This is absolutely preposterous and absurd! Totally ridiculous, completely
insane and off the wall!
My God, woman, look what you've invoked. I am assuming that this is a
tongue-in-cheek attempt at humor and thats its all lame rhetoric.
And to think all of this because a sweet 24 year old fan of Leo posted some
harmless pictures of her heartthrob. GET A LIFE , yee objector of the innocent
pursuit of fun and recreation. GOD< WHAT A BITCH!
Humphrey
In article <36DB5D10.7F7D at post.queensu.ca>,
forsdyke at post.queensu.ca wrote:
> BJN has not lived up to the high hopes originally expressed in 1992.
> I append below our original charter, and invite you to contribute.
>> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:29:49 EST
> From: <FORSDYKE at post.QueensU.CA>
>> Subject: Welcome! Charter. Endorsements. Topics.
>> Welcome to BIONET.JOURNALS.NOTE.
>> Conception--> Execution --> Publication. However great the idea,
> however brilliant the experiment, they are of little value unless
> adequately communicated. And your publication may be another's
> inspiration. Thus the process is cyclical:
>> Conception
> / \
> / \
> Publication <------- Execution
>> Bionet.Journals.Note, hopefully will assist overcoming the myriad
> of obstacles which slow the cycle.
>> 1. "CHARTER"
> 2. ENDORSEMENTS FROM JOURNAL EDITORS
> 3. POSSIBLE TOPICS
>> 1. CHARTER
>> Bionet.Journals.Note is seen as a forum for debate between editors,
> authors, readers, reference librarians, reviewers, citation analysts,
> reviewers, etc., on subjects of general interest.
> For example, where to submit to? Having had a good idea, done the
> experiments and written a paper, one is faced with the problem of
> where to submit it. The wrong decision at this stage can cause a
> variety of problems, not the least of which is delay. [Of course, not
> too far down the line when electronic journals get going, this problem
> will not be so pressing.]
>> Two examples have appeared on the "net" over the past few weeks. In
> one case an author was upset that he had received no correspendence
> from the editor of a journal for several months. Someone was able to
> tell him that the editor had been in an automobile accident and that
> may have delayed things. In another case an editorial office had
> moved. Manuscripts sent in by courier were being forwarded by regular
> mail, with concomitant delays.
>> Much of the "inside" information on journals is gathered informally
> over the years, so that "old hands" are less at a disadvantage then
> "new". Hopefully, some of this experience could be passed along to new
> authors. For example, the journal Nature states that "less than 50%"
> of the papers received are actually sent out for review. What does
> that mean? 40%, 30%, 10%? If the answer is 10% then papers must be
> written with the primary intent of getting through the initial
> editorial filter, rather than satisfying subsequent reviewers.
>> Apart from use by those who submit to journals, I envisage that the
> new forum would act as a bulletin board for journal editors who might
> want to post their latest "Instructions for Authors" or announce new
> changes in Editorial Policy.
> D.R.Forsdyke
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2. ENDORSEMENTS BY JOURNAL EDITORS
> During the period for Discussion, two endorsements were received:
>> BIOTECHNIQUES
> I endorse enthusiastically Donald Forsdykes's proposal to establish
> a new Bionet group for the exchange of information concerning journals.
> As the editor of BioTechniques, which is associated with BioTechNet, I
> am
> eager to promote the use of computer networks to improve communications
> among editors, authors, reviewers, readers and reference librarians.
> Because of the inevitable proliferation of scientific information,
> publishers must become more innovative about using electronic media and
> more responsive to the needs of the scientific community. Although many
> problems are associated with development of the "electronic journal," I
> hope that discussion of such topics will provide constructive feedback
> to editors and publishers.
> Sincerely,
> Jim Ellingboe
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BIOCHEM.BIOPHYS.ACTA
> Dr. Forsdyke:
> In your proposal for a journals.note newsgroup, the last paragraph
> noting
> potential involvement of journal editors might be expanded to include
> the
> concept of 2-way interaction between authors and journals, rather than
> the
> apparent suggestion for a 1-way announcement medium.
>> The potential for editors and editorial staff to respond in an open
> discussion
> forum to general points would be beneficial in developing the role of
> journals
> in response to the demands of the community which they serve. However,
> it
> should also be noted that private lines of communication would remain
> more
> appropriate when dealing with points related to individual submissions.
>> I look forward to voting positively on this initiative in due course.
>> Regards,
>> John Dyer
> Editorial Manager
> Biochimica et Biophysica Acta
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 3. POSSIBLE TOPICS LIST
>> How does an Editor select a reviewer?
> How many reviewers for a paper? One, two, three..?
> Should papers be transmitted by courier or regular post?
> Anonymous reviewing?
> Which journals are likely to be receptive of "way out" ideas?
> Which journals are prone to defend the conventional wisdom?
> Does the annual Impact Rating influence an Editor's choice of
> manuscripts
> Is submitting a paper to Nature/Science a waste of time when so few
> papers can be published?
> Salami publishing?
> Honorary authorship (Fabrikant and all that)?
> Should a technician be a coauthor or be mentioned in acknowledgements?
> What is a reasonable time for a reviewer to retain a paper?
> Electronic publishing?
> How should the paper media cite items in the electronic media?
> Do editors of the paper media feel threatened by the electronic
> revolution? Should they?
> Peer review.
> Publish or perish?
> Order of authors' names on a paper?
> Should reviewers be paid?
> Does any journal in the biomedical sciences pay authors?
> Science writing and literary style?
> When should a finding be described as "novel"?
> Since many readers do not have English as a first language, should
> papers
> in English take this into account?
> Should all scientific writing be in English?
> Double publishing,...of papers?...of abstracts? Equal sins?
> Priority and credit.
> Fraud and plagiarism.
> Page charges.
> Confidentiality of reviewing.
> Do editors deliberately slow manuscript handling to give authors more
> time to reconsider?
> Better to submit to a non-profit journal (e.g. Biochem.J., BioEssays)?
> Do Editors retain unique formats (e.g. citation by author rather than by
> number) to make it more difficult for authors to revise manuscripts for
> submission elsewhere?
> What are the "rights" of an author?
>> We have come a long way since the Journal des Scavans (Jan 1665) and
> the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (March 1665).
> Perhaps
> future generations will see the launching of Bionet.Journals.Note as an
> important innovation in the growth and management of scientific
> knowledge
>> Thanks to those of you who voted to support the
> project.
>> Sincerely, Don Forsdyke
> Department of Biochemistry,
> Queen's University, Kingston,
> Canada K7L3N6 forsdyke at post.queensu.ca>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
