Proposal updates: 1) include outline 2) write about finished projects

[Jodi Schneider]

I've updated the proposal section of the Article Guidelines:
http://journal.code4lib.org/article-guidelines

"Authors are welcome to contact the Editorial Committee with a proposal, rather than a complete article. Proposals should include an outline. Due to the Journal's relatively quick turnaround time, work on finished or mature projects is strongly preferred."

Editors, feel free to revise as you like. This page could benefit from some reorganization, IMO.

-Jodi

[Jonathan Rochkind]

I'm not sure I agree we should require an outline. I know we've had a
few cases where we wanted an outline, but we also want to keep things
low barrier for authors, and we've done fine without an outline in many
cases.

Why not just say, like "you might want to include an outline", and we
can always ask for one if we need one? Or, in general, "the more
specifics you provide about your article, the easier time we'll have
making a decision in your favor."

Jodi Schneider wrote:
> I've updated the proposal section of the Article Guidelines:
> http://journal.code4lib.org/article-guidelines
>

> "Authors are welcome to contact the Editorial Committee<http://journal.code4lib.org/editors/> with a proposal, rather than a complete article. Proposals should include an outline. Due to the Journal's relatively quick turnaround time, work on finished or mature projects is strongly preferred."

[Emily Lynema]

Perhaps it should be added to this page, as well, which discusses
submission of proposals and the vetting process.

-emily

http://journal.code4lib.org/process-and-structure

--
Emily Lynema
Associate Department Head
Information Technology, NCSU Libraries
919-513-8031
emily_...@ncsu.edu

[Kelley McGrath]

I see both Jodi and Jonathan's points. I think it might be better just
to encourage an outline. At least, I think I would've had trouble
producing one upfront for the first article I wrote for the Code4Lib
Journal. Plus, if it hasn't been a major problem up until now,
presumably most of the time you don't need one. On the other hand,
encouraging an outline, or even just a list of main points, might jog
people to include a little more detail.

The problematic proposals seem to lack a certain type of specificity.
Perhaps it would be useful to suggest that proposals include an
example of a specific point to be discussed or a list/sample of main
points (a little less restrictive than a formal outline). And when
applicable, links to the projects under discussion would also be
helpful so we could look easily look at the end product in the context
of the proposed article. Or we just have to send the overly-general
proposals back to the authors for clarification.

Kelley

[Carol Bean]

I like including the advice "the more specifics you provide about your article, the easier time we'll have making a decision in your favor."

The more "requirements" (even if they are only strong suggestions) we make, the more we start looking like an Elsevier journal ;-)

Carol

--
Carol Bean
bean...@gmail.com

[Jodi Schneider]

/me recoils in horror
....and swiftly updates the page

How's this?
"Authors are welcome to contact the Editorial Committee with a proposal, rather than a complete article. The more specifics you provide about your article, the easier time we'll have making a decision in your favor. Due to the Journal's relatively quick turnaround time, work on finished or mature projects is strongly preferred."

-Jodi

[Edward M. Corrado]

I guess I like the outline mentioned as a suggestion. I've heard from people that the lack of a propasal structure is very problematic. I also think some of the articles that fell off a cliff after the propsal stage would have been better planned and maybe not disappeard if the potential authors tried to make an outline before the proposal was submitted. 

Edward

Sent from my iPhone

[Kelley McGrath]

I agree that mentioning concrete ways to make a proposal more specific
(like outlines) would be helpful and provide more guidance without
asking people to over-invest time or do something that won't work for
their particular situation.

Kelley

[Jonathan Rochkind]

In general, I think in projects like this journal, there's a temptation
for us to make things overly legalistic. Like, oh, we can't approve your
proposal because you don't have an outline. When really, in the end, we
just didn't approve your proposal because we collectively (as determined
by a vote) didn't like it. It's okay for us to use our subjective
judgement, that's what we're here for, and it's okay to admit it.
Sometimes we'll make a mistake (in either direction), but I don't think
adding more rules on will help us avoid mistakes, it just makes things
more complicated for our authors.

So if we've succesfully approved 80% (or whatever) of our accepted
proposals _without_ an outline... then I don't think we need to make all
our authors make an outline up front. We can always ask for an outline
for specific proposals we want one for. Although I suspect that in many
cases the articles we ask for an outline for, are articles we aren't
going to approve _anyway_, asking for an outline is just postponing the
inevitable.

I'm also more humble after arguing to accept that "So now you're an ER
Librarian" article, and then it ended up being not so good -- I think
our experience shows us that when a significant number of us are really
suspicious about a proposal, odds are it's not that great of an
article! I think it's okay for us to have fewer articles of higher
quality; probably nobody reads all of our articles now anyway, there are
so many!

Jonathan

[Jonathan Rochkind]

Jodi++

Jodi Schneider wrote:
> /me recoils in horror
> ....and swiftly updates the page
>
> How's this?

> "Authors are welcome to contact the Editorial Committee<http://journal.code4lib.org/editors/> with a proposal, rather than a complete article. The more specifics you provide about your article, the easier time we'll have making a decision in your favor. Due to the Journal's relatively quick turnaround time, work on finished or mature projects is strongly preferred."
>
> -Jodi

>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Carol Bean <bean...@gmail.com<mailto:bean...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I like including the advice "the more specifics you provide about your article, the easier time we'll have making a decision in your favor."
>
> The more "requirements" (even if they are only strong suggestions) we make, the more we start looking like an Elsevier journal ;-)
>
> Carol
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Kelley McGrath <kmc...@gmail.com<mailto:kmc...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I see both Jodi and Jonathan's points. I think it might be better just
> to encourage an outline. At least, I think I would've had trouble
> producing one upfront for the first article I wrote for the Code4Lib
> Journal. Plus, if it hasn't been a major problem up until now,
> presumably most of the time you don't need one. On the other hand,
> encouraging an outline, or even just a list of main points, might jog
> people to include a little more detail.
>
> The problematic proposals seem to lack a certain type of specificity.
> Perhaps it would be useful to suggest that proposals include an
> example of a specific point to be discussed or a list/sample of main
> points (a little less restrictive than a formal outline). And when
> applicable, links to the projects under discussion would also be
> helpful so we could look easily look at the end product in the context
> of the proposed article. Or we just have to send the overly-general
> proposals back to the authors for clarification.
>
> Kelley
>

>> emily_...@ncsu.edu<mailto:emily_...@ncsu.edu>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Carol Bean
> bean...@gmail.com<mailto:bean...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>