Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
Jen writes "Here's a magazine that I'll never have a need to read."
You might if you're one of the "5.5 million American men over 6-foot-2 and the 1.5 million American women north of 5-foot-9." (Does this mean tall people are a significant portion of your library's user group and you need to subscribe?)
Here's the full article.
Tall magazineâ€”"because life may be short, but we're not"â€”"
Jen Young wanted to share This Independent Digital Article on a glossy new magazine published by the Bush administration going on sale across the Middle East this week.
It is targeting young people with a mix of features, celebrity profiles and music. The Arabic-language Hi magazine is US propaganda 2003-style. "We're fighting a war of ideas as much as a war on terror," said Tucker Eskew, director of the White House's Office of Global Communications.
Jen Young writes "Slate Has This On Redbook. The magazine, which turned 100 in May, was evidently not acting its age, and what could be more vulgar? How about the revelation, in a rash of unrelated news stories over the next week, that Redbook had given two of its cover girls big crude face lifts: Jennifer Aniston had been doctored for the June issue (and was considering suing), and Julia Roberts, her head (from a photo taken at the People's Choice Awards in 2002) scarily large atop a paper-doll stiff body (from the Notting Hill premiere in 1999), had been butchered for July. The editors apologized, saying they had wanted an image that would "pop on the newsstand," a spokesman for Redbook said. "Pop" it did, against a background of garish pink, red, and bright violet.
John Grubb points us to
This One at ISCID that says the notion that a scientific idea cannot be considered intellectually respectable until it has first appeared in a "peer" reviewed journal did not become widespread until after World War II. They argue that prior to the Second World War the refereeing process, even where it existed, had very little effect on the publication of novel ideas, at least in the field of physics. But in the last several decades, many outstanding physicists have complained that their best ideas -- the very ideas that brought them fame -- were rejected by the refereed journals. Thus, prior to the Second World War, the refereeing process worked primarily to eliminate crackpot papers. Today, the refereeing process works primarily to enforce orthodoxy.
Jen Young noticed Alternet is Running A Story on the Public Library of Science.
The group traces its immediate history to Varmus\'s project PubMed Central, a service associated with the aforementioned PubMed, which was supposed to make the full text of articles available to anyone who wanted them. Unfortunately, the scientific publishing business – exemplified by corporate giants like Elsevier, which puts out thousands of periodicals and books – didn\'t exactly embrace the idea of making its copyrighted materials available for free.
Someone else points over to The NYTimes and a similar story. They say the Public Library of Science, which includes scientists, doctors, researchers and their public supporters, plans to announce legislation on Thursday that would give taxpayers greater access to scientific data.
Lee Hadden writes: "The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on the high cost of
medical journals. See the issue for June 26, 2003, "Marquee Scientists Challenge
Expensive Medical Journals." By SHARON BEGLEY, Staff Reporter of THE WALL
STREET JOURNAL. "In a challenge to the profitable business of science publishing,
a marquee group of biomedical scientists is trying to move peer-reviewed
research out of the exclusive world of expensive medical journals and make it
freely available to everyone." -- Read More
Bill Drew writes "I just read an article in Reference & Users Services Quarterly that I find
troubling because of its lack of depth and coverage. It is "A Study of
Web-Based Interactive Reference Services Via Academic Library Home Pages."
The article does not mention anything that has happened on the Digital
Reference front in the year. there is not one mention of the various
vendors now offering Digital Reface services. The article was obviously
submitted quite awhile ago and there for misses much of the recent growth in
virtual reference services. The article was submitted in Nov. 12, 2001 and
revised and accepted for publication in Feb. 12, 2002. I can see the fault
is not with the author but with the publication schedule for R&USQ.
one expect to stay current by reading the professional library literature if
it takes close to 18 months for an article to be published by one of our
Matt writes "The Chicago Tribune says magazines seem more relevant than ever. They picked out magazines that you'll find on staffers' nightstands and coffee tables, in their backpacks and on their car seats and on the edges of our bathtubs. These are the periodicals for which we pay good money.
1) Cook's Illustrated.
2) The New Yorker.
3) Martha Stewart Living.
4) Sports Illustrated.
The current Punk Planet (which unfortunately -- though maybe appropriately for this issue -- doesn't have the zine's content on its website) is devoted to the joys of hard copy, and it includes interviews with and excerpts from Dave Eggers & Co., Underworld cartoonist Kaz, and others. There's also a nice profile of