****************** FROM CHUCK TUCKER 930305 *******************
I have long been a critic of how the journals present us with what we
ought to know about a subjectmatter. From my experiences in all aspects
of the processes of "journal work" I came to the comclusion that what
we should have is what we have on this net; anyone who is on the list
can write anything they care to write and everyone one else has the
opportunity to comment as they see fit. There are no official
gatekeepers to say you can or can't publish this or that. But as we
note even those with the best of intentions, highest of standards,
greatest of concern for mankind, and most intelligent get into the
mode of "specifying what should be in or out" when the question arises
"What would be the best way to operate this journal?" I CAN RECOGNIZE
THIS BECAUSE I HAVE DONE IT AND SEE IT IN MYSELF [see the recent
exchange between Bruce and Bill on speaking for an elaboration on this
action]. So my suggestion would be not a compromise of the proposals
by Taylor and Powers but something more like we are doing at the moment
on the net with a bit more specification (I think Greg actually comes
close to what I as proposing but the formatting and style of CLOSED
LOOP do not clearly indicate it to all but the most careful reader
and those who did the writing).
Put in CL those pieces which involve a major statement along with the
reviews, comments on reviews and a final revise and resubmit by the
initial author(s). There are several journals that actually use this
style now (I can't think of their names at this moment). This would
would allow for the exchange and education to go on as both Martin and
Bill want (as do all of us) and yet not set up a situation where we have
a set of approved ideas (I don't believe that Bill wants this type of
situation either although one reading of his comments has this appearance)
Under these specifications, the major choice that would be made would be
"Which of these many discussions would be in CL?" Hopefully that choice
would be as easy as it is now and made on the same basis. The other way
to decide would be that if no one was interested in commenting on a
statement then it would not be considered; it dies of lack of being
seconded. To guard against a piece being "missed" those who wanted
their statement considered could put it on the fileserver so we could
all retrieve it by GOLPHER (or another means or get it by smail from
the author who would remind us of it). If there was enough interest
to have a series of comments and a revision (or restatement) by the
author then it would be considered for inclusion. I think, finally, the
author should agree to the request that the exchange be "published" in
CL knowing full well how important such a publication will be to his or
her future on the planet {{ 
& :-J & ;-D }}
I do NOT give permission that the above statement be published in CL!!
Best regards to all,
Chuck