Where is My Manuscript? Part 2

Last month I detailed the saga of a manuscript I submitted to a traditional publication. In summary, the post detailed the long strange trip taken by a manuscript I submitted on December 21, 2005. Yesterday, much to my surprise, I received a package from the publisher containing reprints. Yes, my manuscript has been published!

The saga deepens.

When I compared the print version to my copy of the manuscript there were several noticeable and significant typographical errors. The special issue editor indicated that neither her or the journal editor had received galley proofs. Any changes we likely made by an editor at the publishing house or their 'typesetter.' Unfortunately, readers will likely question my writing skills - not the publisher's editing skills. Such errors pose a bit of a problem for tenure track librarians going up for a promotion since publications are often critiqued by 'external' reviewers. The reviewers could comment about such errors which in turn could be intepreted by a local review committee as a weakness.

While I respect the role that traditional publication plays in archiving our professional communications, I still can't help but to feel that they can no longer be the trusted source for the dialog and communication going on in our profession today. Libraries are largely dependent on and are competing with technologies that change every nine months. How are we supposed to progress as a profession in such a changing environment when it still takes a year and a half for an article to move from submission to publication? Waiting until 2009 to read about the wiki approach that Kathryn Greenhill is using to write two conference papers just won't do.

The fact that you are reading this blog means you 'get it.' Perhaps the only way that I will reach those that don't 'get it' is to write a peer reviewed paper about the impact of blogging that may be published near the end of the decade. If I am really lucky, that manuscript may actually be published while blogging is still the valuable communication tool that we view it as today. At the very least, I guess, it would make an interesting historical piece. Sphere: Related Content

Citizendium: A Peer-Review Wikipedia?

A new online wiki encyclopedia named Citizendium (sit-ih-ZEN-dee-um) was finally unveiled on March 25th. The project, started by Larry Sanger (Interesting. I had to use a Wikipedia entry for Sanger since one does not exist on his new service), aims to improve on Wikipedia's model by adding "gentle expert oversight."

The site states that the "project is expert-led, not experts-only." Contributors are referred to as "authors," not editors. Most of the current authors lack advanced degrees with many lacking a degree. All entries require the contributors to use their real names.

To get involved one must first register as an author. Editor applicants must send a CV but the project asserts that one can get involved as authors relatively quickly. Authors then can join the project forums and contribute their thoughts and ideas.

Citizendium is very late to the market. Despite its flaws, Wikipedia already has the brand recognition and the user base. Citizendium will need to come up with some interesting innovations besides using the real names of contributors in order to separate itself. Besides, it doesn't bode well that they needed to use a phonetic pronunciation when promoting their name. Sphere: Related Content