Comments on: journaling in internet time? http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/06/14/journaling-in-internet-time/ Ramblings on software, law, and the spaces in between. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:08:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Advogato - Recent Blog Entries http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/06/14/journaling-in-internet-time/comment-page-1/#comment-27352 Advogato - Recent Blog Entries Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:24:06 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/?p=1241#comment-27352 <!--%kramer-ref-pre%-->[...] Syndicated 2008-06-14 18:11:39 from Luis Villa's Blog [...]<!--%kramer-ref-post%--> Kramer auto Pingback[...] Syndicated 2008-06-14 18:11:39 from Luis Villa’s Blog [...]

]]> By: Luis http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/06/14/journaling-in-internet-time/comment-page-1/#comment-27348 Luis Sun, 15 Jun 2008 07:12:17 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/?p=1241#comment-27348 James: I agree completely that there are problems that this doesn't fix, but since I don't have the option of shutting down my journal... :) The goal would be merely to improve the process of putting out the useless unread papers- if you've got to do it anyway, might as well make it less painful. Also, I'm really not sure that, in an electronic/non-paper journal, given the right tools, you couldn't parallelize a lot of it. But this is only something that struck me this morning and I haven't given it much thought. If I only published fully polished thoughts this would be a journal, not a blog ;) James: I agree completely that there are problems that this doesn’t fix, but since I don’t have the option of shutting down my journal… :) The goal would be merely to improve the process of putting out the useless unread papers- if you’ve got to do it anyway, might as well make it less painful.

Also, I’m really not sure that, in an electronic/non-paper journal, given the right tools, you couldn’t parallelize a lot of it. But this is only something that struck me this morning and I haven’t given it much thought. If I only published fully polished thoughts this would be a journal, not a blog ;)

]]> By: James Vasile http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/06/14/journaling-in-internet-time/comment-page-1/#comment-27345 James Vasile Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:57:01 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/?p=1241#comment-27345 Publishing more frequently won't shorten lead time. Articles take a certain amount of time to make their way through the editing process. Articles don't sit on the shelf much at the law review. Issues contain articles edited in parallel. Throwing more people at them would make the process marginally faster, but there are significant bottlenecks where more staff won't help. At any rate, the problem with law review articles isn't the lead time. It's that they're irrelevant from conception. Do you know anybody that actually reads law review articles anymore? Publishing more frequently won’t shorten lead time. Articles take a certain amount of time to make their way through the editing process. Articles don’t sit on the shelf much at the law review. Issues contain articles edited in parallel. Throwing more people at them would make the process marginally faster, but there are significant bottlenecks where more staff won’t help.

At any rate, the problem with law review articles isn’t the lead time. It’s that they’re irrelevant from conception. Do you know anybody that actually reads law review articles anymore?

]]> By: Luis http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/06/14/journaling-in-internet-time/comment-page-1/#comment-27343 Luis Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:57:17 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/?p=1241#comment-27343 John: that happens in the social sciences too (ssrn.com), making our journals more irrelevant than they already were. What I guess I'm asking is if the journals can publish quickly enough so that our edits and improvements go public in time to be relevant to the discussion that starts happening once you hit ssrn/arxiv/etc. In science I imagine that the answer is almost certainly no- the peer review process takes too long. In law, since we have no effective peer review process, the answer could possibly be yes, is my thinking... John: that happens in the social sciences too (ssrn.com), making our journals more irrelevant than they already were. What I guess I’m asking is if the journals can publish quickly enough so that our edits and improvements go public in time to be relevant to the discussion that starts happening once you hit ssrn/arxiv/etc. In science I imagine that the answer is almost certainly no- the peer review process takes too long. In law, since we have no effective peer review process, the answer could possibly be yes, is my thinking…

]]> By: John Fleck http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/06/14/journaling-in-internet-time/comment-page-1/#comment-27342 John Fleck Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:49:16 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/?p=1241#comment-27342 Luis - There's an interesting model in the physics world that is quite mature in this regard: http://arxiv.org/ It actually began in the early 1990s on an old NeXT box under the desk of a Los Alamos scientist who was frustrated with the then-current method of sharing preprints: faxing around. If you were not part of the in crowd, you didn't get to see the faxes, and therefore had to wait until publication. But all the cool discussion happened at the outset, prior to publication. So Paul Ginsparg built a server that allowed people to upload essentially anything they wanted, at any stage of publication. The NeXT-under-the-desk model didn't quite scale, so it's moved to Cornell, under the umbrella of its library science department, but it's basically unchanged from the simple model under which it was originally developed. Luis -

There’s an interesting model in the physics world that is quite mature in this regard:

http://arxiv.org/

It actually began in the early 1990s on an old NeXT box under the desk of a Los Alamos scientist who was frustrated with the then-current method of sharing preprints: faxing around. If you were not part of the in crowd, you didn’t get to see the faxes, and therefore had to wait until publication. But all the cool discussion happened at the outset, prior to publication. So Paul Ginsparg built a server that allowed people to upload essentially anything they wanted, at any stage of publication.

The NeXT-under-the-desk model didn’t quite scale, so it’s moved to Cornell, under the umbrella of its library science department, but it’s basically unchanged from the simple model under which it was originally developed.

]]>