First an APOLOGY to editors of EBS, especially David Howell, but alos Brain
Everitt for putting his name 2nd
Reference is: Everitt, B., & Howell, D. C. (Eds.). (2005). Encyclopedia of
Behavioral Statistics: Wiley.
http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470860804.html.
I wish to make it clear:
1. that contributors were paid more than $25 short article and indeed more
than the minimum wage, but less than for the time to prepare a 1 hour HE
lecture. If I took longer, it was because getting the examples and level
right took a lot of thought. Ir was my choice and I abide by it & do not
blame editors for my inefficiency [warning these things often take longer
than expected]
2. the encyclopeadia is expensive, £970, because the number of contributors
is in the hundreds, many with several contributions. Suspect no one is
making millions!
3. on many topics, especially advanced topics,I bleieve it outperforms
wikipaedia, some may not even be on wikipaedia. I believe in the high
quality because I know the work of the editors, particulalrly my section
editor Pat Lovie, and of many contributors,. BUT I donıt KNOW about the
quality for sure, because I and my institution cannot afford access which
leads to point 2.
Second point: How best to contribute to making quality maths/stats
information widely available?
1. because the advantage of an encyclopaedia is the number of contributors,
the amoutn offered to contributors is small. Below the minumum wage for the
Golson work. So when I say INSULT, I mean that contributors are being asked
to SUBSIDISE the project without that subsidy being made explicit
2. contributors almost certainly contribute to their science for free in the
form of journal refereeing; and contributions to wikipaedia and/or freely
available material on their, or their institutionıs, web site
3. in some sense schools, and the tax payers who support schools, are paying
for an uneconomic way of accessing knowledge and expertise. The money would
be better spent on textbooks and interactive educational resources, eg. The
HEAs and school on-line maths projects
4. many of these on-line contributions, as with original journal
contributions, are subject to comment and debate.
So is the day of the edited encyclopaedia over [even as an e-book]?
Scientists need to think hard about how best to disseminate expertiset o
reach a wide audience.
I give this view while having enormous respect for the work and expertise of
editors of previous encyclopaedia, and potentially of prospective editors.
Without that respect I would not have contributed. However that was 5 years
ago [even then the writing was on the wall], I wouldnıt do it now and I
invite others to consider how best to make a contribution.
Best
Diana
Professor Diana Kornbrot
email: [log in to unmask]
web: http://web.me.com/kornbrot/KornbrotHome.html
Work
School of Psychology
University of Hertfordshire
College Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9AB, UK
voice: +44 (0) 170 728 4626
fax: +44 (0) 170 728 5073
Home
19 Elmhurst Avenue
London N2 0LT, UK
voice: +44 (0) 208 883 3657
mobile: +44 (0) 796 890 2102
fax: +44 (0) 870 706 4997
You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
SIGNOFF allstat
to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
|
