the sender - George Jones D - identifies discussion (Q for a Question, A for an Answer) A brief (less than 40 character) description of the content or discussion thread. Please do not append or include a long quotation from the paper or a previous question or discussion message. Quote only a few lines and place a ">" at the beginning of each quoted line. CHEMCONF IS NOT TO BE USED FOR SENDING GENERAL MESSAGES OR EXTRANEOUS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ QUESTIONS. ^^^^^^^^^ Be courteous to others in your responses and your e-mail practices. Please make your comments and questions carefully reasoned and succinct. Send one long message rather than several short messages. (Let's try to maximize Quality/Quantity.) If you wish to sign off, change your mail options, retrieve files, etc. remember to send such request to: LISTSERV@UMDD.UMD.EDU or LISTSERV@UMDD.BITNET and NOT CHEMCONF. (Listserv commands were provided when you signed on and are available on the World Wide Web.) Thomas O'Haver (University of Maryland, Phone: (301) 405-1831 e-mail: to2@umail.umd.edu), symposium co-chair, is managing the CHEMCONF Listserv and the World Wide Web site (The URL is http://www.wam.umd.edu/~toh/ChemConf96.html). Please contact Professor O'Haver about Internet problems. I will be out of town from Thursday afternoon to Monday morning. Please direct Symposium related inquiries to Tom O'Haver. Donald Rosenthal Symposium Co-Chair and Chair, Committee on Computers in Chemical Education Clarkson University Phone: 315-265-9242 E-mail: ROSEN1@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU ------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 21:45:56 -0600 From: "John W. Moore" Subject: P5-DR-SQ-Short Questions: Response Here are our responses to the short questions raised by Don Rosenthal. We have repeated the questions and placed the responses between rows of hyphens ------------------. > >P5 - DR - SQ - A General Comment and Some Questions > >I downloaded and printed your paper about a week ago. >When I examined it on the World Wide Web earlier today, >it had changed!! ------------------------------------- What you saw the first time was the abstract, but since the paper is electronic, it can be a living document. As you can see we are asking others to contribute to it by giving us their ideas and opinions. We have already received some input from conference particpants and have incorporated it into the paper. We hope to receive more from people who follow the directions in the paper. ------------------------------------- > >You ask MANY good and thought provoking questions. >I hope we can discuss some of them on June 18 and 19 - the dates >assigned for discussion of this paper. -------------------------------------- I thought the dates for discussion of this paper were June 20 and 21, and you comfirmed that in a separate email. -------------------------------------- > >I have a few additional questions. > >1. (III. Responsibility and Accuracy) > In this section you indicate there is an "18-month backlog of accepted > manuscripts waiting to be published". It seems to me this is a > very serious problem. I have heard complaints that after a paper is > submitted to JCE it can take two years or more before it is published. > ( Six months or more for the review and revision process plus the > eighteen month backlog (quoted)). This would appear to be a serious > bottleneck to progress in chemical education. > I've always thought that Journals provide a more rapid publication > opportunity than do books. A book can be published in less than > 18 months after it is accepted. > > a. Would electronic publishing avoid this bottleneck? ---------------------------------------- The backlog is a serious problem, and one that we intend to solve; however, it will not go away overnight. Electronic publishing could contribute to the reduction of the backlog, provided that people could submit materials in a form that did not need a lot of editing. For example, if papers were submitted in HTML, then we could easily put them on the Web and there would be essentially no delay between acceptance of the paper (in HTML) and its publication. On the other hand, most papers are received in a format that would not permit immediate uploading to the Web, and we would have to edit them so that they could be uploaded. This would take time and would not be much different (it might even be harder) from editing them for print publication. In some cases we receive papers in typewritten form with no electronic medium used at all. Some of these can be scanned and then edited, but often the typescript is so bad that it is easier to type them into a computer. In such cases electronic publication would not help at all. It is important t realize that some authors and many readers of the Journal do not have access to electronic communication, or even to computers. Others might have access but do not prefer that mode of communication and are used to printed pages. We cannot just cast these people aside. Electronic publishing presents a new set of problems, many of them new and different, and therefore more time consuming to solve. Electronic publications may be even more difficult to produce than print. This is certainly true in the case of software, based on our experience with JCE: Software. It will also be true of publications like the DynaPub referred to in our paper, which includes a lot of features that are uniquely possible in electronic media. Publishing electronically and making good use of the medium may well put considerable strain on our people resources. Diverting people away from print publishing to electronic publishing might exacerbate the print backlog rather than help it. ----------------------------------------- > > b. Why the delay? > Is there anything else which might be done to remove this > bottleneck. ----------------------------------------- The fundamental reason for the 18-month backlog is that the Journal has been accepting more papers than it can publish each month. Not a lot more, but enough so that the backlog has built up over time. To alleviate the problem we need either to accept fewer papers, convince authors to edit them into more concise form, publish shorter abstracts in print while publishing the full paper via the Internet, publish more pages, apply some combination of these, or come up with some other good ideas (for which we would be grateful, should conference participants supply them). Accepting fewer papers depends in part on the editor and in part on the reviewers. I think the editor needs to make fundamental decisions about what is and is not appropriate for the Journal to publish. This overall philosophy needs to be clearly enunciated to the community of potential authors, and it needs to be enforced by the editor's sending many manuscripts back to their authors with the notation that the content of the manuscript is not appropriate for the Journal. One does not expect to publish a paper on organic chemistry in the Journal of Physical Chemistry, nor should one expect to publish it in the Journal of Chemical Education, unless it clearly addresses education issues. Many reviewers do not like to say anything bad about a paper, but some of the same reviewers later ask why so many things are published that they think are not very good. Reviewers need to be tougher on authors who have not done adequate literature searches (and therefore are republishing the wheel), who do not include properly drawn figures, who do not write clearly and concisely, and who are not addressing issues that are of importance to the Journal's readership. The number of papers submitted (over 1000 per year) makes it hard to maintain an adequate number of reviewers who will take the time to do a really good job. (It is, after all, an anonymous and therefore nearly thankless task.) Any conference participants who are not already Journal reviewers and would like to volunteer are encouraged to contact me. > >======================================== > >2. (Other Matters) > In the ACS link which your paper provides to > "Will Science Publishing Perish" - "The Economics of the "First Copy"" > It is stated that: > > a. the "average journal has a circulation between > 1,000 and 10,000 subscribers" > What is the circulation of JCE? ------------------------------------------ We are bigger than average. Currently there are between 14,000 and 15,000 subscribers; we think there ought to be about 20,000 or more. Many of these are from overseas, since we are the major journal in the field world wide. There are also a significant number of libraries, but a much smaller percentage than for the typical ACS journal. (We are published by the Division of Chemical Education of the ACS, but are not part of the ACS Books and Journals operation, which is a staff function of the society.) ------------------------------------------ > > b. "Editorial management, including peer review" 10 % of journal cost > "Editorial mechanics" 30 % > "Electronic production, including design, 30 % > layout and illustration" > Presumably the remaining costs are associated 30 % > with printing and distribution > Wouldn't some of these costs be reduced if > papers were submitted electronically and the > journal was produced electronically? ------------------------------------------- The Journal is produced electronically now. All of the composition is done in house using either Ventura Publisher (in Austin) or Pagemaker (in Madison--we took the opportunity to change desktop publishing systems as part of the move of the editorial office). The more we get in a usable electronic form, the better this process goes. The Journal has guidelines about what is acceptable, and we intend to revise those soon. The convergence to one or two word processors from a much larger number in the commercial software world is going to be a big help in this regard, but many people cling to their tried and true (but no longer supported by its publisher) DOS word processor, so again instant change is impossible. Manuscripts that are received after acceptance require a lot of hard work to get them ready for publication. This includes dealing with wordprocessor quirks, special characters that disappear between the wordprocessor and the desktop publishing system, graphics in every conceivable format, equations that have to be entered by hand, etc. A lot of this work needs a chemist to do it, and a lot of it needs skilled copy editing. All of it needs time and money to carry out. Publication costs could probably be reduced a little more if we published electronically (see an earlier response about HTML if we were going to publish on the Internet), but they would not go away. In addition, too many of our subscribers do not have access to the Internet. (Some do not even want it.) I don't see exclusively electronic publication as an option right now. Even this conference tells everyone to print the papers and then read them. There is a lot to be said for reading printed pages instead of computer screens. > >===================================== > >3. The CHED Newsletter is paid for by Divisional funds. > There is no subscription fee. > Suppose the Newsletter was ONLY distributed by e-mail > and/or the World Wide Web, wouldn't this: > a. Make the Newsletter available to many more people? > b. Make it possible to post items at any time - not just > three times a year? > c. Not so severely limit the number of pages? > d. Save money associated with production, printing and > distribution? ---------------------------------------------- Issues of the CHED Newsletter are currently placed onto the Web as soon as each issue is sent to ACS for printing. Thus they often are available on the Web before they become available in print. However, there is some question within the Division about making them available free to non-members who have not paid for them. Publishing on the Web would decrease the fraction of DivCHED members who had access to the Newsletter. Lots of high school and two-year college teachers whom I know do not have easy Web access now. The Newsletter currently goes to every member of the Division, but on the Web it wouldn't. Posting items as they come in is a nice idea, but not very practical given that the newsletter is edited by a volunteer who donates her time and who may not be able to drop everything and get them on the Web whenever they arrive. Also, most of the material arrives about a week after the deadline for each issue, because who writes without a deadline? And, making a cohesive issue requires looking over what has been submitted and justaposing related items. Furthermore, materials would have to be converted to an appropriate format as they come in and then converted to the format required for print publication. (See the discussion of HTML above--very few Newsletter correspondents are ready to create their materials in this format. Most materials are submitted in forms that require considerable work to make legible.) The number of pages is limited currently by the time it takes to edit them, not by the cost of printing them. When you see the Fall Newsletter you will realize that there is little or no limitation on length. Yes the costs of printing and mailing would be saved. However, these are rather small for the Division, since part of the cost is borne by ACS. (Two of the newsletters are sent together with meeting abstracts.) The discussion of relative costs given in the paper's link to ACS Publications indicates that these costs are less than a third of the total for most journals; they are much less than that for the Newsletter. The editorial from JCE: Software linked to the paper indicates why we think editorial work is valuable to readers and essential to a journal. The only way to save lots of money on publications is to publish everything anyone submits in no particular order or organization and thereby force everyone to look through a lot of stuff they are not interested in to find a few gems. -------------------------------------- One final general comment on these questions: In our view the problems discussed above for print publication will not go away using simply because we change over to electronic publishing. A major re-education of authors and reviewers would be far more helpful. Authors need to be made aware of what they can do to facilitate digital publishing of their submissions, whether in print or on the Internet. Reviewers need to become more critical and insure that papers inappropriate for the Journal readership are not accepted. The biggest help in dealing with the manuscript backlog would be for the Journal to receive fewer, but better prepared, submissions. The same applies to the DivCHED Newsletter. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Donald Rosenthal >Department of Chemistry >Clarkson University > > John W. Moore Professor of Chemistry University of Wisconsin-Madison 1101 University Avenue Madison, WI 53706 Phone: 608-262-5154 FAX: 608-265-8094 Email: JWMoore@macc.wisc.edu World Wide Web: http://www.chem.wisc.edu/people/faculty/moore.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:23:11 -0400 From: Timothy Pickering Subject: P5 - TP - D Recently I had occasion to look up something from one of my undergraduate chemistry textbooks (circa 1960's). I went to the basement, located the right storage box, pulled out the book and read the section of interest. This activity triggered other memories of my days in school, especially the music I used to listen to while studying. I went upstairs, pulled out one of my old Jefferson Airplane LPs, popped it on the phonograph and re-visited the White Rabbit. (A short visit was sufficient.) These two simple events reminded me why I am very concerned about the current headlong rush (or so it seems to me) to adopt electronic publishing, especially for archival materials or materials of record, without much thought about some of the likely consequences and disadvantages. Think about all the electronic gadgets in your house, especially those that involve communication or entertainment. How many of them were even in existence 30 years ago? What has happened to your LP collection? Your 45 rpms? Your digital cassettes? Now that your CD collection has almost supplanted your LPs, are you ready for a new CD format? How about your betamax VCR? Your Laserdisk player? Your Atari game unit? How about your first personal computer? Can you use any of the software written for that system? Can you read any of the 8" or 5 1/4" floppy disks? The book, on the other hand, has survived for thousands of years as a means of communication. I submit that a very important reason for this is that the user interface is completely separate from the means of production. When movable type came along, we didn't need to change the user interface to use the new production method or its product. Same thing for the paperback book. That's why we can still access the work of pioneers in our field. If we can find the book or journal, we can read it. I have no confidence that this will be the case if we move to electronic publishing for works of record. We have to worry about the user interface as well as the means of production. If the two don't match, we will be out of luck. With the half life of new electronic products measured in months in some cases, and with light based storage systems clearly on the horizon, how on earth can we contemplate making a decision on the best medium to replace the traditional print journal or book? It's time to take a deep breath, slow down, and give some hard thought to what we are doing. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's a good idea. =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Dr. Timothy L. Pickering, Assistant Director NSF Center for Polymeric Adhesives and Composites Virginia Tech 201A Hancock Hall Blacksburg, VA 24061-0257 Tel. (540) 231-4443, FAX: (540) 231-9452 E-Mail: timp@vt.edu URL http://www.vt.edu:10021/research/stc/STC.Home.Page.html =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 11:11:07 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: P5 - DR - D - JCE, CHED Newsletter and the Internet P5-DR-SQ-Short Questions: Responses from Madison >> P5 - DR - SQ - A General Comment and Some Questions >> >> I downloaded and printed your paper about a week ago. >> When I examined it on the World Wide Web earlier today, >> it had changed!! ------------------------------------- > We have already received some input from conference > particpants and have incorporated it into the paper. > We hope to receive more from people who follow the directions in the paper. ------------------------------------- Again I'm behind the times! I just can not keep up with John Moore and his associates! ================================================================ >> 1. (III. Responsibility and Accuracy) >> In this section you indicate there is an "18-month backlog of accepted >> manuscripts waiting to be published". >> b. Why the delay? >> Is there anything else which might be done to remove this >> bottleneck. ----------------------------------------- > The fundamental reason for the 18-month backlog is that the Journal has been > accepting more papers than it can publish each month. ^^^ I am sure this has something to do with costs. It seems to me the problem could be solved if there were more funds allocated for Journal staff and number of pages. One reason I suggested eliminating the printed version of CHED Newsletter was I was hoping this would divert more funds to the Journal. > The Journal is produced electronically now. ..... > The more we get in a usable electronic form, the better this process goes. Perhaps in your publication guidelines you could promise more rapid publication if papers were delivered in a prescribed format. Personally, I would not like to see the total number of papers published (in some form) further reduced. Perhaps SOME papers rejected for the Journal could be published on the WWW or somewhere on the Internet without worrying quite so much about the format. Is the Journal and/or Division willing to consider providing a mechanism and Internet facilities for doing this? Of course, papers presented at on-line meetings like this meeting can help to accelerate publication and eliminate having to spend time editing someone else's work. The discussion and questions hopefully promote chemical education. ================================================================= > >>3. The CHED Newsletter . . . . ---------------------------------------------- > Issues of the CHED Newsletter are currently placed onto the Web as soon as > each issue is sent to ACS for printing. > > However, there is some question within the Division about making them ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > available free to non-members who have not paid for them. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It seems to me that the Division has a responsibility to reach out to the Chemical Education community as fully as possible. This is a real public service. I would expect that such a practice would not lead to decreased Divisional membership. Actually, it might increase membership. Donald Rosenthal Department of Chemistry Clarkson University ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 14:14:35 -0500 From: CHEMISTRY Subject: Re: P5 - TP - D Dr. Timothy L. Pickering, writes: > With the half life of new electronic products measured in > months in some cases, . . ., how on earth can we contemplate > making a decision on the best medium to replace the traditional > print journal or book? There are certainly advantages to electronic media over paper media, in terms of rapidness of distribution, cost of distribution (and storage by the recipients), plus the ability to rapidly search for terms of interest. Thus, electronic media will surely supplant paper-based media. Historically, paper supplanted clay tablets, for some of the same reasons. I think one need not choose which electronic medium will be the final victor, if any. A commitment is needed, however, to transfer the valuable content into each successor medium. In the past, science was small, data was fragmentary, and scientific theories were improved upon on a regular basis. Thus, old science was out-dated science, of historical interest only. Due to the enormous increase in science and technology since the 1960Us, most of the scientists who have ever lived are now living, however, and a large fraction are producing good data, and pretty good theories. Thus, much of the science being produced now is worth preserving, for future practical use. This material is worth preserving in a form that is easily searchable and recoverable. Hence, electronic. Religious organizations and art historians routinely transfer their (timeless) existing body of content of the past to the medium of the present. IMO, science-related organizations (e.g., ACS, AAAS, Keck, NSF) now need to commit to doing this routinely, also. ******************************************************* Gerald Morine, Chemistry Dept., Bemidji State University, Bemidji, Minnesota 56601-2699 USA gmchem@vax1.bemidji.msus.edu http://bsuweb.bemidji.msus.edu/~chemdept/home.html ****************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:06:29 -0400 From: AAHLGREN Subject: Re: P5 - TP - D On the one hand, I agree thoroughly with your sentiments. On the other hand, I wonder whether there was comparable concern when carving in stone yielded to marking on scrolls -- "Why take such a risk? The walls will endure for many thousands of years, whereas books will likely quickly deteriorate or be lost entirely." Of course, there would never have been enough walls. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:15:53 -0400 From: George Long Subject: Re: P5 - TP - D > >With the half life of new electronic products measured in months in some >cases, and with light based storage systems clearly on the horizon, how on >earth can we contemplate making a decision on the best medium to replace >the traditional print journal or book? It's time to take a deep breath, >slow down, and give some hard thought to what we are doing. Just because >something is possible doesn't mean it's a good idea. > Actually, I believe the Library of Congress has done this, and is moving to electronic storage. The physical space required is the limitation. There is simply too much information to try to use print, plus print material is not easily searchable (compare using print copies of chem abstracts to STN express searching - there's no comparison.) Is crossing platforms a problem - yes ( I can't play my copy of JA's white Rabbit anymore), however any information that stands the test of time will be translated to the latest platform (you can buy CD's of all JA's old albums, but you can't get any CD's of the 1910 fruitgum company (anybody remember them ?)). On my 8088 I used lotus 1-2-3 spread sheets, now I use excels for windows - not much difference really. This is perhaps why I don't see what John Moore calls cyberbabble as a big problem. There is plenty of Journal-babble as is, I don't think making publishing easier (via www, and by eliminating peer review and editors) will increase the amount of trivia published by much. Most of the junk will simply be ignored, as it is now (I should know, I've had my share of publications ignored.) What we really need (IMHO) is a good search engine, designed specifically for chemistry resources on the web. **************************************************************************** George R Long, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry Indiana University of Pennsylvania Indiana, PA 15705 grlong@grove.iup.edu 412-357-2575 Our lives are merely trees of possibilities - Marc Bolan **************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:30:46 -0400 From: "John K. Estell" Subject: P5 - JKE - D - Risks of centralization and obsolete storage media Timothy Pickering brought up a good point regarding the risks of obsolete storage media, with audio devices being an excellent example. Information loses its value if it cannot be accessed; to the modern technogeek audiophile, an Edison cylindrical recording, a 78, or an 8-track tape cassette would be of no use because it can't be played on his/her state-of-the-art system. In the computer field, this is a bigger problem. Example: the government has a lot of records on various storage media that can no longer be used as the I/O devices that were used to store the data have disappeared for a variety of reasons: broken down, no longer manufactured, tossed out for a brand new "compatible" system, etc. While having a CD-ROM with a magazine is definitely an advance due to the power and flexibility that a multimedia presentation posesses, will some graduate student searching through the stacks of a library 50 years from now be able to access the data on the CD, or will the student be as clueless as to what a CD is as today's teenagers would be to an 8-track tape? The above is a problem primarily with my profession (computer scientists) for not striving for any backwards compatibility with storage devices. In some cases it is a hopeless thing to ask for; but with gains in technology it could be possible for future storage systems. A greater problem is with web publishing. I'm in full agreement of the benefits inherent in a living, dynamic document that, with advances in such areas as CGI scripts and Java applets, can become a truly interactive experience. However, I feel that we run the risk of creating things that exist at only one place. One of the greatest losses in history came with the destruction of the library at Alexandria, which acted then as a central repository for knowledge. Granted, the WWW is world-wide, but the documents tend to exist at only one particular site. Say that J. Chem. Educ. goes completely electronic, and there are sufficient computational resources to have all of the issues on-line and web-accessible at jchemed.chem.wisc.edu. So what happens if, to give a warped example, a 2000-pound round of Wisconsin Aged Cheddar Cheese gets overly ripe, tips over on its side, starts rolling down a hill, and barrels through a wall, crushing the computer system where all the electronic information is stored? Hopefully, all of this information has been backed up and kept off-site somewhere - if so, then the long-term damage can be repaired. However, until the repairs are made, no one anywhere will be able to access this information. If this information has not been backed up, then it is lost forever. Compare this to what would happen now if your school's library had an unfortunate encounter with a Big Wheel of Wisconsin Cheese: your library might have lost its copies of J. Chem. Educ., but no one else has lost their paper copies. Therefore there is minimal information loss involved, just inconvenience for those patrons at the now mice-infested library. The benefits of web publishing are probably beyond what we can imagine; but the risks are all too obvious, as they have been seen before. If we choose to travel this path, we must ensure that the informational content of our work is preserved by seeing that copies are archived in such a way that the information can be readily accessed at any time in the future. This will require great thought about both how we copy information and how we store information. Dr. John K. Estell, Assistant Professor, Electrical Eng. and Computer Science, The University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606 estell@cse.utoledo.edu http://cse.utoledo.edu/~estell/home.html EFFECTIVE 1 SEPTEMBER 1996: Associate Professor of Computer Science, Bluffton College, Bluffton, Ohio 45817 estell@bluffton.edu URL to be determined ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:51:40 -0400 From: "Jeff Davis (CHE)" Subject: P5-JD-PT-D Suitable Media Dr. Pickering's concerns are shared by many, particularly by those who have large amounts of information to archive. Who knows what changes will have taken place and which technologies will be obsolete by the time the Library of Congress has put all their resources in other forms? As an educator, I find it difficult, and many students find it difficult, to work with extensive amounts of text on a screen. It seems clear to me that the role of floppy disks, CD-ROMS and other electronic/computer-based media is primarily to make available things that were not accessible in other forms. The static equation or diagram or illustration in a text, the three-dimensional structure that can be moved and probed, the molecular motions in a reaction, the path of electrons in a circuit or atomic/molecular process, etc., are opened up for new levels of understanding by these media. Whether it is necessary to "burden" them with all the text of an article or textbook or journal seems problematical. Jeff Davis Prof. and Chair Dept. of Chemistry Univ. of South Florida Tampa, FL 33620 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 16:01:11 -0400 From: John Woolcock Subject: P5 - JW - D - JM: Use of JCE Software John Moore made the comment: "I guess my hope is that if enough good software and multimedia materials are developed by a few people who spend a lot of time, the materials can be used by a lot of people who will not need to spend much time to get them to work." I think that one of the great successes of JCE Software is that they have filled an important niche with regard to creation and dissemination of software and multimedia materials. I can't imagine teaching a chemistry course without using at least one of the items they have published. However, one of the reasons I use only a few selected items is that the process of deciding what may be appropriate, deciding how to weave it into the course structure and then evaluating its effectiveness takes significant time and effort. This presents an "activation energy" that discourages many casual users that are not technophiles. Perhaps one way to improve this situation is to enhance the "curriculum notes" section of the manuals distributed with each issue of JCE Software. This is usually the shortest section in the manual and yet could be the most valuable to a prospective user. The authors could describe in detail how *and why* the material is used in the courses they teach in much the same way that Brian Tissue did in Paper #4. Once an issue was published JCE could collect documentation about the way in which the software is used at other institutions and distribute it from their web site. If examples of its use are documented in this way it would go a long way to lowering my activation energy toward using a new piece of software and make the time I would spend in getting it to "work right" in my class worthwhile. John Woolcock IUP Chemistry Dept. Indiana, PA 15705 woolcock@grove.iup.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:35:02 -0500 From: CHEMISTRY Subject: P5 - GM - D Who is the audience for JCE? One part of Paper 5 which I have not seen discussed is the problem of social responsibility. The co-authors wrote: > When we think about our audience and serving it, how do you > think we should take account of the fact that some people > will have wonderful, free access to the latest communications > software while others may not even have a computer or easy > access to fax? I puzzled over this for some time, trying to interpret it in the stereotypical sense, of JCE-WWW line being yet one more denial of privilege to poor people in the USA. However, one could argue that anyone without the FAX and computer facilities of an organization doesnUt need the information in JCE anyway. This wouldnUt be true, however, for those in what used to be called the Third World, where chemistry education is vigorous, if often somewhat theoretical. I wonder if many of the answers to the questions posited in Paper 5 donUt depend on the scope of the intended audience of JCE. Many of the authors in JCE are from institutions outside North America. A WWW-version of JCE will certainly be accessed by chemistry educators and students around the world. To what extent should the policies and format of JCE be dependent on the needs of a world-wide audience in terms of access, authorship, and subject-matter emphasis? ******************************************************* Gerald Morine, Chemistry Dept., Bemidji State University, Bemidji, Minnesota 56601-2699 USA gmchem@vax1.bemidji.msus.edu http://bsuweb.bemidji.msus.edu/~chemdept/home.html ****************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:27:46 -0600 From: "John W. Moore" Subject: Re: P5 - TP - D The point made by Timothy Pickering that >The book, on the other hand, has survived for thousands of years as a >means of communication. I submit that a very important reason for this is >that the user interface is completely separate from the means of >production. is a good one. It is always possible to read a book, if you can get your hands on it. (Of course if acid paper is destroying it, you may not be able to.) I don't think we advocated replacing the printed Journal with an electronic version. In fact, in our responses to Don Rosenthal's questions we specifically suggested reasons why it would not be a good idea to > adopt electronic >publishing, especially for archival materials or materials of record, >without much thought about some of the likely consequences and >disadvantages. On the other hand, there are a number of things that cannot be done with a book. Do you advocate only doing animations that can be viewed by flipping the pages? There are a lot of chemistry ideas that benefit greatly from motion, sound, and other things that cannot be delivered easily in a book no matter how good its user interface is. Should we publish only things that can be archived on paper or should we make it possible for those whose ideas cannot easily be transferred to paper to publish as well. We think the latter. Nearly 30 years ago one of us (JWM) developed about 7000 chemistry test questions on IBM punch cards so that they could be read by a computer, scrambled, and presented to students in print as unique but equivalent tests. Although those IBM cards are long gone (except for about 20 that were kept for historical purposes and have been used that way at least once), the questions are still around, I think. They have been modified into a variety of formats over time and now are available in California over the internet. Just because the media change does not mean that archiving cannot be done. In this case, however, the value of the archive is much less, because nearly every textbook publisher now has a similar collection of questions both on paper and on diskette (or CD). We agree that certain things can be done better on paper, but certain things can also be done better electronically. John W. Moore Professor of Chemistry University of Wisconsin-Madison 1101 University Avenue Madison, WI 53706 Phone: 608-262-5154 FAX: 608-265-8094 Email: JWMoore@macc.wisc.edu World Wide Web: http://www.chem.wisc.edu/people/faculty/moore.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:26:09 -0600 From: "John W. Moore" Subject: Re: P5 - GM - D Who is the audience for JCE? >One part of Paper 5 which I have not seen discussed is the >problem of social responsibility. The co-authors wrote: > >> When we think about our audience and serving it, how do you >> think we should take account of the fact that some people >> will have wonderful, free access to the latest communications >> software while others may not even have a computer or easy >> access to fax? >(snip) >To what extent should the policies and format of >JCE be dependent on the needs of a world-wide audience > in terms of access, authorship, and subject-matter emphasis? > >Gerald Morine, Chemistry Dept., Bemidji State University The point we were making here was twofold. (1)There are lots of high schools, two-year colleges, and four-year colleges with a single phone line (or none at all) to the internet right now; how do we serve them adequately now? (2) There are lots of authors and readers outside the U.S. and the developed world who have even poorer access. I think we have a responsibility to both groups. Discussion of this issue would be welcome. John W. Moore Professor of Chemistry University of Wisconsin-Madison 1101 University Avenue Madison, WI 53706 Phone: 608-262-5154 FAX: 608-265-8094 Email: JWMoore@macc.wisc.edu World Wide Web: http://www.chem.wisc.edu/people/faculty/moore.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:26:09 -0600 From: "John W. Moore" Subject: Re: P5 - JW - D - JM: Use of JCE Software John Woolcock referred to the problem of deciding which software to use and how best to use it. I agree with his statement that >Perhaps one way to improve this situation is to enhance the "curriculum notes" >section of the manuals distributed with each issue of JCE Software. This is >usually the shortest section in the manual and yet could be the most >valuable to a prospective user. The authors could describe in detail how >*and why* the material is used in the courses they teach in much the same >way that Brian Tissue did in Paper #4. Once an issue was published JCE >could collect documentation about the way in which the software is used at >other institutions and distribute it from their web site. If examples of >its use are documented in this way it would go a long way to lowering my >activation energy toward using a new piece of software and make the time I >would spend in getting it to "work right" in my class worthwhile. > The biggest problem here is that I (the editor) rather than the author end up writing this section a lot of the time. I can do this if I have actually used the software myself, but it is harder if I have not. The curriculum notes section is the smallest because even less is often obtained from the authors than is actually published. Another advantage of having editorial work done is exactly this: editors make things a lot easier for readers or users of the materials published. A search engine on the Web is not going to solve this problem. John W. Moore Professor of Chemistry University of Wisconsin-Madison 1101 University Avenue Madison, WI 53706 Phone: 608-262-5154 FAX: 608-265-8094 Email: JWMoore@macc.wisc.edu World Wide Web: http://www.chem.wisc.edu/people/faculty/moore.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:26:10 -0600 From: "John W. Moore" Subject: Re: P5 - TP - D George Long commented that > however any >information that stands the test of time will be translated to the latest >platform (you can buy CD's of all JA's old albums, but you can't get any >CD's of the 1910 fruitgum company (anybody remember them ?)). On my 8088 I >used lotus 1-2-3 spread sheets, now I use excels for windows - not much >difference really. This, together with other comments by Morine and Estell prompts me to expand on the idea of cyberbabble that was in the editorial included in our paper. We can add to the functions of editorial staffs of journals the function of archiving information. Who decides that archiving some journal articles or web sites or software is worthwhile? Right now it is the editors of JCE: Software who prompt authors of software to update to new versions for Windows instead of DOS, for example. In some cases we do the job ourselves (see the Periodic Table CD, for example). Most authors don't like to update the same old stuff to a new medium or platform--they want to be creative and do something new. And they should, if they are really creative. We will lose a lot by stopping them from implementing a new idea so that they can update an old one. See also the comment from John Woolcock and my response regarding value added by the editorial process in helping people learn how to make effective use of instructional materials. I still argue that it is essential to have editorial functions and that they need to be supported and paid for. Just putting material onto the Web and waiting for someone with a good search engine to find it is nowhere near enough. John W. Moore Professor of Chemistry University of Wisconsin-Madison 1101 University Avenue Madison, WI 53706 Phone: 608-262-5154 FAX: 608-265-8094 Email: JWMoore@macc.wisc.edu World Wide Web: http://www.chem.wisc.edu/people/faculty/moore.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:36:29 -0500 From: "Jon L. Holmes" Subject: Re: P5 - JW - D - JM: Use of JCE Software John Woolcock writes: >However, one of the reasons I use only a few selected items is that the >process >of deciding what may be appropriate, deciding how to weave it into the course >structure and then evaluating its effectiveness takes significant time and >effort. This presents an "activation energy" that discourages many casual >users that are not technophiles. > >Perhaps one way to improve this situation is to enhance the "curriculum notes" >section of the manuals distributed with each issue of JCE Software. This is >usually the shortest section in the manual and yet could be the most >valuable to a prospective user. The authors could describe in detail how >*and why* the material is used in the courses they teach in much the same >way that Brian Tissue did in Paper #4. Once an issue was published JCE >could collect documentation about the way in which the software is used at >other institutions and distribute it from their web site. If examples of >its use are documented in this way it would go a long way to lowering my >activation energy toward using a new piece of software and make the time I >would spend in getting it to "work right" in my class worthwhile. I agree that the Curriculum Notes section of the documentation is an important part of the manual; and, yes, it is usually too short. I also would like to see this section enhanced and include more details as to the use of the software in an educational setting. Historically, this section of the documentation has not been provided by the authors, but generated by in-house editors, which is why the information is not specific or detailed. Software authors are rather notorious for their aversion to documenting their "self-documented" software. However, we will try to push them a little harder for more specific information about how they use their software in their teaching. Your idea for documenting how JCE Software is used and distributing this information is a good one. We would be more than happy to have users provide us with this information and would gladly make it available from our Web site. Unfortunately, we seldom get any feedback of this sort from users. Thank you for your suggestions. Jon L. Holmes JCE: Software Technical Editor 1101 University Avenue Madison, WI 53706-1396 jlholmes@macc.wisc.edu (608) 262-5153; FAX (608) 262-0381 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 12:46:30 -0400 From: Chemical Concepts Corporation Subject: Re: P5 - JW - D - JM: Use of JCE Software >I agree that the Curriculum Notes section of the documentation is an >important part of the manual; and, yes, it is usually too short. I also >would like to see this section enhanced and include more details as to the >use of the software in an educational setting. Historically, this section >of the documentation has not been provided by the authors, but generated by >in-house editors, which is why the information is not specific or detailed. >Software authors are rather notorious for their aversion to documenting >their "self-documented" software. However, we will try to push them a >little harder for more specific information about how they use their >software in their teaching. How would the Curriculum Notes be expanded to not overly emphasize the JCE Software offerings? It seems to me that the "bundling in" of the JCE Software offerings and reviews in JCE suggests that the JCE software has more to offer than "commercial" software. It is difficult for us "little" software developers to "compete" with Chem Ed division sponsored offering. Bert Ramsay, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, Eastern Michigan University, and President, Chemical Concepts Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI c3@BizServe.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:54:26 -0600 From: "Gary L. Bertrand" Subject: Re: P5 - JW - D - JM: Use of JCE Software I believe that John Moore and later Jon Holmes missed an important suggestion by John Woolcock, regarding an exchange of information regarding usage of the software. I see the potential for this in the FORUM section of The Chemical Educator's WWW page. As a software developer and sometime reviewer, I am very aware of John Moore's complaint about our failure to provide documentation on using the software. Whether I intend to or not, I develop the software to supplement and enhance MY teaching, and to work within MY delivery system - so the application is obvious to ME. Reviewers provide varying amounts of feedback, but there are very few EXPERTS here, and those few generally have a very narrow viewpoint on the educational use of computers - this is new to ALL of us; the developers, the reviewers, and the users. Some type of electronic exchange forum could simplify the process of a potential user deciding whether the outcome will warrant the investment of time and effort of bringing the software into her/his classroom, and perhaps to lower the activation barrier. At the suggestion of Clifford LeMasters, I have tried a new (for me) approach. I have submitted to The Chemical Educator a combination of a simulation and an article covering the concepts on which the simulation is based, and detailed instructions on using the simulation - it's now in review, so we'll have to wait and see if things work out the way I'm hoping. My idea is that the software will be freely available to anyone who wants it via FTP, but the article requires a subscription. I hope that the FORUM will provide feedback on the use of the program, untrapped bugs, and suggestions for improvement. I do not expect the detailed review of the software provided by Nancy Gettys and the experienced staff at JCES (which I find extremely helpful and very worthwhile), but perhaps a more critical review of the accompanying documentation. Gary ******************************************************** Gary L. Bertrand gbert@umr.edu (573) 341-4441 Department of Chemistry FAX (573) 341-6033 University of Missouri-Rolla Rolla, MO 65401. "In this house, the laws of thermodynamics will be obeyed!" Homer Simpson ******************************************************** ----------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:05:09 -0500 From: "Jon L. Holmes" Subject: Re: P5 - JW - D - JM: Use of JCE Software Bert Ramsay writes in response: > How would the Curriculum Notes be expanded to not overly emphasize the JCE >Software offerings? It seems to me that the "bundling in" of the JCE >Software offerings and reviews in JCE suggests that the JCE software has >more to offer than "commercial" software. It is difficult for us "little" >software developers to "compete" with Chem Ed division sponsored offering. The Curriculum Notes is a section of the User's Manual that comes with each issue of JCE Software; it is not in the Journal. Expanding this section would not increase the space JCE Software is given in the Journal. JCE Software is abstracted in the Journal. It is this printed abstract that is then abstracted in Chem Abstracts. Without an abstract in Chem Abstracts authors have a difficult time getting publication credit for their work. JCE Software also pays to advertise in the Journal (at current rates) and finds such advertising beneficial. All "little" software developers are welcome to do the same; indeed, the Marketplace section of the Journal is tailored to such advertising. JCE Software is published by the Division as a service to the chemical education community. It serves as a means for software authors to disseminate their work and to receive pubication credit for doing so. At the same time, subscribers benefit from the review and editorial process to receive a better software product. This is the same model under which the print Journal operates. The extent that this model "competes" with commercial software developers can not be significantly more than the Journal competes with similar print publications. Jon L. Holmes JCE: Software Senior Technical Editor 1101 University Avenue Madison, WI 53706-1396 jlholmes@macc.wisc.edu (608) 262-5153; FAX (608) 262-0381 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 10:15:25 -0400 From: George Long Subject: P5 - GL - D; Cyberbabble (long) The discussion of the role and nature of publications in the information age is a good one. I am concerned that perhaps we are trying to make web publishing be too much like traditional "paper" publication, and in doing so, we will loose the advantages and possibilities of the "free, on demand " information. In paper 5, John Moore points out that the real cost of a journal is the editorial cost - even with volunteer reviewers. He goes on to argue quite convincingly that the editorial process provides an added value that is well worth the added costs. I agree wholeheartedly with these two statements. In my experience reviewers, and editors have always improved the quality of the papers I submitted for publication. The part of the argument I have trouble with is the application of these principles to publishing on the web. I believe that the peer review - editorial system is a closed hierarchical structure, and ill suited to the open - distributed structure of the internet (but great for paper journals). here are my arguments; 1. The web is like a market place of idea's, those idea's published on the web that are of great interest, will receive great attention. When we read an article, we are usually very critical of the article - in fact critical reading is a requirement if we are to gain anything from the article. I would argue that a non-reviewed article, of great interest, when placed on the web, would get alot of deFacto reviews - from those interested in the subject. If the article were flawed, that fact would surely be known quickly, and rebuttal's published on the web (probably within days of the original posting). The best case scenario would result in a collaborative effort to address the flaws in the work - which will move the work ahead quickly. 2. Material posted to the web that is not of interest will fall by the wayside, and little energy will be wasted on reviewing it. The fact that it is not thoroughly reviewed won't matter, because no one will use it anyway. 3. John Moore ask's >Who decides that archiving some journal articles or web sites or software is >worthwhile? Right now it is the editors of JCE: I would answer that the marketplace should decide - I archive those things I find most useful, so does everyone else. Between all of us, everything deserving to be archived, is archived. If, for example, a software application is not archived by anyone, then I would say it shouldn't be archived. If enough people truly believe something is worth while, they will preserve it. Given the above, I believe the editorial functions of archiving, and reviewing material published on the web can be distributed among the "users" of the material - Thus also distributing the cost. The problem I have not addressed is "finding the material". The place to start is a search engine dedicated to chemistry (or even to chemical education)" It could be easily automated to allow individuals to list their articles on-line. Here, there may be a role for an editor to categorize the submissions, but this would not be essential, since it could be left to the authors to enter keyword's etc. As I am writing this, I am more than a little apprehensive. The apprehension comes from recognizing that there is one other function of peer review. It is a means I use to prove that MY work meets a standard quality, and so I can tell my Dean that I deserve more money, because I have X number of PEER REVIEWED publications (not that he'll listen). It is disconcerting to think that I am arguing for a system where I would tell the Dean that my webpage had 270 hits last month, and two people have linked it to their page as a means of verifying the quality of the work. - Oh God, maybe the university will sell advertising spots on our web pages, and then base my salary on the amount of money my web pages bring in to the university through advertising ?!? Sorry, take back everything I said, lets stick with the current system, ;) **************************************************************************** George R Long, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry Indiana University of Pennsylvania Indiana, PA 15705 grlong@grove.iup.edu 412-357-2575 Our lives are merely trees of possibilities - Marc Bolan **************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:34:16 -0500 From: Theresa Julia Zielinski Subject: p5, TJZ,D, cyberbabble Dear Colleagues George's cyberbabble piece was a great way for me to start my day today. I have one concern that extends beyond administrators making profit from our web sites. This concern is with respect to the intellectual property of the individual who publishes on the web. JM pointed out to me that one does not wish to have ones hard work taken by another and sold for profit. Protection of the author is very important. So although I support freedom of exchange of information and access, primarily so that materials can evolve with the help of many hands, I place copyright marks on all materials placed on my slowly evolving web site. I hope that revisions and enhancements to these documents will eventually reach me and the revisors acknowledged accordingly or companion pieces placed on the site. George spoke about this evolution of documents concept in Chemconf'93 if my memory is correct. It may even come to pass that in time the original author will fade from the document and it will be part of the wide range of materials used to help students learn more effective and efficiently. I don't think this will happen very soon. And when it does it will need a volunteer to manage the site or some way to pay for someone to manage the site. Hmm, it boils down to time and money and finally most importantly collegiality. Theresa ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 14:09:50 -0700 From: Bob Bruner Subject: P5 - bb - A vote for cyberbabble MOORE's paper has stimulated a lot of thought. It's so close to home! Seems like each time I check my mail, my newest thoughts have just been posted by others. In particular, I substantially endorse LONG (Sat, 22 Jun 1996 10:15:25 -0400). So I will just make a few brief points, with little elaboration. I realize that some of these points are much more complex than I suggest here. I also realize that some may be more relevant to journals in general than to the specific case of JCE. (For example, I suspect JCE has an unusually high percentage of readers without 'net access.) 1. Vicious circles. We _need_ editorial and review processes, and money for them. But we are 18 months behind on publishing -- even accepted articles. Sounds like the present plan (paradigm) isn't working. 2. It may be better to think of 'net publishing in a totally different way... Not as an extension of journals, but more like a community bulletin board. This applies both to the purpose and to the mechanics. It may be important that electronic bulletin boards be implemented by people who are free of the biases of the current publication system. 3. I suggest -- to be bold -- elimination of editorial and review processes for electronic publishing. One advantage of publishing on a bulletin board is that review is a continuing process, open to all. Even the simple idea that some papers are worth publishing and some aren't is arbitrary. Certainly, there is some gray area. And if a "bad paper" contains _some_ useful data or idea, maybe it is worth communicating -- preferably in an inexpensive but available medium. 4. We also need to deal with the technical aspects, about which I have little knowledge. But we need a clear goal of making it easy to publish. Obviously, if authors can follow specialized guidelines for preparing articles for electronic posting, that will help. But some authors (most? especially early) will need help. 5. Let's not worry about how we get our Brownie points for publishing in this new, developing medium. If we figure out how to use the medium, we will, in due course, learn to keep score. If we worry about the score in advance, it will constrain our development of new ideas. (And there is plenty of criticism of how we keep score now!) 6. Yes, what I am proposing is chaotic. That's not because of the 'net, but because there is too much information. There are too many journals in the library. Few are worth a personal subscription (considering the cost, especially of journals from private publishers, and the percentage of papers I want). I rely on computer searching now to find (some of) what I want. Bob Bruner UC Berkeley Extension and Contra Costa College bbruner@uclink4.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 22:05:01 -0400 From: "Richard O. Pendarvis" Subject: Re: P5 - bb - A vote for cyberbabble >From the discussion about the appropriateness etc. of publishing of a chemicial education journal, I get the impression that many are not aware of recent events in this area. It is no longer a question of whether or not it is time for this type of journal. On March 26, 1996, Springer Verlag's CHEMICAL EDUCATOR went online at http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr/ This is a peer reviewed journal for chemical education at the university, college, and high school level. On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Bob Bruner wrote: > 1. Vicious circles. We _need_ editorial and review processes, and money for > them. But we are 18 months behind on publishing -- even accepted articles. > Sounds like the present plan (paradigm) isn't working. Although JCE typically takes 18 months, CHEMICAL EDUCATOR gets articles through the review and editorial process in under 6 months (usually in less than 4). Because of JCE's large backlog, clearly another (more efficient) journal is needed. Hopefully this will also bring down JCE's backlog and enable all chemical educators to read the latest work a lot sooner regardless of the medium. > 6. Yes, what I am proposing is chaotic. That's not because of the 'net, but > because there is too much information. There are too many journals in the > library. Few are worth a personal subscription (considering the cost, > especially of journals from private publishers, and the percentage of papers > I want). I rely on computer searching now to find (some of) what I want. > It is not chaotic, it is exciting. CHEMICAL EDUCATOR allows the reader to download supporting materials (such as spreadsheet, mathcad, mathematica etc. files or movie clips) which allow quick implementation in the class room or laboratory. This makes it possible to rapidly communicate AND implement new ideas. The fundamental problem with the way change is implemented in education ("fads" from the top) is thus circumvented. We can implement the ideas that are useful in our situations faster and easier which makes grassroots change a simpler process. In addition, an electronically implemented journal gives one immense advantages in terms of searching and reduced storage space which are going to be really important as the volume of the medium increases with time. - - ____ | | _ | | Organic Chemistry / \ |_| | | || CAI Programming / \ | | / \ || Pizza / \ / \ | | _||_ Star Trek (_________) (_____) |______| _/____\_ Doberman Pinschers --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Richard Pendarvis, Ph.D. P.O. Box 1388 | | Associate Professor of Chemistry Ocala, FL 32608 | | Central Florida Community College EMAIL: afn02809@freenet.ufl.edu | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:28:12 -0400 From: Timothy Pickering Subject: P5 - tlp -Save us from cyberbabble Those who are suggesting a "community bulletin board" approach to web publishing must have oodles of free time on their hands. I can barely get through my E-mail as it is. How on earth could I or would I want to wade through every random thought or viewpoint someone might post to an electronic journal, just because they can. Do you want to read through 50 articles to find one good one? At least with a referee process, we know the paper has met some minimal level of standards before it appears in print. We need the same thing for "serious" publishing on the web. Otherwise we will all drown in drivel. Tim Pickering Virginia Tech ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:14:52 -0400 From: Chemical Concepts Corporation Subject: II. Best Use of Limited Resources >Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:53:44 >To: JCE@chem.wisc.edu >From: Chemical Concepts Corporation >Subject: II. Best Use of Limited Resources > >First: I am responding to instructions in your paper. Not clear how this gets into the ChemConf96 discussion. > I would suggest two versions of JCE: 1) a printed "short" paper, 2) and expanded e-version that includes the kinds of visuals and other supporting material that would be impractical in a printed article. The short article (which could be on the web as well) would permit readers to select those topics of greatest interest that they wish to pursue further. There would have to be some sort of dual subscription fees to cover the costs of accessing the e-version. > Example of why we need this option. I have submitted for publication a paper on "Dreams and Visions" which discusses the relationship of Kekule's "serpent dream" (about the structure of benzene) and his use of models. No way a printed article can include photographs of all of the models - but you need to see them in order to fully understand the point of their relationship to his "dream" about the benzene ring. Furthermore, the article could "grow" (like this paper) as new contributions are found. Example, what did Linus Pauling, Melvin Calvin, Roald Hoffmann, etc. have to say about the role of of "dreams" in their reserch? Contributions could be added to the paper as a supplement, or archived forum. > Bert Ramsay, c3@BizServe.com > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:15:04 -0400 From: Chemical Concepts Corporation Subject: IV. Need for Completeness >Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:17:07 >To: JCE@chem.wisc.edu >From: Chemical Concepts Corporation >Subject: IV. Need for Completeness > >Still need to have a reviewing system in place to maintain a reasonable level of scholarship to the contributions. Need to distinguish between the many "contributions" of the sort made at ACS meetings, and those that would qualify for JCE publication. If you had a "short form" article (see my suggestion under Section II) you might be able to accelerate the review process. Use reviewers on the web for "preliminary" reviews which might identify things to be done before going through the full review process. Then establish publication priorities, with likely publication dates. The author could access his/her publication date, and would be permitted to withdraw article if not scheduled for publication within a certain time period. > Textbook Reviews: It seems to me that textbook reviews should be considered as a web publication. By the time the textbook reviews appear in JCE they are way out of date, and of little use to potential adapters. Better to have some web reviews linked to a textbook users forum. Reviews and disucssions could be archived under textbook names and/or area. > Bert Ramsay, c3@BizServe.com Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, Eastern Michigan University > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:15:10 -0400 From: Chemical Concepts Corporation Subject: VII. Changing the Media >Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:33:24 >To: JCE@chem.wisc.edu >From: Chemical Concepts Corporation >Subject: VII. Changing the Media > >I think it wise that JCE is taking the time to explore the issues relating to how the new media can enhance the value of the Journal. But as you know, with the web publication of "The Chemical Educator", you are already a year behind on the planning. I think you will have to consider the impact of "commercial" products like this on the cost effectiveness of providing an web version of JCE. Right now you have a dedicated group of loyal readers and subscribers. But you may loose some of these as other "competitors" respond more quickly to their needs and interests. While the imput you are getting in response to this paper will help in the development of your new media publication strategy, would it not be worthwhile to consider using a consultant, with experience in electronic publication, to help? > Bert Ramsay c3@BizServe.com Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, Eastern Michigan University, and Still-Struggling Start-Up Entrepreneur and President, Chemical Concepts Corporation, 912 N. Main St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104. > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 13:24:59 -0400 From: George Long Subject: Re: P5 - tlp -Save us from cyberbabble >Those who are suggesting a "community bulletin board" approach to web >publishing must have oodles of free time on their hands. I can barely get >through my E-mail as it is. How on earth could I or would I want to wade >through every random thought or viewpoint someone might post to an >electronic journal, just because they can. Do you want to read through 50 >articles to find one good one? Tim raises a good point. The human brain is certainly limited in the amount of information it hold and/or use. With huge amounts of information we could all our time sorting through information rather than using it. It is also true that we will (and in fact, do ) miss important or relavent information. Maybe the key is to examine the way we treat information, maybe we could work in ways different than we do now. Perhaps the internet is the nail in the coffin of the generalist. Some of the ways we might deal with information glut are 1. larger groups or consortia of people working on specific problems, here we could rely on those we know, etc for quality information, and for tips on where to find important stuff. 2. Many more chemists whose primary function is review, collection, and reflection on the possibilities presented by chemical information. There are more - the point, in general is that we need to examine, and perhaps alter, how we deal with information rather than altering the available information to fit our current methods of using it. we may also have to alter how we produce information - we assume there would be a lot of drech produced without formalized review process, however that may not be the case. It may be that we will develop reward systems that would not hinge on publication (if everyone can publish whatever, whenever, this is inevitable). We may need to change the way we think about publishing, and the way we think about intelectual property. **************************************************************************** George R Long, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry Indiana University of Pennsylvania Indiana, PA 15705 grlong@grove.iup.edu 412-357-2575 Our lives are merely trees of possibilities - Marc Bolan **************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 16:08:47 -0400 From: "Jeff Davis (CHE)" Subject: P5 - JD - GL - cyberbabble The biggest problem presented by all the information out there on the net is organization. Think what it is like trying to recall who made a specific comment and where they made it in a discussion such as this. IF information is organized in a more specific way (as in the original papers in this conference) and IF attention is paid to the best way to title and assign appropriate keywords to each of these efforts then at least potential readers/users could use search engines to find a more limited set of materials that might be of more likely use to them in the context in which they are working at the moment. Jeff Davis Prof. and Chair Dept. of Chemistry Univ. of South Florida ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 14:52:35 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: P5 - DR - D - JCE Publication Schedule P5 - DR - D - JCE Publication Schedule Something which has troubled me the most is the 1 1/2 years it takes for a paper to appear after it has been accepted. ^^^^^ I recently talked to someone who publishes papers in the Journal of Chemical Physics. He indicated that papers are usually published in JCP within 6 months of being accepted. I checked some of the other ACS Journals - looked at 5 or so articles and found the following: J. Am. Chem. Soc. - average article published 6 months after it was received Anal Chem. - average article reviewed in 3 months and was published 3 months after it was accepted Biochemistry - average article reviewed in 4 months and published 3 months after it was accepted Inorganic Chemistry - average article was published 8 months after it was received J. Organic Chemistry - average article was published 5 months after it was received J. Physical Chemistry - average article reviewed within 4 months and published within 4 months of being accepted Most of these Journals indicate when the article was RECEIVED and when it was ACCEPTED. I would suggest J. Chem. Ed. adopt this practice. Some people I have talked to have indicated they prefer to publish in journals other than JCE simply because of the inordinate delay. I imagine the quality of papers published suffers because some authors prefer NOT to publish in J. Chem. Ed. Donald Rosenthal Clarkson University Phone: 315-265-9242 E-mail: ROSEN1@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU ------------------------------