- Email: [email protected]
Change is constant
doi:10.1016/S0264-2751(03)00002-7
Cities, Vol. 20, No. 3, p. 149–150, 2003 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0264-2751/03 $ - see front matter
www.elsevier.com/locate/cities
Editorial
Change is constant
In the next few months, readers will begin to notice some high profile changes in this journal, although Disraeli might have had the publishing industry in mind when he observed that change is indeed a constant. Some of them will be based in the intellectual capital on which the journal is built; some are based in technological opportunities, and some reflect the steady developments that continue within the production of scholarly information. The most obvious change from the point of view of readers, subscribers, authors and editors is the way in which publication has moved now from being an analogue to a digital activity. It was relatively recently that this editor was still trying to mark up manuscripts (whose Latin derivation reminds us that these were, not so long ago, also written out in long hand), trying to get subjects and verbs to agree. The worst effort I ever saw came from a native English speaker, whose sentences wandered into paragraphs and turned into pages of excruciatingly tedious prose (and who was, inevitably, greatly upset that anyone dared to touch a golden word). By the time I finished, the paper looked as though a red pen had exploded on each and every page, and I would like now to belatedly apologize to the copyeditor who had to try to make sense of that mess. The notion that these edits could have been done on a word processor was slow to reach me, as that would have required authors to turn in their work on disk, which was then still unusual. Instead, the articles were all retyped, from the original manuscript and the editor’s markings, by the publishing staff. Now, in contrast, it is rare now for me to even see the final revisions of most manuscripts in paper form, as nearly all are returned via email. (Interestingly, and frustratingly, the publishers still like a paper copy when they start work on the publication process, so that task falls to me.) In many ways, authors have moved ahead of publishers (perhaps more explicitly, their printers) in using available technologies. Those submitting papers have used their own initiative in using different formats to lay out and present their work, ranging from Illustrator to Photoshop, from jpegs to tifs, from Excel to CAD. I remember when the first author diffidently
asked if the journal accepted submissions via email, and I casually replied that we did (perhaps I meant that we would, once that first submission had been received). Now, approximately half the manuscripts that we handle have never seen the inside of an envelope and never exist in hardcopy form until the end of the review process. Interestingly, the so-called digital divide, which predicts differential access to current technologies, does not at all seem to apply to the countries from which we receive electronic submissions. The poorer the mail service in a country, and the fewer the resources in the educational system, the more likely are academics to use email; the corollary is the fact that colleagues in Europe and the United States seem much more likely to use traditional technologies—they after all are the ones with the secretarial staff, and a departmental mail budget. The submission ‘system’ is, as a result, now anything but a system, and in consequence we are working with Elsevier to move the journal to a single electronic process. It is not clear yet just how this will work, as there are different variations in use by different journals, but basically it will involve authors turning in their work to a central electronic post office, from which referees will be able to pick up their assignments once they have agreed to participate. Those who have used the US National Science Foundation’s ‘Fastlane’ system will have used something analogous, and will have enjoyed the lack of paper, the simplicity of receiving a clean PDF file and the ability to return comments in the same way. They may not have enjoyed downloading a large file, and that is increasingly a problem for this editor, who has routinely to capture files of 5 mb (and then do the same when it is time to receive proofs, also in PDF format). However, when I contemplate the alternative, I am satisfied. I was recently told by a press editor that her staff could not send out a manuscript to a Canadian reader as it took too long to take the ream of paper to the post office (a process dictated by new anti-terrorist regulations). That is fair enough, but they were also unwilling to move to a digital format, as, she claimed, it was took too long to handle the files, and it was too hard to stay in contact with over149
Editorial
seas reviewers. Now, it might take me five minutes to grab a large file, but that certainly beats going to the post office, or spending a fortune on postage and it is certainly better than making excuses about the perils of technology—in passing, one of the nicer features of electronic submission is that it can be configured to send email prompts to referees at any interval and with any mix of threat and manipulation that the editor cares to devise. One other point is in order here. Initially, I was concerned that such a system would work to alienate colleagues outside the US and Europe. As I have indicated, I think this is misplaced. I have had email con-
150
versations with authors and referees throughout the world—in Mongolia, in Niger, and most places in between. While I occasionally receive commercial communications from Taiwan that I cannot read, I have yet to experience any serious problems. However, if any of our readers are concerned, I trust that they will contact me, or the publishers. This is an excellent time to send us your comments and to influence the way that we handle our affairs. Andrew Kirby E-mail: [email protected]
Cities, Vol. 20, No. 3, p. 149–150, 2003 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0264-2751/03 $ - see front matter
www.elsevier.com/locate/cities
Editorial
Change is constant
In the next few months, readers will begin to notice some high profile changes in this journal, although Disraeli might have had the publishing industry in mind when he observed that change is indeed a constant. Some of them will be based in the intellectual capital on which the journal is built; some are based in technological opportunities, and some reflect the steady developments that continue within the production of scholarly information. The most obvious change from the point of view of readers, subscribers, authors and editors is the way in which publication has moved now from being an analogue to a digital activity. It was relatively recently that this editor was still trying to mark up manuscripts (whose Latin derivation reminds us that these were, not so long ago, also written out in long hand), trying to get subjects and verbs to agree. The worst effort I ever saw came from a native English speaker, whose sentences wandered into paragraphs and turned into pages of excruciatingly tedious prose (and who was, inevitably, greatly upset that anyone dared to touch a golden word). By the time I finished, the paper looked as though a red pen had exploded on each and every page, and I would like now to belatedly apologize to the copyeditor who had to try to make sense of that mess. The notion that these edits could have been done on a word processor was slow to reach me, as that would have required authors to turn in their work on disk, which was then still unusual. Instead, the articles were all retyped, from the original manuscript and the editor’s markings, by the publishing staff. Now, in contrast, it is rare now for me to even see the final revisions of most manuscripts in paper form, as nearly all are returned via email. (Interestingly, and frustratingly, the publishers still like a paper copy when they start work on the publication process, so that task falls to me.) In many ways, authors have moved ahead of publishers (perhaps more explicitly, their printers) in using available technologies. Those submitting papers have used their own initiative in using different formats to lay out and present their work, ranging from Illustrator to Photoshop, from jpegs to tifs, from Excel to CAD. I remember when the first author diffidently
asked if the journal accepted submissions via email, and I casually replied that we did (perhaps I meant that we would, once that first submission had been received). Now, approximately half the manuscripts that we handle have never seen the inside of an envelope and never exist in hardcopy form until the end of the review process. Interestingly, the so-called digital divide, which predicts differential access to current technologies, does not at all seem to apply to the countries from which we receive electronic submissions. The poorer the mail service in a country, and the fewer the resources in the educational system, the more likely are academics to use email; the corollary is the fact that colleagues in Europe and the United States seem much more likely to use traditional technologies—they after all are the ones with the secretarial staff, and a departmental mail budget. The submission ‘system’ is, as a result, now anything but a system, and in consequence we are working with Elsevier to move the journal to a single electronic process. It is not clear yet just how this will work, as there are different variations in use by different journals, but basically it will involve authors turning in their work to a central electronic post office, from which referees will be able to pick up their assignments once they have agreed to participate. Those who have used the US National Science Foundation’s ‘Fastlane’ system will have used something analogous, and will have enjoyed the lack of paper, the simplicity of receiving a clean PDF file and the ability to return comments in the same way. They may not have enjoyed downloading a large file, and that is increasingly a problem for this editor, who has routinely to capture files of 5 mb (and then do the same when it is time to receive proofs, also in PDF format). However, when I contemplate the alternative, I am satisfied. I was recently told by a press editor that her staff could not send out a manuscript to a Canadian reader as it took too long to take the ream of paper to the post office (a process dictated by new anti-terrorist regulations). That is fair enough, but they were also unwilling to move to a digital format, as, she claimed, it was took too long to handle the files, and it was too hard to stay in contact with over149
Editorial
seas reviewers. Now, it might take me five minutes to grab a large file, but that certainly beats going to the post office, or spending a fortune on postage and it is certainly better than making excuses about the perils of technology—in passing, one of the nicer features of electronic submission is that it can be configured to send email prompts to referees at any interval and with any mix of threat and manipulation that the editor cares to devise. One other point is in order here. Initially, I was concerned that such a system would work to alienate colleagues outside the US and Europe. As I have indicated, I think this is misplaced. I have had email con-
150
versations with authors and referees throughout the world—in Mongolia, in Niger, and most places in between. While I occasionally receive commercial communications from Taiwan that I cannot read, I have yet to experience any serious problems. However, if any of our readers are concerned, I trust that they will contact me, or the publishers. This is an excellent time to send us your comments and to influence the way that we handle our affairs. Andrew Kirby E-mail: [email protected]