Search

Summary-A novel service is proposed to help authors of scientific papers to select journals to which to submit their manuscripts. The aim of the service is to optimize the common interests of authors, readers/users, and science, by providing the authors with a tool for reaching those readers who can most benefit from the news of their accomplishments. The five basic factors which intervene in the choice of a journal are analyzed: relevance, acceptance rate, circulation, prestige and publication lag. With the help of a mathematical model, we show how these five variables can be used in a plausible decision procedure leading to the selection of journals suitable for the publication of given papers. WHEN a scientist submits an article for publication, the choice of a suitable journal is often guided by self-interest. It helps the scientist's career if the results of his work are published in a journal representative of his discipline. It helps most if the journal is the most prestigious in the subject area, with the largest circulation, and with the shortest publication lag. If an author chooses wisely where to publish, this may also serve the interests of the potential readers of his papers. Their concern is to gain valuable information with the minimum possible delay. There is, therefore, a convergence of interests on the part of authors and readers that the proper audience for the reporting of scientific investigations be reached. The healthy growth of the scientific enterpriseand also of enterprises based on the utilization of knowledge-is dependent on the matching of these complementary interests. Some scientists find it difficult to select wisely the journals to which to submit their papers. Scientists who are just starting their careers, who do not have experienced colleagues to advise them, and who do not yet belong to any "invisible college", may experience difficulties. So may scientists who have just switched from one specialty to another, or people who work in interdisciplinary fields or in fields without a welldeveloped "paradigm". Almost any scientist, even the most experienced, has probably felt, at one time or another, that he had submitted some of his papers to the wrong journal or addressed it to the wrong audience. A good service to advise an author on how to reach the readers who can benefit most from news of his accomplishments would be helpful to him, to his potential readers, and to science. To justify such service, one should be able to show that it would fill a real, important and sizeable need, and that it would do as well or better than the advice offered by experienced professional colleagues. Some scientific foundation is required to design such a service with assurance that it will be helpful. Prior work on the sociology of publishing/I-3], on the psychology of authorship/4-5], and on the patterns of communication in a scientific community [6-12] provides the starting point of this study. The "Bradford law" [13-14] states

The Society for the Bibliography of Natural History began its publishing activity in 1936 by devoting the first part of its Journal (i.e. Volume 1: 1-30; October 1936) to a list of references to sources of information on the dates of issue of natural history works. This was compiled by F. J. Griffin, C. Davies Sherborn and H. S. Marshall. The utility of the catalogue to both zoological and botanical taxonomists concerned with problems of nomenclature and of citation in precise chronological sequence led to the issue of the first supplement in Volume 2, Part 1 (pp. 1-17; 1943), by F. J. Griffin, and of the second supplement in Volume 3, Part 1 (pp. 5-12; 1953), by W. T. Stearn and A. C. Townsend. The third supplement, by G. H. Goodwin, appeared in Volume 3, Part 4 (pp. 165174; 1957). It is proposed to issue the fifth supplement in Volume 5, Part 1. The Society would be grateful for copies of papers on dates of publication, or full bibliographic references to such papers, for inclusion in future supplements. They should be sent to the Librarian, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7, and marked " for J. Soc. Bibl. Nat. Hist." Bibliographical information is so widely scattered, and may occur in places so little expected, that systematic search for data relating to a particular problem can lead to much loss of time and small success; it is all too easy to overlook relevant material. Much information on botanical works is to be found in the periodicals Taxon (Utrecht) and Flora Malesiana Bulletin (Leyden) and the independent works Great Flower Books, 1700-1900 (London 1956), by S. Sitwell and W. Blunt, with a bibliography (pp. 47-85) compiled by Sabine Wilson under the direction of W. T. Stearn, who is responsible for most of the annotations, and Dates of Publications describing Musci, 1801-1821 (Troy, N.Y., U.S.A., 1959), by G. Sayre; it should be noted that many of the publications describing bryophytes that have been elucidated by Miss Sayre also describe other plants.

Dr. Seymour B. Sarason is in the Department of Psychology and the Psycho-Educational Clinic, Yale University. This is a report based on a recording of Dr. Sarason's paper which he presented at the Twenty-second National Conference of the Orton Society, Boston, 1971. (Dr. Sarason was unable to prepare a manuscript for publication as he had planned to do ; but his talk generated not only immediate interest and enthusiasm following its presentation at the Conference, but several urgent requests from subscribers to the Bulletin for copies of his remarks. For these reasons, and because we feel his talk to be of special relevance to other papers in this issue of the Bulletin, the staff has taken the liberty of preparing and publishing this report, and take full responsibility for it. We believe it accurately reflects Dr. Sarason's talk.)

STRUGGLED more than two years, along with many of my colleagues in the Society, for a solution to the problems raised in the report of the Committee for the 1970's, and having worked manfully during the past year with representatives of our own and kindred societies toward the realization of the proposed National Historic Records Program, and wishing to give you some respite from your own hard labors of thinking and drinking, panel discussions, workshops, business meetings, committee meetings, and receptions, I should like to remind you and myself that the life of an archivist is not entirely trouble and toil. Indeed, it carries with it many fringe benefits, many satisfactions. So I want to talk to you about some of these tonight, using as my title, "Persons, Places, and Papers: The Joys of Being an Archivist." One of my children once described his father's profession as "messing around with old papers." At the time I thought it an accurate description. Thus it comes as something of a surprise to me that when I start thinking about what it means to be an archivist, persons rather than papers take preeminence. And first among these persons are you, my colleagues. What a joy you have been to me, and continue to be; and how true this has been from the very first! When unexpectedly, almost twelve years ago, out of a background of college teaching and book publishing, I was appointed Director of the South Carolina Archives Department, everyone in the Society of American Archivists gave me a far better welcome than I deserved; but four of its members made me their special charge. First and foremost among these was Philip Hamer. Perhaps because he was a fellow South Carolinian, perhaps because of his friendship with R.

Relates a fascinating, but somewhat sordid story of the circumstances surrounding the publication of Messages and Papers of the Presidents in 1990. The role of Richardson as chairman of the House Committee on Printing and as compiler of the set of 10 volumes is described in absorbing detail. His attempts to privately copyright a commercial edition and to make money from what was originally an official compilation were devious at best and are described in a series of incidents which placed Congress in a false position. Ainsworth R. Spofford, as retired Librarian of Congress and as editor of the index to the set, was an unwitting accessory to the strange events leading to the commercial exploitation of these government documents by Richardson and his publisher. The authors point out that librarians continue to lend their names to publishing projects of dubious merit and contribute to their exaggerated claims.

The following notes on Indian Chronology were written in 1874, and were originally intended for the pages of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Before, however, they were printed off, I received a letter from Dr. Bühler, of Bombay, in answer to one I had written to him, on hearing a rumour that he had found Kanishka's name in one of the Puranas. I consequently refrained from publishing them, till it was known what bearing this discovery might have on the questions at issue. In order to ventilate the question, however, I had them printed, and in March, 1875, circulated them among my friends. As nothing has since been heard of Dr. Bühler's discovery, and recent excavations in Afghanistan throw new light on the question, I now submit them for republication where they were originally intended to appear.