 |
 |
Dorothea states elegantly what I implied (I guess I needed two cuppas): > Donna's post suggests a criminally underserved population, > one I think code4lib could profitably target along with its > developer core: the "accidental" library tech. .... > there is NOTHING out there for us. .... Code4lib needs > to decide if its communications goals are internally or externally > focused. The last statement is really important, and is compounded by what sort of publication this will be: formal/informal, peer review/not, etc. Walt Crawford's observations while reviewing the 10th anniversary edition of D-Lib Magazine in the latest _Cites_ may be useful. http://cites.boisestate.edu/civ6i4.pdf [Walt, commenting on the Bonita Wilson-Allison L. Powell article:] There's a good explanation of why D-Lib is not a refereed journal. The founders opted for "quick turn-around from submission to publication over peer review..." Despite its less formal status, D-Lib articles have been cited frequently, an average of nearly 118 citations per year. .... Perhaps, even though it's a magazine, D-Lib has enough of a journal's formality to discourage most reader feedback. [Walt, commenting on Amy Friedlander's article:] She explicitly thought and thinks of D-Lib as a magazine, not a journal. "[W]e were freed from the canons of peer review to engage in speculation that might eventually feed into the formal process of juried results." So, who's your audience? How will you encourage feedback? What latitude do you want to have, and what influence do you intend? (Going to get second cup now.) Din. Donna Dinberg Systems Librarian/Analyst Reference and Genealogy Division Library and Archives Canada [log in to unmask] ** My own thoughts, of course, not those of my employer. **