On Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:20:21 EDT Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> said: >> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:33:00 EDT >> Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving, >> and Access" <[log in to unmask]> >> From: Bill Drew -- Serials Librarian <[log in to unmask]> >> >> Is there any reason why the discussion of referreeing of ejournal must >> be carried out on four different lists? Four? >Comments: To: Assoc El Sch Jnls <[log in to unmask]>, > "Arachnet, EJ list" <[log in to unmask]>, > cni list ej <[log in to unmask]>, > Bitnet List Owners <lst*[log in to unmask]>, > [log in to unmask], Pacls-l list <[log in to unmask]>, > Lib Serials list <[log in to unmask]>, > Pub-EJournals <[log in to unmask]> That's EIGHT lists. Almost as much cross-posting as your average Kurdish oppression article on usenet. And, speaking only for myself, about the same value. >If one has information on a topic that is of interest to several lists, >one can either post only to one of the lists, so as not to risk sending >multiple postings to the same individual -- but then that is at the >expense of NOT reaching the non-overlapping portions of the lists -- or >one can post to them all, and then risk drawing complaints from those >who received the message more than once. Granted. But if one is going to post, on a regular basis, to eight different lists with a high potential for overlapping, and if furthermore the articles may only have marginal relevance to some of the lists, one clearly has a case for choosing one list for the discussion and inviting people who are interested in this topic to join the list in question. If all else fails, creating a new list takes about 15 minutes at most. Eric