Attempt to summarize where we are

Showing 1-4 of 4 messages
Attempt to summarize where we are Jodi Schneider 4/20/07 12:24 PM
Here's what I have about content & goals after reading the list.

Please edit/correct/discuss!


GOALS: "fostering communication and sharing among technologists". Some
attention to the "savvy non-geeky" set.

AUDIENCE: Mostly us.
"I see a Code4Lib journal as aimed primarily at the technical library
community, but with a strong secondary audience of the savvy but non-
geeky library set." - Ken Varnum

CONTENT GOAL: Strive for a unique mission. Don't duplicate what other
journals are doing (such as  First Monday, Linux Gazette, the old Perl
Journal, A List Apart, and D-Lib).  (Jon Gorman: are you looking into
their *content* or their *submission process*?)

*Regular editorial (what's in this issue, etc.)
*News bytes
*Columns holding various perspectives.
  **metadata perspective
  **coding perspective
  **systems perspective
  **training/public interface to technology perspective
(Or whatever we think is important)
This would be a way to ensure we touch on each of several areas.
 **End-user testing
(Might not have one of each each month: we could think about how
important balance is, compared to what's easiest to get.)
*Fun page "which might have some quotes from
in-channel, some jokes, maybe an amusing blog post, and maybe
something that's completely odd."

FORMAT: Electronic-only.

LICENSE: "Something very open"--specifics, anyone?

PEER-REVIEW: No, expect possibly for certain sections. We may revise
our views on peer-review when we're up and running, but for now, the
important thing is to get started. Blind peer-review, in particular,
would be hard in this small a community (or would it?).

Re: [c4lj] Attempt to summarize where we are Ron Peterson 4/20/07 1:19 PM
I don't know how feasible it is, but perhaps if people want/need peer-review for their articles, we could offer it by request, as long as the requester realizes that these would be lowest priority and as a result publication of their article would be delayed. 

I'm not crazy about the columns idea.  However I would be in favor of something along the lines of having sections (systems, data, standards, etc.) and having specific editors assigned to those sections.  This would ensure that those topics are covered and promote more diverse voices - which seems to be part of the goal of this journal.

Fun?  I'm all for fun, but I don't think we need to build it in.  I will quickly be turned off by in-jokes and probably by in-channel quotes.  If it is something news-worthy, then by all means include it.  Does a "Fun Page" support the goal of fostering communication and sharing among technologists?  If not, maybe leave it on IRC.  I don't think we need to be so formal that a person's personality doesn't show through, but I think if we are hoping to attract an audience beyond list or IRC members we should focus on quality.

Re: [c4lj] Re: Attempt to summarize where we are Jonathan Rochkind 4/20/07 1:52 PM
I still want to start with just articles (edited not peer reviewed). If
we can figure out how that's going to work, and get that working, than
we can add additional 'sections' edited by certain people, and a
separate process for peer review. [It would be 'by request' in the sense
that someone submitting an article could choose to submit to that
process]. Neither of those are a priority for me.


Jonathan Rochkind
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
rochkind (at)

Re: [c4lj] Re: Attempt to summarize where we are jtgorman 4/24/07 7:07 AM
I have to agree with Jonathan, I just don't think breaking it into
sections or the like is necessarily a good idea right away.  I'm
thinking as we get several issues out then we can start to form an
idea of regular sections, columns, etc if we want.

I still like the idea of a fun page.  Nearly every magazine or journal
that I really like either has a lighter-toned "editorial" at the last
page or little cartoons and the like.  But if it looks like others are
against it or don't think it's wise I'll go with the group consensus.
I guess I have a hard time seeing how it could turn people off.  After
all, you don't have to read that page.

As for the other magazines/online journals.  I don't think there's any
concern about duplicating their content. Just by the intersection of
libraries and technology we're likely to have a good deal of unique
content. I'm hoping to look more at what makes those zines/online
journals work so well.  If anyone else has any favorite journals that
are primarily digital creatures, I'd encourage them to do the same.

Jon Gorman