I like the way DLib handles reviewing (pretty much up to the editor(s)). --Th -----Original Message----- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward Corrado Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:56 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal Well, since I brought up the idea at code4libcon, I'm in favor of it :-). I'm not sure how the best way to handle the review process would be, but I do know that tradition blind peer review would: a) Be a lot of work b) Slow down the process (which is a problem with a journal such as ITAL) c) Not work because the community is so small, it would be pretty easy to figure out who wrote it (or at least limit it to a few possibilities) anyway, so it wouldn't really be blind. Someone (Ross?) mentioned we already have a few journals such as DLib, Adriane and ITAL. Well, that may be true, but when I look at them I see mostly big formal projects being written about. I think a code4lib journal could provide an outlet for small projects and hacks... Things that a single systems librarian in a smaller library setting can do in his or her "free" time between going to meetings and staffing the reference desk. For those who were at code4libcon, a good example of the type of articles I'm picturing is the Lipstick on a Pig presentation by Jim Robertson. I don't picture it only being articles like that, but I do picture that being an outlet for smaller projects like what Jim has done. I also like the idea of including code snippets and reports on failed attempts. Really, you can often learn more from reading what didn't work then reading about what did. I was thinking about a possible review process while/after talking to people at code4lib. One idea that came up was that the pre-reviewed articles can go up, and that anyone in the community can review them and make comments (sort of like Art's recipes that were passed around the small village) for a set period of time, and then the author(s) can make changes. It can then be given a "go" to be published or sent back for more review and/or revisions. Obviously, this would need to be hashed out much more. For example, what is the "community," how exactly to submit comments, who gives the final "go" to consider it accepted, etc. But this is one possibility. Well, that is my two cents worth, Ed C.