Here's a brief contribution to this interesting discussion, from the
perspective of ensuring the journal's LONG TERM value...
Judith Winters wrote:
> > And even as an experiment of digital publishing, you can do more than
> > just copying a paper academic journal. In two years, I saw no updating
> > of a paper. The authors abandon their articles the same as in a paper
> > journal printed once for ever. Not at least a new photo, or a note on
> > the news in their research, or an updating of bibliography? A more
> > active way of publishing should be encouraged.
If Internet Archaeology is trying to establish itself as a journal of
record, similar to 'Antiquity' or a learned society's journal on paper,
it is surely difficult to see a way in which such flux could work?
As a journal of record, it is important that the author creates a piece
of work to which others may safely refer for years to come, safe in the
knowledge that the article they referred to will still say the same
thing when a new reader follows their reference to it.
If I write a book on 5th century Britain, for example, and refer to
Snyder's paper in Internet Archaeology, I may well build an argument in
my text based upon what HE said in his paper. If he is able to
subsequently change that, it weakens my argument. Surely academic
writing needs to have a sound, stable base of published material upon
which to build? With this stable base, I can read Snyder's paper, I can
build upon or criticise it in my own writing, and others can then do the
same both with my writing and with Snyder's earlier work to which I
refer. Snyder himself can also build upon my work which builds upon his,
which... If the original paper upon which this is all based was
published in Internet Archaeology, and the author had the freedom to
change it in the light of new ideas, the whole process surely becomes
destabilised?
> > The papers make few references on the Web. The very advantages of the
> > global network is poorly used. I wonder if the editors should not do
> > more to make links to other sites on the Internet on the topic of an
> > article, or assist the author to do that? If IA stays isolated at its
> > URL, what is the reason to be an electronic journal only?
Arguably, this comes down to the same problem as identified above. If
journal articles make frequent use of links to other sites -- most of
which are constantly changing -- it is impossible to ensure that
coherence is maintained. An external site which said one thing when the
author linked to it in his/her paper may very well say the exact
opposite by the time you or I read the paper. This devalues the paper in
Internet Archaeology, and reduces its chances of remaining an important
reference into the future.
Also, speaking purely selfishly, the ADS acts as the archive for
Internet Archaeology papers, and it would be a complete nightmare to
administer if authors kept changing things every five minutes...! ;-)
This is not to say, of course, that a set of "Discussion" pages couldn't
be associated with papers where relevant. These pages could lie outside
the normal peer review and archiving process applied to Internet
Archaeology, and COULD be used to provide links to potentially
impermanent external sites, to allow readers to query arguments in
papers, and to allow authors to rebut such queries.
What does everyone else think?
Paul
--
== dr. paul miller ============== [log in to unmask] ==
collections manager, archaeology data service, king's manor
york, YO1 7EP, UK tel: +44 (0)1904 43 3954
== http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/ ========= fax: +44 (0)1904 43 3939 ==
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|