John M. McMahon | 1 Mar 01:27 2008

Sustainability in publishing: print vs. open source journals

Here's some food for thought ....

IHE 2/29/08:

"Journal boxes"

"From a sustainability point of view, it’s no contest. Digital is good.
Paper is bad. End of story."

[snip]

"The print journal evolved at a time when the most efficient mechanism for
sharing information was ink on paper. That’s no longer the case. Information
now travels (and is stored, waiting to travel) far more efficiently in
digital form. Paper doesn’t weigh a lot, but electronic ones and zeros weigh
even less and so are transported quicker and more cheaply. Paper is still
useful for the one article a reader wants to pore over and mark up, but it
doesn’t have to be consumed to mail each subscriber a full copy of each
article (s)he has no interest in reading.

And paper is a tremendously harmful product to the environment. I don’t know
what sort of paper stock most journals are printed on (although, for the
price many of them charge, it ought to be pure silk!), but think of a single
sheet of 8.5″ x 11″ printer/copier paper. Production of each individual
sheet consumes 13 ounces of fresh water. Production of each ream puts 8.4 kg
(about 18.5 lbs.) of CO2 into the atmosphere. The water weighs way more than
the paper does (no surprise there), but even the CO2 weighs more!!"

More:

(Continue reading)

Terrence Lockyer | 1 Mar 09:48 2008
Picon

Re: Sustainability in publishing: print vs. open source journals

I don't what to comment on anything in John M.
McMahon's post - which, oddly, was displayed for me in
"Japanese (JIS)" [??!!??] - but on his subject-line.
Unfortunately, for many of us, and especially for those
of us, whether we might be called independent scholars
or just interested amateurs looking for scholarly
information, outside formal academia, it isn't a choice
been print and digital, but between print and
unavailable.  Why?  Because the dichotomy in JMM's
subject-line is false:  journals are for the most part
not "print vs. open source", but "print vs. electronic,
in subscriber only databases".  Many of these databases
are available to subscribers at fees only institutions
can afford, presumably to prevent a situation in which
individual scholars in a department use their private
subscriptions to make articles available to colleagues
and students, rather than an institutional license,
much as, in smaller departments, individual members
might donate their personal copies of journals to a
departmental collection, where the institutional
library doesn't have a (much costlier, usually)
institutional subscription.  And in at least some, and
for all I know many, cases - even ones in which the
databases are available in institutional libraries and
those libraries have options for access to the library
for those who are not their own students or staff - the
databases are STILL off-limits to those outside the
institutional setting due to the terms of the licence.
Result?  If you are not a student or employee of a
university or equivalent institution, electronic access
(Continue reading)

John M. McMahon | 1 Mar 13:42 2008

Re: Sustainability in publishing: print vs. open source journals

On 3/1/08 3:48 AM, "Terrence Lockyer" <lockyert <at> MWEB.CO.ZA> wrote:

> I don't what to comment on anything in John M.
> McMahon's post - which, oddly, was displayed for me in
> "Japanese (JIS)" [??!!??] -

Not my fault.  I am just the cut-and-paster.  ;-)

> ... but on his subject-line.

Thought I got that right. Should have been "open access" not "open source"
-- shows how little I know ... or how easy it is to fall into oft-heard and
familiar phrasing when typing.

Still, TL is not alone. E.g., read the opening paragraph:

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/blogs/getting_to_green/journal_boxes

"Well, it appears that yesterday¹s article on an open access journal
published by the library at Indiana University has generated quite a level
of response ‹ some from professors, some from university press personnel,
the last one (at this writing) from a librarian. Lots of folks listing lots
of reasons why traditional, peer-reviewed print journals are better than
open access (free) journals, even if the OA journals are reviewed by exactly
the same peers. If you haven¹t looked it over, you probably should."

The reference to "yesterday's article on an open access journal" is to

IHE 2/28/08:

(Continue reading)

Roger Pearse | 1 Mar 14:32 2008

Re: Sustainability in publishing: print vs. open source journals

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Terrence Lockyer <lockyert <at> mweb.co.za>
wrote:

> Unfortunately, for many of us, and especially for those
> of us, whether we might be called independent scholars
> or just interested amateurs looking for scholarly
> information, outside formal academia, it isn't a choice
> been print and digital, but between print and
> unavailable.  Why?  Because the dichotomy in JMM's
> subject-line is false:  journals are for the most part
> not "print vs. open source", but "print vs. electronic,
> in subscriber only databases".

I'd like to express my agreement with this.  In my experience the barriers
to outsiders using these new digital resources are actually impenetrable or
nearly so.  We have a situation where the elitism is getting worse, not
better.  I know that this isn't malicious; but it still is happening.

> (And no, before anyone misunderstands, this is not a
> formulaic rant against academics or experts, but a
> complaint about the mode of access to particular kinds
> of publications.)

Agreed.  What is needed is for a culture change, to facilitate public access
somehow.  Really; how many people are actually interested in these things?
The overhead to the system of carrying a handful enthusiasts is minimal.
And... it's all being paid for by the taxpayer anyway.

All the best,

(Continue reading)

Colin McLarty | 1 Mar 14:37 2008

Re: Rendition of Euthyphro 15e-16a

"James M. Pfundstein" <jmpfund <at> BGNET.BGSU.EDU>
Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:29 pm
Subject: Re: [CLASSICS-L] Rendition of Euthyphro 15e-16a
To: CLASSICS-L <at> LSV.UKY.EDU

> In his previous  
> statement--15Df--Socrates asserts his confidence that Euthyphro 
> knows  
> what holiness is, and the grounds for his confidence, and begs to 
> be  
> enlightened.

Socrates at 15e says:

"But now I am sure you think (oiei) you know what is holy and what is not."

What is the function of "oiei" there?  What is the dictionary meaning,
and again what does it actually contribute to the passage?  Can someone
"think" they know something, when they do not?  

best, Colin

Janice Siegel | 1 Mar 15:03 2008

production of Aristophanes' Lysistrata

If anyone has nothing to do tonight and is near Charlottesville, Va,
you might want to catch the Live Arts Theater presentation of
Lysistrata. In my opinion, it was more burlesque than comedic (or even
comic), but it was worth seeing. I was only disappointed that
Aristophanes' main message -- IMO, that war is just as vulgar and
obscene as the sexual plight suffered by these men at the hands of
their women -- was lost in all the phallus-waving. Tonight is the last
night of the production.
Cheers, Janice

--

-- 
Janice Siegel
Department of Classics, Hampden-Sydney College, P.O. Box 24,
Hampden-Sydney, Virginia 23943
Office: Maples 004; 434-223-7204

Dr. J's Illustrated Guide to the Classical World:
http://people.hsc.edu/drjclassics/
Dr. J's Database of Audio-Visual Resources for Classics:
http://people.hsc.edu/drjclassics/avclassics/
or just go to http://www.drjclassics.com

Janice Siegel | 1 Mar 15:10 2008

Re: production of Aristophanes' Lysistrata

more:
vulgar, obscene (nay, pornographic)...and *ridiculous*!

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Janice Siegel <jsiegel <at> hsc.edu> wrote:
> If anyone has nothing to do tonight and is near Charlottesville, Va,
> you might want to catch the Live Arts Theater presentation of
> Lysistrata. In my opinion, it was more burlesque than comedic (or even
> comic), but it was worth seeing. I was only disappointed that
> Aristophanes' main message -- IMO, that war is just as vulgar and
> obscene as the sexual plight suffered by these men at the hands of
> their women -- was lost in all the phallus-waving. Tonight is the last
> night of the production.
> Cheers, Janice
>
> --
> Janice Siegel
> Department of Classics, Hampden-Sydney College, P.O. Box 24,
> Hampden-Sydney, Virginia 23943
> Office: Maples 004; 434-223-7204
>
> Dr. J's Illustrated Guide to the Classical World:
> http://people.hsc.edu/drjclassics/
> Dr. J's Database of Audio-Visual Resources for Classics:
> http://people.hsc.edu/drjclassics/avclassics/
> or just go to http://www.drjclassics.com
>

--

-- 
Janice Siegel
Department of Classics, Hampden-Sydney College, P.O. Box 24,
(Continue reading)

Michael Chase | 1 Mar 19:18 2008
Picon
Picon

Re: Rendition of Euthyphro 15e-16a

On Mar 1, 2008, at 5:37 AM, Colin McLarty wrote:

> "James M. Pfundstein" <jmpfund <at> BGNET.BGSU.EDU>
> Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:29 pm
> Subject: Re: [CLASSICS-L] Rendition of Euthyphro 15e-16a
> To: CLASSICS-L <at> LSV.UKY.EDU
>
>
>> In his previous
>> statement--15Df--Socrates asserts his confidence that Euthyphro
>> knows
>> what holiness is, and the grounds for his confidence, and begs to
>> be
>> enlightened.
>
> Socrates at 15e says:
>
> "But now I am sure you think (oiei) you know what is holy and what is 
> not."
>
> What is the function of "oiei" there?  What is the dictionary meaning,
> and again what does it actually contribute to the passage?  Can someone
> "think" they know something, when they do not?

M.C. If this were *not the case*, Socrates' entire philosophical 
project would be incomprehensible, future, and inconceivable.

>
Michael Chase
(goya <at> vjf.cnrs.fr)
(Continue reading)

June Samaras | 1 Mar 19:21 2008
Picon

"The Hidden History of Women in Ancient Greece"

Wednesday, March 5, 7:00 p.m.

MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, BOSTON

"The Hidden History of Women in Ancient Greece"

MFA curator Christine Kondoleon and Joan Breton Connelly,

of New York University and author of Portrait of a Priestess:

 Women and ritual in ancient Greece, challenge assumptions about

the roles of Greek women in antiquity. Book signing to follow.

$15 MFA members, seniors, and students, $18 general admission

 Remis Auditorium, 465 Huntington Avenue

Boston, MA 02115

Tel. 617-369-3300, www.mfa.org

--

-- 
June Samaras
KALAMOS BOOKS
(For Books about Greece)
2020 Old Station Rd
Streetsville,Ontario
Canada L5M 2V1
Tel : 905-542-1877
(Continue reading)

Colin McLarty | 1 Mar 19:51 2008

Re: Rendition of Euthyphro 15e-16a

re: Michael Chase <goya <at> UVIC.CA>
Saturday, March 1, 2008 1:18 pm

According to James Pfundstein (February 28, 2008 2:28 pm), Socrates
"asserts his confidence that Euthyphro knows what holiness is" at
Euthyphro 15de.  I suggested James had missed a key distinction, since
the text says "I am sure you think (oiei) you know what holiness is."  I
asked rhetorically:

> > Can someone
> > "think" they know something, when they do not?
> 
> M.C. If this were *not the case*, Socrates' entire philosophical 
> project would be incomprehensible, future, and inconceivable.

It is good to find common ground with M.C., but this is unduly harsh to
James.  

James erases the difference between knowing and thinking you know in
Socrates' statement, but does not render Socrates' project entirely
incomprehensible or futile, especially as James takes all of 15df to be
"ironic" and therefore opposite to what Socrates means.

best, Colin


Gmane