dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David S. Stodolsky) (12/10/90)
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) in <4300@lib.tmc.edu> writes: >The rest of us seem to get along just fine with Usenet as it is. What's >your beef? How many bits did it take to get this message across the net? ------------------ From: tetra@cup.portal.com (daniel TetraHedon willits) Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.drugs Subject: Re: Heterosexual transmission, was Drug War Test: Try it! Message-ID: <34977@cup.portal.com> Date: 18 Oct 90 02:26:35 GMT References: <64002@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <2103@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU> <34942@cup.portal.com> <271CA11A.15897@ics.uci.edu> Distribution: alt Organization: The Portal System (TM) Lines: 1 Thanks dave! ------------------------ I argue that a well structured feedback method would *reduce* traffic, while *increasing* the quality of articles read. The proposal is valid on strictly technical grounds. (I am sorry to admit I am not the dave being thanked :-). >As I said, there's not a whole lot you can do about the level >of flamage on the net, and complicated proposals for greatly limiting the >volume of discussion certainly won't help. No. NO. NO! If you reread the paper, you will note I explicitly state there is no limitation of posting at all. Quality is improved by inviting more competent readers to post. This is the crucial difference between a "Consensus Journal" and a normal peer review journal. If someone want to make a total fool of themselves, there is no "gatekeeper" to stop them. Sounds pretty much like the Net right now. 1/2 ;-) -- David S. Stodolsky Office: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 21 38 Department of Computer Science Home: + 45 31 95 92 82 Bldg. 20.2, Roskilde University Center Internet: david@ruc.dk Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01
jgsmith@watson.bcm.tmc.edu (James G. Smith) (12/13/90)
What about the following scenario for electronic publications (sorry for the biological slant) sci.research.biology.papers (an unmoderated newsgroup) sci.research.journal.immunologytoday sci.research.journal.biologicalchemistry sci.research.journal.molecularandcellbiology sci.research.journal.science sci.research.journal.cell etc. (moderated journals, perhaps requiring subscription fees) The scenario: I write up my paper, send it to sci.research.biology.papers. At the same time I send email to the editors of "Cell" saying please include ... er... please review the paper which I submitted to sci...papers. The editors of cell would screen the paper for interest, and ask several qualified reviewers to review the paper. They would convey their comments to Cell, who conveys their decision to me. If they reject it for reasons of interest, I might bring my paper to the attention of another journal. If they require a revision, i make the necessary changes (do the additional experiments), submit the new version to sci...papers, and then email the new journal. Once the paper is "accepted", the new journal either resends the paper in its own newsgroup, or simply makes a reference to the paper and states that it has passed its review requirements. Most people would then not pay much/any attention to the noisy sci.research.biology.papers newsgroup, but would instead wait to see what has been reviewed by the various journals. However, they could still screen the papers newsgroup (hopefully an automated screen) for papers dealing specifically with their specific interests. Well, watchya think? *