Re:Charleston Advisor Annoucement...

[David Goodman <dgoodman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>]

Margaret, thanks for bringing this up. Though from the samples I've seen
it appears a very good publication, I am very reluctant to propose it at
that price.

Chuck, I wish the excellent work of you and your colleagues the greatest
possible influence, and I therefore suggest that a specialized publication
like this, and moreover one that is only addressed to those with some
degree of familiarity with electronic materials, might be very suitable
for purely electronic publication at the lowest possible price---which is
$0. I assume the purpose of the publication is not to make money, but to
improve the effectiveness of libraries by exchanging knowledge by way of
high quality reviews of the best materials for us to acquire while
simultaneously increasing the prestige of the contributors and the
editors. If that increased prestige helps their economic position, so much
the better, of course.

David Goodman, Princeton University 
Biology Library
dgoodman@princeton.edu            
609-258-3235

On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, MARGARET LANDESMAN wrote:

> What worries me about the Charleston Advisor is the cost.  I looked at
> (and very much liked) a sample issue.  But it was $400 for a slender
> quarterly - or something like that??  I apologise if I've recalled this
> incorrectly.  But if not, its per page price must be right up there with
> the big bad guys.
> 
> We're involved here with asking our faculty to refrain from contributing
> to or editing for unnecessarily high-priced journals.  I think we must in
> conscience set an example ourselves, so though we'd like it, we didn't
> subscribe. Margaret
> 
> ________________________
> 
> 
> From:           	"Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>
> Subject:        	Re:Charleston Advisor Annoucement...
> Date sent:      	Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:07:38 EDT
> Send reply to:  	liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> 
> Since I'm one of the people involved in the Charleston Advisor, I'd like
> to respond to Susan Mattern's question: "what is a "peer-reviewed
> reviewing source?"
> 
> Each review in the Charleston advisor is reviewed by other reviewers. This
> is standard practice in peer reviewed publications.
> 
> The reviews of the submitted reviews, can be quite strenuous, with
> detailed questions/responses/ followup to the authors. It is an
> interesting process, where all editorial board members are invited to
> discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the reviews and authors given that
> feed-back.  I think if you read some of them (some are free at the website
> http://www.charlestonco.com/ )you will understand what I am talking about.
> In addition, if there is strong disagreement with some aspect of the
> review, Then we invite members of the editorial board or others to write a
> rebuttal or a different analysis of the electronic resource being
> reviewed. Producers of the e-resources often are interviewed to respond to
> reviews and present their perspectives as well. In our second issue we had
> two reviews of Web of Science and in the next issue an interview with
> representatives from ISI. Even editorials can have responses.  I recently
> did an essay on CrossRef, and in the new issue Ed Pentz presents his
> perspective on what CrossRef is about.
> 
> It is peer reviewed and everyone involved in it is comitteed to in-depth
> analysis of e-resources.
> 
> chuck Hamaker
> UnC Charlotte