In general, summary information, designed for the Web, is preferred. We
have also placed Web versions of full reports, papers, and books
on-line. To help with time and costs, we have asked report authors and
editors to prepare Web-compatible files for on-line posting.
John Jameson
John H. Jameson, Jr., RPA
Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC)
U.S. National Park Service
2035 E. Paul Dirac Drive, Box 7
Johnson Building, Suite 120
Tallahassee, Florida 32310
phone 850/580-3011, extension 243
fax 850/580-2884
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
www.cr.nps.gov/seac/
-----Original Message-----
From: jael [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 11:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]
Subject: What do people read?
A year or so back, I undertook some market research to
find out what
sort of computer services would be of most interest to
archaeologists.
One of the areas I wanted to explore was what kind of
information they
published/would consider publishing on their websites.
Although I only
looked at a small sample (so my impressions may not be
representative of
British Archaeology as a whole), I was interested to
note that there
seemed to be a good deal more enthusiasm for the idea of
publishing
report summaries on the internet than for publishing
full reports via
this medium.
Two questions:
(i) Is this reluctance cost-related? (I have very little
idea of the
costs involved in the conventional publication of a
substantial
archaeological report, who pays the up-front costs,
typical number of
copies sold, who receives the income from sales etc. If
anyone could
enlighten me - off-list if preferred - I'd be very
grateful.)
(ii) If not, what *are* the objections?
--
Karen J Walford Tel. 0121 688 8897
Azuli IT http://www.azuli.co.uk
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|