Cites & Insights 5:12 Available

One rule for Cites & Insights is that issues never appear on Friday or Saturday. It has to do with the delay between the first round of publicity (this post, the same post on the C&I Alerts blog, a text-only mailing at Topica, and roughly the same post at LISNews) and the second round (forwarding the Topica post, sans ad, to a few big library lists).

So I’m breaking the rules this time.

Cites & Insights 5:12, November 2005 is now available for downloading.

This 22-page issue (PDF, but HTML versions of each essay are available from the home page) includes:

  • Bibs & Blather – five little essays, including a new email address for publishable feedback.
  • Net Media Perspective: Analogies, Gatekeepers and Blogging – some notes about net media and analogies, more comments on Civilities’ “New Gatekeepers” series (and a related essay on citizen journalism), notes on seven other blogging essays and papers, and a few notes on Meredith Farkas’ first-rate demographic survey of the biblioblogosphere.
  • The Library Stuff – five cited items
  • Library Access to Scholarship – general notes on sources, events and comments on “building the archives” (NIH, RCUK, and Wellcome, and six cited articles. OCA is too new and too important to squeeze into this essay.
  • Interesting & Peculiar Products – eleven products and services.
  • The Good Stuff – four cited items

Correction: As Jon Gorman points out in the first comment here, there’s an error on p. 16: “quality over quantity” should, of course, read “quantity over quality.”

2 Responses to “Cites & Insights 5:12 Available”

  1. Jon Gorman says:

    Was just quickly scanning through the latest cites and insights before heading back and notice something that seems … odd.

    Page 16 has the following:

    ‘Part of the problem is that publish-or-perish seems to emphasize quality over quantity; Gad-el-Hak says that at some institutions the process has “deteriorated into bean counting.”’

    I’m guessing that’s supposed to be “emphasize quantity over quality” or “demphasize quality over quantity”, correct?

    Otherwise I think I need to scan less quickly ;-).

  2. walt says:

    Oh damn. Thanks for pointing this out.

    You are, of course, right: I meant “quantity over quality.” I just mistyped it. And, since I never change a PDF once it’s actually been published, the best I can do is run a correction next issue (and note the problem here). Which I will, of course, do, crediting you with catching it…

    And I actually took the time to read the whole issue in print form. Sometimes, you see what you expect to see…