[Bonetools] nanterre publication

[Alice Choyke]

Dear Vivian,
      If the WBRG meeting in Paris was an independent meeting of interested
scholars I would, more or less, agree with you. A bi-lingiual volume would
be only to the good. However, the WBRG is a working group of ICAZ. There has
been a unstated policy of all ICAZ working groups to publish everything
submitted after the conference by participants, preferably in peer-reviewed
format and well-edited. The language, up to now, has been in English to
insure widest possible dissemination of the information it contains.
Checking back with members of the executive committee this 'open' and
'inclusive' policy has never before been an issue.
     BAR asks only for a clean camera-ready manuscript and would not require
format change on Isabelle's part and it would produce hard-copy. Thus, if
the editing of the papers is far advanced it would not require anything more
than to find someone who can convert word files into whatever electronic
publishing language.
       To my mind (sorry to repeat myself) the only question is whether the
proceedings are published on the Nanterre server electronically or in hard
copy (BAR being the best option). I am happy to write to David Davidson at
BAR to make sure this is a real option although since the first and second
proceedings were published by BAR I would be surprised if problems cropped
up.
       * I also suggest that in addition to complaining about this or that
in the publication we offer Isabelle all help with the English editing which
will move things along much faster if carried out in an expeditious fashion.
I raise my hand immediately to offer that help. *

Best,
Alice

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:16 AM, Vivian Scheinsohn <scheinso at retina.ar>wrote:

>  Dear colleagues
> As Christian has mentioned we all know how hard and difficult is to edit a
> book. So it is not astounding what happened with the Nanterre publication
> since, from my own experience, publishers are driven by a logic that is a
> world away from our own. I think we have to privilege the work just done and
> that all the efforts come to a good end. As long as I have understood the
> situation, the conditions that Isabelle has mentioned in her mail are
> imposed by the publisher. But we also have to think in the editor position
> here. When one researcher decide to edit a volume she/he decided this having
> all his/her circunstances in mind, since we are researchers and not
> professional editors. We have many, many others think to do. So if we
> change the circunstances, we are forcing her/him to confront a new
> publisher, probably a new evaluation and editing processes and so on. It is
> not fair  we asked to our colleagues for more time to invest in this.
> Furthermore I think the prirority should be the papers be published soon,
> no wonder if they are published in hardcopy or as electronic publication.
> So I think we can:  1) accept the conditions that the publishers are
> imposing and discuss the selection criteria (which it is not ideal but it is
> not bad from the view point of those who had just answered the consult: the
> *selected papers will be in a hardcopy* ) or 2) to publish *all the papers
> * in an *electronic publication* ( in the WBRG site or other), and
> take profit of all the hard work just done.
> Best
>
> Dra. Vivian Scheinsohn
> INAPL/CONICET
> 3 de Febrero 1370
> 1426 Capital Federal
> E-mail: scheinso at retina.ar
> Dra. Vivian Scheinsohn
> INAPL/CONICET
> 3 de Febrero 1370
> 1426 Capital Federal
> E-mail: scheinso at retina.ar
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bonetools mailing list
> Bonetools at listserv.niif.hu
> https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listserv.niif.hu/pipermail/bonetools/attachments/20091003/4867f551/attachment.htm>