> Announcing the end of paper or pulp or traditional or whatever you want to
> call it journals is a tad pre-mature, and like we've been saying here,
> this isn't a get rid of paper for the sake of electricity kind of issue.
> I am just honestly curious as to why some small "paper only" journals
> haven't turned into "electronic only" journals to save money, etc. A lot
> of this is based on my own ignorance of the profession, but I just imagine
> that a lot of people who are running very small and well-received
> publications out of the goodness of their hearts (and out of their own
> pocketbooks) are faced with some really unpleasant choices about trying to
> afford to publish. And I guess because of my obvious bias, if I was the
> editor of such a journal and I could go electronic and save an immense
> amount money on my production costs, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
>
I agree with your point about journals going electronic due to costs.
In fact, since economics (how much does it cost? how many will
sell?) determines in large measure what gets published, electronic
publication could allow for far more people having a voice.
I don't see print media disappearing until voice recognition allows me to
gloss in the margins as easily as I do now with a pencil, and until a
flexible computer screen allows me to lounge in bed and read with one
page folded back upon another.
Kenneth R. Wright
kright@oregon.uoregon.edu
Happiness is based on a just discrimination of what is necessary,
what is neither necessary nor destructive,
and what is destructive.
--Ursula K. Le Guin