[Journal] Next steps

[Micha Silver]

Sunburned Surveyor wrote:

> This has been a very good discussion. At some point it may be helpful
> to lay out our options for moving forward, and then see what type of
> support each option would have.
>
> We can still discuss this more, but it sounds like our options
> currently look like this:
>
> (1) Continue with the current style and content of the journal. We
> will cover news, topical articles, and include interviews, but will
> also include peer reviewed journals when they are submitted.
>
>   
+1
This would be my choice, with #4 below as a future goal (possibly in the 
near future, depending on authors' inputs and readers' feedback).
-- 
Micha

> (2) Move the Journal more towards a true scientific or academic
> publication. This means we shed some of the content more appropriate
> for a newsletter or trade magazine, and focus on making things a
> little more formal and rigourous.
>
> (3) Move all scentific/academic articles to [A] a separate publication
> focused on these types of articles or [B] some type of collaboration
> or partnership with JOSIS.
>
> (4) Offer the scientific and academic issues as a supplement to the
> main journal. We are dealing only with a digital publication, so its
> not like we would be wasting paper with this approach. If the
> scientific/academic articles were packaged as a supplement we could
> have different branding, review processes, and publication frequency.
>
> I think we need to make a decision on one of these four (4) options
> (maybe there is another option I am leaving out?) before we can settle
> on the issue of deadlines, review processes and publication frequency.
>
> My gut tells me it may be difficult to satisfy everyones needs for the
> formality and prestige of a scientific/academic journal with a journal
> that also reaches out to the more "common man". It seems like some of
> the recent push for changes is from a desire to have a journal that
> more closely resembles a scientific academic/publication.
>
> I could be wrong.
>
> If we decide we could live with Option 1 or Option 4 as I describe it
> above, then I would recommend putting together a group of editors that
> would specifically care for scientific/academic article submission and
> publication. They could work under the direction of the main journal
> editor. I think Option 1 means we leave in the annual report issue and
> the issue focused on the conference.
>
> I will plan on staying involved at some level no matter what way we
> move forward, as I enjoy writing and editing. :]
>
> Maybe it is time for an informal tally? Should we see which option
> people would put their weight behind?
>
> Landon
>
>