Système d'information stratégique et agriculture (serveur d'exploration)

Attention, ce site est en cours de développement !
Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts.
Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Synopsis publishing for improving the accessibility of 'grey' scholarly information

Identifieur interne : 001261 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001260; suivant : 001262

Synopsis publishing for improving the accessibility of 'grey' scholarly information

Auteurs : Dirk G. Van Der Heij

Source :

RBID : ISTEX:B088D84EAE523BAC23D3C2EFFCB23E67F792C8ED

Abstract

In the 1970s, synopsis publishing was one of the topics raised in discussions on the future of primary communication. Tradi tional publishing practices were widely felt to be inefficient for users and producers alike. Since economic constraints were the main incentive for most synopsis publishing experiments, inter est in this idea faded away when journal publishers no longer felt that their journals' future was jeopardized, though author resistance was the main cause of the early discontinuation of many of these experiments. In this paper a plea is made for the virtues of synopsis publishing, not only as an economic necess ity but also for fundamental reasons, for the possibility it gives to separate physically the access, dissemination and archival functions of primary journals. Several attempts have been, and are being, made to improve the accessibility and availability of 'grey' scholarly literature, a large proportion of the world's scientific literature. Thus paper discusses some of these attempts and suggests that the dissemi nation function could be improved by bridging the gap between the bibliographic information in databases and the full docu ments in depositories. Most experiments in synopsis publishing so far have been based on full papers used as back-up for the synopses; the full papers were either published in mini- or microform, or made available on request. Grey literature as back-up to synopses has hardly been discussed in the literature, and the only standard on synopsis publishing issued so far treats this possibility only in an aside. This paper discusses the applicability of the synop sis publishing principle to grey reports and concludes that such ventures are likely to meet less disapproval and resistance from authors and other parties involved than are article-based sys tems. In 1984, Pudoc established the Netherlands Agricultural Report Depository (NARD), a venture in synopsis publishing based on Dutch unpublished reports in agriculture and (ap plied) biology. NARD's approach, procedures and early results are briefly discussed.

Url:
DOI: 10.1177/016555158501100301

Links to Exploration step

ISTEX:B088D84EAE523BAC23D3C2EFFCB23E67F792C8ED

Le document en format XML

<record>
<TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title xml:lang="en">Synopsis publishing for improving the accessibility of 'grey' scholarly information</title>
<author wicri:is="90%">
<name sortKey="Van Der Heij, Dirk G" sort="Van Der Heij, Dirk G" uniqKey="Van Der Heij D" first="Dirk G." last="Van Der Heij">Dirk G. Van Der Heij</name>
<affiliation>
<mods:affiliation>Pudoc (Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation), 6700 AA Wageningen. The Netherlands</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno>
<idno type="RBID">ISTEX:B088D84EAE523BAC23D3C2EFFCB23E67F792C8ED</idno>
<date when="1985" year="1985">1985</date>
<idno type="doi">10.1177/016555158501100301</idno>
<idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/B088D84EAE523BAC23D3C2EFFCB23E67F792C8ED/fulltext/pdf</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001261</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001261</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<biblStruct>
<analytic>
<title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Synopsis publishing for improving the accessibility of 'grey' scholarly information</title>
<author wicri:is="90%">
<name sortKey="Van Der Heij, Dirk G" sort="Van Der Heij, Dirk G" uniqKey="Van Der Heij D" first="Dirk G." last="Van Der Heij">Dirk G. Van Der Heij</name>
<affiliation>
<mods:affiliation>Pudoc (Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation), 6700 AA Wageningen. The Netherlands</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<monogr></monogr>
<series>
<title level="j">Journal of Information Science</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0165-5515</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1741-6485</idno>
<imprint>
<publisher>Sage Publications</publisher>
<pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="1985-09">1985-09</date>
<biblScope unit="volume">11</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="95">95</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="107">107</biblScope>
</imprint>
<idno type="ISSN">0165-5515</idno>
</series>
<idno type="istex">B088D84EAE523BAC23D3C2EFFCB23E67F792C8ED</idno>
<idno type="DOI">10.1177/016555158501100301</idno>
<idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_016555158501100301</idno>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt>
<idno type="ISSN">0165-5515</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc>
<textClass></textClass>
<langUsage>
<language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front>
<div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">In the 1970s, synopsis publishing was one of the topics raised in discussions on the future of primary communication. Tradi tional publishing practices were widely felt to be inefficient for users and producers alike. Since economic constraints were the main incentive for most synopsis publishing experiments, inter est in this idea faded away when journal publishers no longer felt that their journals' future was jeopardized, though author resistance was the main cause of the early discontinuation of many of these experiments. In this paper a plea is made for the virtues of synopsis publishing, not only as an economic necess ity but also for fundamental reasons, for the possibility it gives to separate physically the access, dissemination and archival functions of primary journals. Several attempts have been, and are being, made to improve the accessibility and availability of 'grey' scholarly literature, a large proportion of the world's scientific literature. Thus paper discusses some of these attempts and suggests that the dissemi nation function could be improved by bridging the gap between the bibliographic information in databases and the full docu ments in depositories. Most experiments in synopsis publishing so far have been based on full papers used as back-up for the synopses; the full papers were either published in mini- or microform, or made available on request. Grey literature as back-up to synopses has hardly been discussed in the literature, and the only standard on synopsis publishing issued so far treats this possibility only in an aside. This paper discusses the applicability of the synop sis publishing principle to grey reports and concludes that such ventures are likely to meet less disapproval and resistance from authors and other parties involved than are article-based sys tems. In 1984, Pudoc established the Netherlands Agricultural Report Depository (NARD), a venture in synopsis publishing based on Dutch unpublished reports in agriculture and (ap plied) biology. NARD's approach, procedures and early results are briefly discussed.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<istex>
<corpusName>sage</corpusName>
<author>
<json:item>
<name>Dirk G. van der Heij</name>
<affiliations>
<json:string>Pudoc (Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation), 6700 AA Wageningen. The Netherlands</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
</author>
<articleId>
<json:string>10.1177_016555158501100301</json:string>
</articleId>
<language>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</language>
<originalGenre>
<json:string>research-article</json:string>
</originalGenre>
<abstract>In the 1970s, synopsis publishing was one of the topics raised in discussions on the future of primary communication. Tradi tional publishing practices were widely felt to be inefficient for users and producers alike. Since economic constraints were the main incentive for most synopsis publishing experiments, inter est in this idea faded away when journal publishers no longer felt that their journals' future was jeopardized, though author resistance was the main cause of the early discontinuation of many of these experiments. In this paper a plea is made for the virtues of synopsis publishing, not only as an economic necess ity but also for fundamental reasons, for the possibility it gives to separate physically the access, dissemination and archival functions of primary journals. Several attempts have been, and are being, made to improve the accessibility and availability of 'grey' scholarly literature, a large proportion of the world's scientific literature. Thus paper discusses some of these attempts and suggests that the dissemi nation function could be improved by bridging the gap between the bibliographic information in databases and the full docu ments in depositories. Most experiments in synopsis publishing so far have been based on full papers used as back-up for the synopses; the full papers were either published in mini- or microform, or made available on request. Grey literature as back-up to synopses has hardly been discussed in the literature, and the only standard on synopsis publishing issued so far treats this possibility only in an aside. This paper discusses the applicability of the synop sis publishing principle to grey reports and concludes that such ventures are likely to meet less disapproval and resistance from authors and other parties involved than are article-based sys tems. In 1984, Pudoc established the Netherlands Agricultural Report Depository (NARD), a venture in synopsis publishing based on Dutch unpublished reports in agriculture and (ap plied) biology. NARD's approach, procedures and early results are briefly discussed.</abstract>
<qualityIndicators>
<score>8.5</score>
<pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion>
<pdfPageSize>498 x 710 pts</pdfPageSize>
<refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative>
<abstractCharCount>2090</abstractCharCount>
<pdfWordCount>7904</pdfWordCount>
<pdfCharCount>50506</pdfCharCount>
<pdfPageCount>13</pdfPageCount>
<abstractWordCount>320</abstractWordCount>
</qualityIndicators>
<title>Synopsis publishing for improving the accessibility of 'grey' scholarly information</title>
<genre>
<json:string>research-article</json:string>
</genre>
<host>
<volume>11</volume>
<publisherId>
<json:string>JIS</json:string>
</publisherId>
<pages>
<last>107</last>
<first>95</first>
</pages>
<issn>
<json:string>0165-5515</json:string>
</issn>
<issue>3</issue>
<genre>
<json:string>journal</json:string>
</genre>
<language>
<json:string>unknown</json:string>
</language>
<eissn>
<json:string>1741-6485</json:string>
</eissn>
<title>Journal of Information Science</title>
</host>
<categories>
<wos>
<json:string>social science</json:string>
<json:string>information science & library science</json:string>
<json:string>science</json:string>
<json:string>computer science, information systems</json:string>
</wos>
<scienceMetrix>
<json:string>economic & social sciences</json:string>
<json:string>social sciences</json:string>
<json:string>information & library sciences</json:string>
</scienceMetrix>
</categories>
<publicationDate>1985</publicationDate>
<copyrightDate>1985</copyrightDate>
<doi>
<json:string>10.1177/016555158501100301</json:string>
</doi>
<id>B088D84EAE523BAC23D3C2EFFCB23E67F792C8ED</id>
<score>0.047267664</score>
<fulltext>
<json:item>
<extension>pdf</extension>
<original>true</original>
<mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/B088D84EAE523BAC23D3C2EFFCB23E67F792C8ED/fulltext/pdf</uri>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<extension>zip</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>application/zip</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/B088D84EAE523BAC23D3C2EFFCB23E67F792C8ED/fulltext/zip</uri>
</json:item>
<istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/B088D84EAE523BAC23D3C2EFFCB23E67F792C8ED/fulltext/tei">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Synopsis publishing for improving the accessibility of 'grey' scholarly information</title>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<authority>ISTEX</authority>
<publisher>Sage Publications</publisher>
<pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace>
<availability>
<p>SAGE</p>
</availability>
<date>1985</date>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<biblStruct type="inbook">
<analytic>
<title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Synopsis publishing for improving the accessibility of 'grey' scholarly information</title>
<author xml:id="author-1">
<persName>
<forename type="first">Dirk G.</forename>
<surname>van der Heij</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Pudoc (Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation), 6700 AA Wageningen. The Netherlands</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<monogr>
<title level="j">Journal of Information Science</title>
<idno type="pISSN">0165-5515</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1741-6485</idno>
<imprint>
<publisher>Sage Publications</publisher>
<pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="1985-09"></date>
<biblScope unit="volume">11</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="95">95</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="107">107</biblScope>
</imprint>
</monogr>
<idno type="istex">B088D84EAE523BAC23D3C2EFFCB23E67F792C8ED</idno>
<idno type="DOI">10.1177/016555158501100301</idno>
<idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_016555158501100301</idno>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc>
<creation>
<date>1985</date>
</creation>
<langUsage>
<language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
<abstract xml:lang="en">
<p>In the 1970s, synopsis publishing was one of the topics raised in discussions on the future of primary communication. Tradi tional publishing practices were widely felt to be inefficient for users and producers alike. Since economic constraints were the main incentive for most synopsis publishing experiments, inter est in this idea faded away when journal publishers no longer felt that their journals' future was jeopardized, though author resistance was the main cause of the early discontinuation of many of these experiments. In this paper a plea is made for the virtues of synopsis publishing, not only as an economic necess ity but also for fundamental reasons, for the possibility it gives to separate physically the access, dissemination and archival functions of primary journals. Several attempts have been, and are being, made to improve the accessibility and availability of 'grey' scholarly literature, a large proportion of the world's scientific literature. Thus paper discusses some of these attempts and suggests that the dissemi nation function could be improved by bridging the gap between the bibliographic information in databases and the full docu ments in depositories. Most experiments in synopsis publishing so far have been based on full papers used as back-up for the synopses; the full papers were either published in mini- or microform, or made available on request. Grey literature as back-up to synopses has hardly been discussed in the literature, and the only standard on synopsis publishing issued so far treats this possibility only in an aside. This paper discusses the applicability of the synop sis publishing principle to grey reports and concludes that such ventures are likely to meet less disapproval and resistance from authors and other parties involved than are article-based sys tems. In 1984, Pudoc established the Netherlands Agricultural Report Depository (NARD), a venture in synopsis publishing based on Dutch unpublished reports in agriculture and (ap plied) biology. NARD's approach, procedures and early results are briefly discussed.</p>
</abstract>
</profileDesc>
<revisionDesc>
<change when="1985-09">Published</change>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
</istex:fulltextTEI>
<json:item>
<extension>txt</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>text/plain</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/B088D84EAE523BAC23D3C2EFFCB23E67F792C8ED/fulltext/txt</uri>
</json:item>
</fulltext>
<metadata>
<istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus sage not found" wicri:toSee="no header">
<istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration>
<istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType>
<istex:document>
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">spjis</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JIS</journal-id>
<journal-title>Journal of Information Science</journal-title>
<issn pub-type="ppub">0165-5515</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>Sage Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/016555158501100301</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">10.1177_016555158501100301</article-id>
<article-categories>
<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
<subject>Articles</subject>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group>
<article-title>Synopsis publishing for improving the accessibility of 'grey' scholarly information</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>van der Heij</surname>
<given-names>Dirk G.</given-names>
</name>
<aff>Pudoc (Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation), 6700 AA Wageningen. The Netherlands</aff>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date pub-type="ppub">
<month>9</month>
<year>1985</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>11</volume>
<issue>3</issue>
<fpage>95</fpage>
<lpage>107</lpage>
<abstract>
<p>In the 1970s, synopsis publishing was one of the topics raised in discussions on the future of primary communication. Tradi tional publishing practices were widely felt to be inefficient for users and producers alike. Since economic constraints were the main incentive for most synopsis publishing experiments, inter est in this idea faded away when journal publishers no longer felt that their journals' future was jeopardized, though author resistance was the main cause of the early discontinuation of many of these experiments. In this paper a plea is made for the virtues of synopsis publishing, not only as an economic necess ity but also for fundamental reasons, for the possibility it gives to separate physically the access, dissemination and archival functions of primary journals.</p>
<p>Several attempts have been, and are being, made to improve the accessibility and availability of 'grey' scholarly literature, a large proportion of the world's scientific literature. Thus paper discusses some of these attempts and suggests that the dissemi nation function could be improved by bridging the gap between the bibliographic information in databases and the full docu ments in depositories.</p>
<p>Most experiments in synopsis publishing so far have been based on full papers used as back-up for the synopses; the full papers were either published in mini- or microform, or made available on request. Grey literature as back-up to synopses has hardly been discussed in the literature, and the only standard on synopsis publishing issued so far treats this possibility only in an aside. This paper discusses the applicability of the synop sis publishing principle to grey reports and concludes that such ventures are likely to meet less disapproval and resistance from authors and other parties involved than are article-based sys tems.</p>
<p>In 1984, Pudoc established the Netherlands Agricultural Report Depository (NARD), a venture in synopsis publishing based on Dutch unpublished reports in agriculture and (ap plied) biology. NARD's approach, procedures and early results are briefly discussed.</p>
</abstract>
<custom-meta-wrap>
<custom-meta xlink:type="simple">
<meta-name>sagemeta-type</meta-name>
<meta-value>Journal Article</meta-value>
</custom-meta>
<custom-meta xlink:type="simple">
<meta-name>search-text</meta-name>
<meta-value>95 Synopsis publishing for improving the accessibility of 'grey' scholarly information SAGE Publications, Inc.1985DOI: 10.1177/016555158501100301 Dirk G. van der Heij Pudoc (Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation), 6700 AA Wageningen. The Netherlands Received 21 September 1985 Revised 24 October 1985 In the 1970s, synopsis publishing was one of the topics raised in discussions on the future of primary communication. Tradi tional publishing practices were widely felt to be inefficient for users and producers alike. Since economic constraints were the main incentive for most synopsis publishing experiments, inter est in this idea faded away when journal publishers no longer felt that their journals' future was jeopardized, though author resistance was the main cause of the early discontinuation of many of these experiments. In this paper a plea is made for the virtues of synopsis publishing, not only as an economic necess ity but also for fundamental reasons, for the possibility it gives to separate physically the access, dissemination and archival functions of primary journals. Several attempts have been, and are being, made to improve the accessibility and availability of 'grey' scholarly literature, a large proportion of the world's scientific literature. Thus paper discusses some of these attempts and suggests that the dissemi nation function could be improved by bridging the gap between the bibliographic information in databases and the full docu ments in depositories. Most experiments in synopsis publishing so far have been based on full papers used as back-up for the synopses; the full papers were either published in mini- or microform, or made available on request. Grey literature as back-up to synopses has hardly been discussed in the literature, and the only standard on synopsis publishing issued so far treats this possibility only in an aside. This paper discusses the applicability of the synop sis publishing principle to grey reports and concludes that such ventures are likely to meet less disapproval and resistance from authors and other parties involved than are article-based sys tems. In 1984, Pudoc established the Netherlands Agricultural Report Depository (NARD), a venture in synopsis publishing based on Dutch unpublished reports in agriculture and (ap plied) biology. NARD's approach, procedures and early results are briefly discussed. 1. Introduction "One of the diseases of tius age is the multiplicity of books; they doth so overcharge the world that it is not able to digest ~ the abundance of idle matter that is every day hatched and brought forth into the world" (Bamaby Rich, 1613; quoted in Nature 262 (26 Allgust, 1976) p. 731.) 'Grey' literature (literature that is not issued through regular channels) has for some time been a talking point in information science. The supply of reported research results increases faster than the size of the market [32], resulting in an increasing proportion of literature remaining 'grey'. Several solutions have been suggested to improve the dissemination of 'grey' literature, varying from making the documents available on demand as back-up of journal papers, to enlarging the mailing list for free distribution or distribution on an exchange basis [21]. In the past two decades, particularly in the 1970s, synopsis publishing has also been one of the central themes in discussions on the future of scientific communication and information. The interest in alternative methods of journal publishing was dictated mainly by economic problems - increasing costs of journal production and distribution, a growing supply of scholarly papers, and shrinking horary budgets. But some scientists also had fundamental objections to traditional publishing practices. Several synopsis publishing experiments were started in the 1970s, most of which proved to be ephemeral. Almost all synopsis publishing enterprises, however, were strictly article-based: the back-up documents of synopses were journal papers which were miniprinted in the same issue, or in a companion edition of the synopsis journal, offered as microfiches, or made available on demand from central depositories. Some authorities, including Manten [13,14,151, advocated synopsis publishing for a better dissemination of valuable items of 'grey' research reports. However, there have been hardly any successful ventures in this field. (The only one I know of is European Environmental Science Svnopses, published first in 1982 for the Commission of the European Communities.) At the end of 1983, Pudoc started a synopsis publishing experiment based on grey research re- 96 ports in the fields of agriculture and (applied) biology. In 1984, the first synopses were published. The synopses are published in the Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science and the reports are available on demand, either as paper copies or on microfiche, from the Netherlands Agricultural Report Depository, based at Pudoc. 2. Traditional journal publishing practices scrutinized 2.1. Fundamental approach According to Strawhorn, "Our system of formal communication fundamentally serves the interests of the creators and custodians of information, rather than those of the users" [25]. Indeed, there is a conflict of interests between authors and readers. Authors are eager to see their papers printed [14], preferably in as many pages as editors will permit. Editors have been, or still are, authors themselves; they take pains to keep articles to what they and their discipline consider to be a reasonable length and are not about to do anything that will change the primary publishing system radically. So, editors and authors live in a kind of symbiosis and neither organism seems to bother much about the wants of the reader. To complicate the picture even more, "... fortunately or unfortunately, the readers are also potential authors" [26]. Of course, editors and authors are also readers, but it is generally the authors' interests that prevail. Readers suffer from the ever increasing flood of literature [14] and lack the power to choose the package of information they want to use and to acquire [24]. A fundamental reappraisal of the ` vehicles' for scientific information transfer is needed [2], and the approach must definitely be more user-oriented [28]. Separation of the current-awareness function and the storage or archival function of scholarly journal papers has been widely advocated [9,13,14,15,26,30]. Some authors assume that large groups of scientists are eager to know every detail of their research, but the reality is different [7]. The potential group of users for the whole package of a paper is usually very small [7,8,10,30]. It makes sense, therefore, to package and present the information in different ways for different readers [28]. One package should be concise but provide sufficient information to please all workers in the subject field except specialists. The other package should be far more specific and should be unrestricted in length. Grunewald [7] discerns three functions: 'disclosure', dissemination, and storage (archive) of primary information. In his opinion, primary journals attempt to cope with both dissemination and storage, and secondary journals with both 'disclosure' and dissemination. Both are doing their jobs rather poorly [7]; in particular, the dissemination function of secondary journals and the storage function of primary journals are imperfectly exercised. There should therefore be three separate and independent information packages, one for each function [7]. I fully endorse this element of GrUnewald's philosophy. The terminology used in the literature for the different information `packages' is inconsistent and slightly confusing. The term 'current awareness', for example, is being used both for primary information obtained by 'browsing' core journals and for secondary information provided by alerting or SDI services. Below, I will refer to GrUnewald's three functions as 'access' for the bibliographic information provided by secondary sources giving access to primary information (the Dutch word ontshsrtrng is used for the whole range of activities of libraries and secondary services performed to make information accessible to the user; its literal translation is 'disclosure'), 'dissemination' for the contents of primary papers including synopses, and 'storage' or 'archive' for the information laid down in back-up documents and - be it imperfectly - in traditional primary papers. The applicability of these terms to literature other than journals is beyond the scope of this paper. 2.?. Practical and economic approach "The present system of journal publication needs to be changed not because it is on the verge of breakdown, but because it is inefficient for publishers, libraries and users alike" [19]. It is becoming increasingly uneconomic to publish highly specific scholarly works. The more specialized the subject, the more marginal the profits from conventional publishing [12,32]. There are several ways for publishers to react to the rising costs of production and distribution. Increase in subscription rates. Increasing the 97 subscription rates is the most direct and logical reaction to rising costs and stable or declining markets [16]. As prices rise, libraries - by far the largest buyers - have a greater incentive to seek more efficient methods of information transfer [12]. In the 1970s, nearly all libraries have implemented some kind of 'weeding' policy [12]. All subscription increases inevitably set off a ` vicious circle': libraries cancel subscriptions and publishers react with new increases. SQl1ing on typesetting. Some journal publishers now print from camera-ready copy. By doing so, they transfer the typesetting to the authors and save on a substantial part of production costs. Using the author as compositor has highlighted certain problems, such as a much reduced editorial control [18] and a lack of secretarial and technical resources at the author's workplace [17], particularly in developing countries. Moreover, Millson [18] found that savings of about 60% on production costs were eroded to around 25% when the publisher attempted to convert author-prepared camera-ready copy to a presentable and fairly uniform style. The camera-ready copy concept is not always welcomed. Some authors are deterred by deteriorating standards of presentation [18]. According to Barr, "Ugliness contributes little to comprehension or acceptability" [3]. Nevertheless, when confronted with five possible future publication forms, authors questioned by Rowland [23] approved only the least radical solution, printing from camera-ready typescript. Reduction of acceptajtce rates. Core journals reject the majority of items they receive [2]. Once rejected, these papers are published in less prestigious journals, distributed as 'grey' items, or not distributed at all. Much of this material could have been useful, even to a small group of users [2]. Reduction in length. Financial stringency has resulted in a reduced average length of paper [17]. " Limitations on size force authors and referees into excessive brevity and limit the publication of raw data" [24]. Scientists whose work leads to large-scale compilations of data find it difficult to get their work published [17]. These data, of some use, albeit to a small group of specialists, remain unpublished and are usually not accessible or available at all. In other words, the archival function of primary journals is being seriously eroded. Limitations on size can be justified only when the information system provides a supplementary package that can meet the needs of specialist readers too. Introduction of charges. Quite a few publishers have introduced financial penalties for papers that are over-long [17] or make the author pay a charge per page published, thus offloading production costs from publisher and subscribers onto authors. This measure introduces an odd selection criterion : authors whose employers are not willing or unable to pay for these charges will have to submit their papers to journals that do not demand them, even if the latter have lower scientific standards. Since most workers in Third World countries cannot afford the fees requested, such charges are broadening the information gap already existing between industrialized countries and other parts of the world. The pressures on libraries include subscription increases coupled with financial stringency [2,32]. Economic restraints have forced librarians to make a careful scrutiny of serial holdings [10,17]. The actual use made of journals has become the main criterion for acquisition and retention [10,17]. Subscription increases by the most prestigious journals affect many journals lying outside their circle: if f the core journals cost proportionally more, there is less finance available for the remaining titles [17]. Librarians have systematically transferred fund- ings from monograph purchases to journal subscriptions. The proportion of purchase budgets spent on books in the United States decreased from 67 c in 1969 to 45% in 1976 [17]. The same general trend can be traced in Great Britain [17] and in the Netherlands. The libraries of the Agricultural University at Wageningen, for example, have reduced their book purchases from 34% in 1978 to around 20% in 1981 of the total budget for acquisition, and its main library even spends only some 10% on books. So books, in particular monographs, have fallen victim to economic constraint. Such trends are unlikely to continue for long [4]. What will be the fate of many journals as soon as libraries have reduced their book purchases to a minimum? They will be the only target left. Summarizing, it can be said that the traditional publishing system is doomed to break down, at least partially. Librarians have no weapons other than cutting their book budgets and weeding their subscription lists. Publishers have a variety of weapons, most of which are not very attractive. Both users and producers of scientific information, 98 therefore, should seek more efficient methods for information transfer [3,10,12]. Synopsis publishing is such a cost-effective alternative and, I believe, an attractive one. This opinion is shared not only by producers and initiators of synopsis journals, but also by many other information scientists [4,10,11,17,27,28]. 3. Grey literature 3.1. Definition The most widely accepted definition of grey literature is "literature that is not readily available through normal bookselling channels (publishers, booksellers and subscription agents) and is therefore difficult to identify and obtain" [29,32]. Some synonyms for 'grey' used in the literature are 'non-conventional', 'informal', 'informally published', 'fugitive' and 'invisible' [21]. Wood [32] rightly states that 'non-conventional' is not the same as 'grey': documents may be non-conventional in many ways, and many conventionally published documents show 'greyish' aspects [32]. I prefer, therefore, the term 'grey literature' for the category defined above. ` Publish(ing)' and ` publication' are used in the literature for different concepts. Vickers and Wood [29] define "published material" as "recorded knowledge issued for public use". I advocate the use of 'publishing' for material issued through regular bookselling channels only, and 'distributing' as a neutral term. 3.2. Problem analysis Posnett and Baulkwill [21] present a clear survey of characteristics of grey literature, covering aspects such as purpose, frequency, source, circulation, market value, accessibility and processing costs. They state that " the non-conventional document is often physically large, produced for a small group of users and distributed free or under exchange agreements. It is frequently not traced by documentation services, including commercial ones. Accessibility is often difficult even in the country of origin .... Its contents may be of the highest (or lowest) quality" [21]. According to Wood [32], "a large part of the world's literature is grey in the sense that publication is not through the publishing trade, distribution is haphazard, it is produced in limited quantities, and it is not subject to rigorous quality control either of content or at the production stage". Many research reports are grey because they serve to fulfil contractual obligations [21] or are produced as part of scientific training (theses and dissertations). Authors are usually not motivated to spend time on rewriting their reports into one or more journal papers [141, while the reports themselves are generally far too specific to attract formal publication. 3.3. Solutions Posnett and Baulkwill [21] present a librarian's point of view in suggesting that originators should "conventionalize" their documents by publishing them through regular bookselling channels, or "publicize and distribute them as widely as possi- ble". Most solutions for better retrieval and accessibility suggested or implemented so far aim at current awareness and (centralized) document delivery (storage) only, and leave a gap as regards dissemination of primary information (see section 2.1 ). The System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) is a fair attempt to improve retrieval and document availability but lacks the information element. Gibb and Line [6] understandably wonder whether a system such as SIGLE will attract users if these cannot be confident that the material to which it gives them access is of satisfactory quality. Moreover, one cannot expect users to take great pains to order voluminous documents on the basis of a mere title description. The current-awareness function of SIGLE would be more successful if bibliographic descriptions were enriched with descriptors (key words) and abstracts, as is done by services such as NTIS. SIGLE, as well as services such as NTIS, leave a gap for dissemination. Even when an abstract and keywords are provided, the user will generally not be prompted to order the full document if he is interested only in the outline of the study. Supplementary publication is a device to obviate the need to publish large amounts of indigestible, highly specialized data [29,32]. Reference to the availability of such data can be made at the end of the published article, and the grey element (the back-up document) made available on request 99 [32]. Existing central depositories such as NTIS (USA), British Library Lending Division (UK) and VINITI (USSR), or new ones can provide the back-up. Manten [13,14,15] suggests this approach for a better dissemination of " valuable items of the so-called 'grey literature', e.g. reports". The falling demand for scholarly works is leading to a situation in which on-demand publishing will become the only viable method of making certain types of material available [1,32]. Summarizing, attempts to improve the accessibility and availability of grey documents such as research reports will be successful only if leaving a gap between 'access' and storage (archive) is avoided. The intermediate document (aimed at dissemination) may be a synopsis or a traditional paper and must be subject to quality control (peer review). 4. Synopsis publishing .... 4.1. Definition and requisites According to the American Standard for Syn- optics [1] - the only standard on this subject to the best of my knowledge - a synopsis is "a concise first publication by the author, in a primary journal, of those key ideas and results, selected from a full paper or a report on completed work, that are judged most important and most directly useful to others". According to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the synopsis shall be presented in a form "which permits quick comprehension and proper application by the reader without recourse to the full paper" [9]. Or, according to Ivor Williams, "The reader should be able quickly, and with a minimum of effort, to assimilate the most important features of the discovery which is reported. It should not be necessary for him to refer to the full text unless he wishes to repeat part of the work or unless his interest is in results which are ancillary to the main findings reported in the synopsis" [31]. I oppose the use of 'synoptic' and synoptic' as nouns as propagated by some authorities [1,20]. 'Synoptic' should be used as an adjective only and 'synoptics' not at all. The ANSI standard [1] gives quite a few formal requisites for synopses such as: - both the synopsis and the full paper or report must be reviewed and accepted by experts and editors before the synopsis is published; - the title of the synopsis shall be identical to that of the full paper; - the full paper shall not be so long that reviewing it will be a great burden; - when both the synopsis and the full paper are published simultaneously in a primary journal (or in a pair of journals), the full paper shall be cited by authors and secondary services citing the work; if only the synopsis is published, the citation shall include an appended statement referring to the full paper (name and address of the depository, price of the full paper). Some of these ANSI requirements are not wholly, or not at all, valid for the NARD concept (Section 5) - understandably, since this standard, as with most literature on this subject, is strongly article-based. With a few exceptions, the standard uses the term 'full paper' for the back-up document ; the applicability of the idea to research reports is not sufficiently examined. I prefer 'back-up' as a neutral term for documents supporting synopses. In my opinion, the main features of a proper synopsis are: - it is an original publication on completed work in a primary journal; - it is self-contained, i.e. it permits comprehension (and in many cases application), without recourse to the back-up, to all readers except some specialists ; - it is subject to peer review to guarantee scholarly standards and quality; - it is supported by a readily available document and contains a proper bibliographic description referring to this document. 4.2. Earlier venlUres In the 1970s, several synopsis publishing experiments were started such as: Zurnal Fizlceskoj Himii ( Zhurnal Fizicheskoi Khimii ), 1969 [22], some journals of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics [1.9,25], the Journal of the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute. 1972 [2], Chemie- Ingenieur-Technik, 1974 [15], Journal of the American Chemical Society. 1976 [1,9,15,25], Studia Biophysica, 1976 [15], Landscape Planning, 1976 [13,15], Engineering Synopses. 1977 [10,19,32], Journal of Chemical Research, 1977 [7,10,15,22,26, 30,31.32J, Management Research News, 1978 100 [3,10,15], Monih(v Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1978 [22], Production Engineering Synopses, 1978 [10,22] and Mineralogical Maga~ine [22]. Most ventures were started on an experimental basis and were discontinued after some years. An overview of synopsis publishing experiments, as given by Rowland [22] or Millson [19] shows major differences in several respects. Even the term 'synopsis' (or 'synoptic') is not uniformly used: the American Chemical Society published `summaries' and the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute 'condensations'. However, the most marked variation is found in the function, presentation and availability of back-up documents [19]. The Journal of Chemical Research (JCR), a joint venture of the British, German and French chemical societies, is so far one of the few successful ventures. It was started in 1977 and still exists after eight years - a fair measure of success in comparison with other ventures. JCR was issued as a new and fully synoptic journal not replacing anything else. In most other experiments, synopses were incorporated into an existing conventional journal, and the journal relied on editors to persuade authors to submit their papers as synopses [9,25]. In some experiments, reviewers and editors tended to request synopses for papers that they considered to be of marginal quality [1] - an approach which is fatal to the acceptance of the synopsis as a publication with all the prestige of a full-length primary paper. 4.3. The back-up There is much uncertainty as to the status of the back-up. In almost all synopsis publishing experiments, the back-up documents have been full papers which were considered to be formal publications. They were issued in miniprint or on microfiche, either in the journal issue containing the synopsis or in a companion edition of the journal. Some other synopsis journal publishers provided the back-up on demand, directly or through a depository, on microfiche or as photocopies. Other publishers bothered less about the back-up availability and simply referred requests to the author. ANSI's requirement that " the full paper shall not be so long that reviewing it will be a great burden" [1] threatens the archival value of the back-up seriously. One major advantage of the synopsis publishing concept is that much more detailed information can be provided in the back-up document than could possibly be published in a cost-effective way. The back-up document, in my opinion, should therefore not be subject to any restriction as to length. The question then arises: "Should the back-up be reviewed?". It should, I think, but only if it is a formal publication obtainable through ordinary channels and covered by secondary services. If the synopsis journal publisher relies on a depository, or on the synopsis author, for document delivery, the back-up must be considered a grey document and need not be thoroughly reviewed. This situation is not basically different from that where the availability of detailed data directly from the author is mentioned in a footnote to a traditional paper. Of course, the back-up must be made available to referees and editors to enable them to check the credibility of findings reported in the synopsis. The ANSI requirement regarding citation is somewhat questionable as well. Why should " the full paper be cited by authors and secondary services citing the work" [1], even if the author has not had a glimpse of the full paper? The author might just as well cite the full paper or the synopsis even though he has read only the abstract. In my opinion, authors should cite just the documents they have consulted. If an author has read an unpublished back-up document obtained from a depository or from the author, he should cite the back-up. However, since these documents are not always easily and quickly obtainable and most readers are quite happy with the information published in the synopsis, a reference to the published synopsis should be added. Microfiches are not a very popular carrier for scientific information. Although they have been successfully employed in producing back-up material [10,17], individual users prefer miniprint (or photocopies) by a sizeable margin [5,10,17,19, 22,26]. Grunewald's prophecy that miniprint would be a provision of JCR for a transition period and that microfiches would soon be the only medium provided [7] has not yet come true. Libraries are markedly happier with this medium for archival purposes [10,22,27]. On-demand document production and delivery by depositories is not generally regarded to be an 101 efficient system [7,14,26]. Grunewald even expresses some hostility towards the depository-based system [7]. It should be kept in mind, however, that depositories make more sense when back-up documents are more voluminous, as in the case of reports (see section 5.2). There is generally a very low demand for back-up documents anyway [7,10,19]. The more 'self- contained' synopses are, of course, the less can back-up orders be expected. Millson, for example, reports 97 orders for back-up papers of a total of 92 synopses published in Engineering Synopses [19]. Whether all libraries should have full-text subscription, as claimed by Teague [27], is therefore highly questionable. Large national libraries such as the British Library Lending Division (UK) should have such subscriptions [12]; smaller libraries and individual subscribers can rely on these. z 4.4. Economics .. Economics have been a major incentive for synopsis publishing [3,10,12,16,26,28]. How efficient synopsis publishing is depends strongly on the system of back-up document delivery chosen. The least saving is achieved when the synopsis and the miniprinted back-up are provided in the same journal for distribution to all subscribers [13]. The synopsis-plus-miniprint system leads to a saving of space of only 20% for short articles and 50% for articles of 15000 words or longer [13]. The miniprint back-up is usually produced at the author's workplace, so the saving on production (typesetting) costs for the publisher is much larger than the saving on space. However, for a report- based system, such as NARD, the synopsis-plus-miniprint option would hardly be feasible (see section 5.2). The greatest saving on journal space and money is achieved when a journal publishes the synopsis only and the full-text back-up is sold separately in microform [4,11,13]. According to Millson [19], the cost of producing a synopsis package can be less than half of the full-text equivalent. Synopses are cheaper per article scanned in any case [20], but the net profit for the subscriber depends on how frequently back-up documents are ordered. If the back-up of all synopses were ordered, synopsis publishing would be even more expensive for the user than the traditional system [19], but such a situation is improbable except for large national libraries. For libraries, synopsis journals require less storage space [4]. Librarians tend to fear extra expenses if they have to buy two editions [20] and to suppose that the use of two different media in one system will increase handling time and costs [13]. However, when the back-up is not published but available on demand, there is just one edition, the synopsis, and back-up documents will be ordered only occasionally. Summarizing, it can be stated that synopsis publishing is cost-effective for all back-up systems, but more so when the back-up is not published. The publisher therefore has the prospect of containing cover prices and, possibly, of increasing dissemination to individuals for whom the traditional learned journal is over-priced [19]. 4.5. Acceptance and reluctance ' Several authorities [14,19,20,23,25,261 have studied the acceptance of synopsis publishing. They reach widely differing conclusions: - "Readers supported the synopsis system..." [19] - "Publishers and authors are enthusiastic, but readers are sceptical" [20] . - "Authors have consistently resisted synopses, reader acceptance has been good" [25]. Conclusions on user acceptance, I believe, may depend on the type of audience ( academics or industrial scientists, workers in pure or applied sciences), the degree of the interviewees' familiarity with the subject matter, and the method of interviewing. Statements on acceptance and resistance, as given in the literature and below, therefore have no absolute meaning. A tithors The order of importance for choosing a journal in which to publish, as given by Rowland's [23] respondents, was: (1) scientific standard and reputation of the journal, (2) subject specialization of the journal; (3) size of circulation of the journal; (4) speed of publication; (5) format, appearance and typographical quality. Author acceptance largely depends on maintenance of scholarly standards [4,22,23], pure scientists being more interested in strict refereeing standards than applied scientists [19,22]. Speed of publication is a major selling point for 10102 synopsis publishing [9,15,22,27,31], especially outside the circle of pure scientists. The 'delay' (interval between acceptance and publication) for synopses is appreciably shorter than for traditional papers [20] - which must be advantageous to the acceptance of synopses by most scientists. A major fear of potential synopsis authors is loss of prestige [14,20,25,26]. Oppenheim and Price [20] conclude that the prestige of synopsis authors is generally the same as that of authors of traditional papers. However, the synopsis journals they studied were too new for any meaningful `impact factor' calculation [20]; their conclusion is based on the prestige of authors of synopses and on the reputation of these authors' papers in other journals. It is not very helpful with regard to the prestige of synopses and synopsis journals. There is no reason, in any case, to assume that the prestige of properly reviewed synopses published in first-rate journals would differ from that of traditional papers; and the same must hold true for synopsis authors. Another factor affecting the authors' enthusiasm for synopsis publishing is the operation of promotion systems by their employers. If these give much weight to the number of pages putlished', synopsis publishing is not an attractive alternative. A further fear of authors is a lessened readership for their full texts [14,22,25,26,28]. This fear may not be well-founded. Instead, the availability of synopses may increase the potential readership of the back-up by alerting readers to the existence of the reported research [28]. Besides, it is dissemination of information that counts, not proliferation of printed paper: publication of a lengthy paper even in a high-circulation journal does not guarantee a large readership for the whole paper! Most readers require far less than the whole paper. Jacks [8] puts it bluntly: "It might be said that the body of the paper is written primarily for the advancement of the scientist - to make or maintain his reputation - and the summary for the advancement of science." Some of the objections of authors with regard to synopsis publishing do indeed make sense. In most cases, publishers and editors looked in vain for any enthusiasm when they tried to convince authors to submit a synopsis additional to their full paper. Instead of a properly published and neatly produced full paper, the author saw his synopsis published regularly and his full paper published in miniprint, or on microfiche, or not at all. Besides, the typesetting effort was unloaded on the author. Most authors failed to see any 'added value' in this concept and tended to react benevo- lently only if they were true believers' in the idea of splitting up the dissemination and storage functions of primary information. Grey literature represents a special category. The information contained in grey research reports is unpublished, and the writing of a synopsis is much less time-consuming than the complete working-up of the report into one or more traditional journal papers [14]. So, for grey reports, synopsis publishing is an attractive alternative to traditional journal publishing, especially to authors. Readers Millson's respondents supported the synopsis system provided that the full text was available quickly and cheaply [19]. The small demand for back-up [7,10] may be regarded as supporting the principle of synopsis publishing in that the synopsis fulfils most readers' requirements [19]. For the user, synopsis publishing is an attractive and efficient alternative, saving money as well as time [28]: the reader need not pay for a lot of material that is of no interest to him [30] and he can read more literature in less time [11,26] Grey reports are a special case for readers, too. Synopses based on grey literature are an 'extra' provision: the information would otherwise usually not have been published in a conventional manner. The synopses are presented in an easily browsable form [30] so that the reader need not wade through the whole report to get the 'guts' of the subject. Besides, synopses are fully citable as primary papers, whereas citing an unpublished report is not very helpful to the reader unless the report is easily obtainable. Libraries and secondary services ' One objection of libraries and secondary services to many synopsis journals is based on the fact that they have to buy and store two editions, one containing the synopses and the other the full texts in mini- or microform [20]. However, synopsis journals are cost-effective even if the back-up is formally published. The saving depends on the back-up information carrier (microfiches or 11103 miniprint) and on the average length of the back-up documents [13]. If the back-up is not published, the saving depends on how frequently back-up documents are ordered (section 4.4). Another objection is that the use of two different media in one system increases handling costs and time [13] and hampers a proper retrieval [5,9,14,151. Martyn's view that "All the alternatives to conventional publishing ... raise problems for the secondary services" [16] is somewhat gloomy, but fairly realistic with regard to the 'dual journal' system (a term used in the experiment of the American Chemical Society). Again, when the back-up is an informal unpublished document, as in the case of grey reports, neither librarians nor secondary services need bother about it. Editors and referees Synopsis publishing ventures with published back-up papers inevitably require more work from editors and referees [15], the more so since the back-up allows more details which would not have been published traditionally. This is an essential part of the synopsis publishing philosophy. Quite understandably, referees are not really happy at this prospect [25]. When the back-up remains unpublished, and needs only be glanced at by referees to check the validity of statements made in the synopsis, synopses require much less reviewing time than traditional papers. Summarizing, I may conclude that some often ventilated objections to synopsis publishing are based on misconceptions, distrust and prejudice. Others are more or less valid for the 'dual journal' system, but not when there is only one publication, the synopsis, supported by an unpublished document which is available on request. 5. Netherlands Agricultural Report Depository - the other approach . 5.l. T~/c'/r In 1981, a Dutch committee, advising on publishing policy, recommended that synopses based on grey research reports in agricultural science and (applied) biology be published and that reports be delivered on demand through a central depository. Pudoc was entrusted with establishing such a pro- ject. In 1983, Pudoc opened talks with the Royal (Netherlands) Society for Agricultural Science, which soon resulted in a formal agreement. Pudoc and the Society agreed to start a synopsis publishing project as a joint venture. The synopses would be published in the Society's Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science (NJAS), a traditional scholarly journal in English covering the broad field of agricultural research carried out by Dutch scientists. Pudoc would be in charge of document delivery and of the coordination of the project. The Netherlands Agricultural Report Depository (NARD) was established for this purpose and I was appointed coordinator of the project. 5.?. Synopsis and back-up Synopsis Synopses ought to have a status equivalent to that of traditional papers. It was decided therefore that all synopses should be subject to peer review. Each synopsis is reviewed by both a member of the Editorial Board and an expert referee. They have the report at their disposal to check if the synopsis sufficiently reflects the contents of (part of) the report, but the report itself is not subject to their judgement. Of the 2000 subscriptions to NJAS, some 750 are distributed outside the Netherlands. The journal is kept in the libraries of most of the world's leading agricultural research centres. Secondary services cover the journal integrally and do not treat synopses and traditional papers differently. Some authors of the first synopses we published reported that they had received quite a few requests for reprints of their synopsis. Generally speaking these requests must have been provoked by secondary sources, since most readers who have the journal issue within reach find it easier to read the synopsis in the library, or make photocopies for reading elsewhere, than to order a reprint. In two cases, two synopses based on the same report were submitted and accepted, and in one case even four synopses based on one report. Other synopses submitted reflected only part of the back-up report: other parts of the report had already been worked up into traditional journal papers, or they were considered of only marginal interest to an international scientific audience. ANSI's requirement [1] that "the title of the synopsis shall be identical to that of the full paper" 12104 does not therefore fully apply under the NARD concept. Besides, titles differ when the synopsis is in English (in all cases) and the report in Dutch (some 75° of the 500 unpublished reports on agricultural research in the Netherlands issued annually). So, the only fundamental requirement for titles is that they correctly reflect the contents of the documents. At the bottom of each synopsis, a note is appended containing a bibliographic description of the report and data on its availability (NARD's s address, order number and price). Back-up Delivery via a depository is not the most popular method of providing back-up. In particular, most authors prefer publishing in nuniprint (Section 4.3). However, we found miniprint inappropriate for NARD. First, the size of the reports (130 A4 pages on average over the first 40 reports accepted) would make too great demands on referees' and editors' time and goodwill. Reviewing the reports would inevitably cause delays in publication, thus undermining one of the major selling points of synopsis publishing - speed of publication. Second, miniprint journal editions should have a fairly uniform style, but reports submitted as synopsis back-up largely differ in page size, lay-out and lettering. To conform the reports' typography to the journal's standards the reports would generally have to be entirely re-typed. Thorough refereeing would often necessitate re-typing of the report as well. One should not expect too much enthusiasm from authors at this prospect. Third, another major advantage of synopsis publishing - efficiency - would be jeopardized. A 130-page report would fill 14 miniprint pages when 9 A4 report pages are reduced to one journal miniprint page (the reduction chosen by JCR ). The largest report submitted to NARD so far (517 pages! would even fill 58 miniprint pages. Synopses fill 2.7 pages of the synopsis journal (about 1450 words) on average. We considered some 5 miniprint pages (for a handful of specialists) for each synopsis page (for a much larger audience) to be disproportionate. So, we decided that the reports were to remain unpublished and would be available through NARD. Authors whose reports are in Dutch are advised to add table and figure captions in English to enhance com- prehensibility for specialists of a tongue other than Dutch. The reports are available both as paper copies and on microfiche. Microfiches are delivered directly by NARD, paper copies either by NARD or hy the author's employer through NARD as an intermediary. Microfiche back-ups are generally cheaper than their paper equivalents. S. 3. Potentwl supp4v In the first half of the year 1984, I discussed synopsis publishing with about 40 heads of departments of the Agricultural University at Wageningen and some 40 directors of agricultural research institutions in Wageningen and elsewhere in the Netherlands. My plea for synopsis publishing as a fundamental innovation in journal publishing did not meet with general approval. I clearly noted a 'Jekyll and Hyde' attitude among my respondents: they were markedly more postive about synopsis publishing as potential readers than as potential authors of synopses. None-the-less, most respondents liked the idea of publishing synopses based on information contained in grey reports and welcomed the NARD venture. Each interview ended with the question "How frequently will you use the NARD facilities on an annual basis?" Some 10 respondents could not answer this question before having discussed the subject with their staff. The other interviewees responded positively, giving estimates of 10 or more synopses per year (11 cases ), 5 to 10 (9 cases), 2 to 5 (21 cases), or 1 or less (27 cases). In total, estimates amounted to 275-370 synopses per year. It should be borne in mind, however, that the estimates were given by heads of research institutions, and that the acceptance and cooperation of their staff will be crucial to the success of the project. Agricultural sciences in the Netherlands are a broad and diverse field covering disciplines such as soil science and water management, forestry and nature conservation, animal breeding and husbandry, social sciences, chemistry and related fields, food processing and technology, mechanization and agricultural engineering, and many supporting pure and applied sciences. Reactions were also diverse, workers in applied sciences reacting more positively than those in pure sciences. 5.4. Results, research and options Eurlv results Between January 1984 and July 1985, 56 syn- 13105 opses were submitted, 53 of which were accepted for publication. Of these, 17 were based on doctoral theses, 17 on student theses, and 19 on other reports. The smallest report was 14 pages, the largest one 517 pages. Of the 47 back-up reports (there are more synopses than reports, since more than one synopsis may be based on one and the same report), 19 are under 100 pages, 22 between 100 and 200 pages, and 5 over 200 pages; 22 reports are in English, 25 in Dutch. In the 1984 volume of NJAS (4 issues), 26 synopses were published; in the first 3 issues of the 1985 volume, 24 synopses. All synopses accepted by the 'closing-time' of an issue (when manuscripts are sent to the printers for typesetting) are included in that issue, whereas traditional papers are sometimes kept for a subsequent issue when the supply of papers is irregular. This privileged treatment of synopses results in very short 'delays': the average period from acceptance to publication of a synopsis was 111 days, 22 days less than that for traditional papers published in N.A4S' in the same period. Reviewing time - the period between submission and acceptance - was much shorter for synopses (37 days on an average) than for traditional papers (113 days). So, the total interval between submission and publication was about 5 months for synopses and 8 months for full papers. Until July 1985, we received only 7 requests for paper copies of reports. Microfiches had not been ordered at that time. We will stop the microfiche facility if the demand after some years is still extremely low. Research The supply of synopses is, so far, well below the level expected on the basis of my inventory of early 1984. I can only guess at the causes. My respondents may have failed to convince their staff of the virtues of synopsis publishing; authors may be insufficiently accustomed to synopsis publishing, so that their first attempts consume a relatively large amount of time; internal discussions and decision-making may have been delayed. I will query my respondents shortly to find out what the real causes are, and to see if further deliberations and advice are necessary. Synopsis authors are more in favour of synopsis publishing than their colleagues who have not yet made such an attempt [22]. Soon, I shall set up another inquiry among synopsis authors and indi- vidual subscribers to try to establish the elements of author and reader resistance and acceptance. This inquiry may also determine whether we should amend some procedures to overcome author and reader resistance. Options (1) NJAS is a 'mixed' journal containing both synopses and traditional papers. Papers submitted as synopses are accepted or rejected as such, and articles submitted as traditional papers are treated as such. Editors and referees do not attempt to persuade authors of full papers to convert their material into a synopsis plus back-up. All synopses accepted so far are based on reports. However, synopses can also be alternatives for traditional full papers. Much material designed for traditional papers is rejected because it is considered to be too lengthy or detailed. Traditionally, the author then has two options: either to give in and delete specific data, although he feels that these may be useful to specialists, or to seek a journal that accepts longer papers, even when that journal has lower scholarly standards. The synopsis idea offers a third option, permitting an unlimited supply of specific details in the back-up. Authors deterred by page charges imposed on them by journal publishers may choose the synopsis option as well. A crucial condition for such a development is a growing author acceptance of synopsis publishing. Much time and effort will be needed to make the synopsis concept generally familiar. (2) The synopsis is a primary publication with a relatively high ` information density' and therefore seems a most suitable basic unit for electronic primary journals [15]. Another sensible thing to do would be to make different levels of on-line access optionally available, i.e., title, abstract, synopsis [25]. Many on-line data-bases already offer the first two of these levels: introducing the synopsis level would be a logical next step and increase both the accessibility of synopses and the usefulness of on-line services. (Of course, the incorporation of primary synopses into on-line bibliographic databases would be inconsistent with these sources' secondary character, but this need not hinder progress.) When the synopsis texts are produced electronically (as in the case of NJAS) and the digitized material supplied to the database producer is coded with an SGML (standard generalized 14106 mark-up language), the online provision of synopses need not be costly for database producers. Many scientific texts contain structural formulae and other graphic presentations which are indispensible for comprehension of the text. Standard computer terminals still lack graphics software. This obstacle to the introduction of (parallel) electronic synopsis journals, or the addition of synopses to online databases, will probably not be removed until most terminals and microcomputers used for literature searching are provided with standardized graphics software. A logical final step then seems to be to publish the back-up electronically as well. Although both electronic information carriers (such as optical discs) and data transmission tend to become cheaper, I suspect that there is a long way to go to get the back-up published electronically in a cost-effective way. First, many back-up documents (such as reports) are not available in a digitized form, and would have to be fully re-typed to make them available electronically. Second, screens have a relatively low `browsability factor' and are hardly appropriate for reading at ease. Third, the infomation density' of many of these documents is too low, and the market size too small, to make this prospect economically feasible at short notice. I shall shortly be approaching bibliographic database producers to find out whether they are willing to publish the synopses online. 6. Conclusions and propositions (1) The traditional system of publishing primary scholarly information is inefficient for all parties involved. Both users and producers should seek more efficient methods of information transfer. (2) Any fundamental reappraisal of the vehicles for scientific information transfer must be reader- oriented. (3) There should be three separate packages for scholarly information, one for 'access', one for dissemination, and one for storage (archive). (4) Synopsis publishing is cost-effective for users and producers alike, but more so when the back-up is unpublished and available on request. (5) The accessibility and availability of grey literature can be successfully improved only when a piece of information (such as a synopsis) is provided that is intermediate between the biblio- graphic information in a database ('access') and the full document in a depository (storage). (6) ANSI and other authorities have insufficiently elaborated the applicability of the synopsis publishing principle for grey literature. (7) Some measures taken by journal publishers to enhance the economy of their enterprises also broaden the information gap between workers in industrialized countries and those in other parts of the world. (8) Unpublished reports as back-up documents are likely to meet less resistance from users, producers and intermediaries of primary information alike than published full-paper back-up. (9) There should be no restriction as to length of back-up documents. (10) Back-up documents need to be reviewed only when they are formally published. (11) Readers should cite the piece of information they have read, not the document they should have read. (12) Authors' fears that synopsis publishing lessens the readership of their full texts is based on over-estimation of the market size for these documents. (13) Articles must be submitted and treated either as a synopsis, or as a traditional paper. Editors and referees must not act as judges deciding whether or not an article is worthy of being published in full. Any stigma of synopses being second-rate papers must be avoided. (14) Synopses are suitable basic units for 'on-line' publishing of primary information. (15) Author resistance to synopsis publishing systems can be successfully overcome only when these systems are demonstrably advantageous with regard to prestige, speed of publication and breadth of circulation. (16) The scientific community as a whole tends to be strongly conservative with regard to primary publishing practices [4,10,23,251. The synopsis journal idea is a victim of this conservatism. It certainly deserves a better deal. Much time and energy will be needed to 'convert' all the parties involved. , . , Acknowledgements I am indebted to my colleagues Jan van der Burg, Ian Cressie and Leo van der HeiJden for 15107 critical reading and comments, and to Ivor Wil- liams, Alan McNaught and Fitton Rowland of the `JCR mob' for inspiring discussions. z References ~ ~ - Ansi, American National Standard for Synoptics ANSI Z39.34-1977 (R1983), American National Standards Institute, New York, 1977; reaffirmed 1983. D. Barr, Access to journal literature: short-term and long-term prospects, Aslib Proceedings 28 (3) (1976) 116-119. D. Barr, A synoptic journal for management research, Journal of Research Communication Studies 1 (1978/1979) 329-333. S. Dutta, Synopsis journals - communication media for a transition period, Annals of Library Science and Documentation 29 (2) (1982) 45-50. E. Garfield , Alternative forms of scientific publishing: keeping up with the evolving system of scientific communication, Current Contents 22 (36) (1979) 5-9. J. Michel Gibb and Maunce Line, The System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE), Aslib Proceedings 34 (11/12) (1982) 493-497. H. Grünewald , De toekomst van het wetenschappelijke tijdschrift (Dutch), Universiteit en Hogeschool 24 (6) (1978) 340-353. G.V. Jacks , The summary, Soils and Fertilizers 24 (6) ( 1961) 409-410. P.W. Lea, Trends in scientific and technical primary journal publishing in the USA, Bntish Library Research & Development Report 5272 HC. British Library Lending Division, Boston Spa, 1976. P.W. Lea , Alternative methods of journal publishing, Aslib Proceedings 31 (1) (1979) 33-39. M.B. Line, Innovation and external factors affecting producers and users, in: L.J. Anthony, ed., EURIM 4: A European Conference on Innovation in Primary Publishing - Impact on Producers and Users, Brussels, 1980 (Aslib, London, 1980) 57-59. M.B. Line and B. Williams, Alternatives to conventional publication and their implications for libraries, Aslib Proceedings 28 (3) (1976) 109-115. A.A. Manten , Experiment in synopsis publishing, Landscape Planning 3 (1976) 147-150. A.A. Manten , Possible future relevance of publishing primary scholarly information in the form of synopses, Journal of Information Science 1 (1980) 293-296. A.A. Manten, Synopsis journals, in: L.J. Anthony, ed., EURIM 4: A European Conference on Innovation in Primary Publication - Impact on Producers and Users, Brussels. 1980 ( Aslib, London, 1980) 27-30. J. Martyn , Present and future pressures on service operators , Aslib Proceedings 28 (10) (1976) 341-346. A.J. Meadows , Documentation and the scientific producer/user , Journal of Documentation 34 (4) (1978) 324-332. R.J. Millson , Institutions and learned societies as information sources, Aslib Proceedings 30 (2) (1978) 48-54. R.J. Millson , An experiment in synopsis publishing in the field of mechanical engineering, British Library Research & DevelopmentReport 5498, London, 1979. C. Oppenheim and S. Price, Pricing, delay times and prestige of synoptic journals, Journal of Research Communication Studies 1 (1978/1979) 305-313. N.W. Posnett and W.J. Baulkwill, Working with non-conventional literature , Journal of Information Science 5 (1982) 121-130. J.F.B. Rowland , Synopsis journals as seen by their authors, Journal of Documentation 37 (2) (1981) 38-42. J.F.B. Rowland , The scientist's view of his information system , Journal of Documentation 38 (1) (1982) 38-42. J.W. Senders , The electronic joumal, in: L.J. Anthony, ed., EURIM 4: A European conference on Innovation in Primary Publication - Impact on Producers and Users, Brussels, 1980 (Aslib, London, 1980) 14-16. J.M. Strawhorn , Synopsis publishing in North America, in: M.H. O'Hare, ed., Future roles for synopsis publishing, Report of a seminar organized by the CEC, Luxembourg, 1979, British Library Research and Development Department, London, 1980, pp. 5-9. A.J. Szczepanski , Synoptic publishing and on-line full text (draft report), Pnmary Communication Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, July, 1983 . S.J. Teague , A university librarian's view of synopsis publications , Journal of Research Communication Studies 1 (1978/1979) 325-328. S.W. Terreant , Synopsis journals: a commentary, in: L.J. Anthony, ed., EURIM 4: A European Conference on Innovation in Primary Publication - Impact on Producers and Users, Brussels, 1980 (Aslib, London, 1980) 31-32. S. Vickers and D.N. Wood, Improving the availability of grey literature , Interlending Review 10 (4) (1982) 125-130. I.A. Williams , New methods in publishing: the launching of Journal of Chemical Research, in: STM Symposium on Trends in Scientific Publishing , Frankfurt, 1977 ( International Group of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, 1978) 33-44. I.A. Williams , Experiences in planning and publishing a synopsis journal in chemistry, Journal of Research Communication Studies 1 (1978/1979) 317-324. D.N. Wood, Some developments concerning access to grey literature, in: L.J. Anthony, ed., EURIM 4: A European Conference on Innovation in Primary Publication - Impact on Producers and Users. Brussels, 1980 (Aslib, London, (1980) 95-97.</meta-value>
</custom-meta>
</custom-meta-wrap>
</article-meta>
</front>
<back>
<ref-list>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>Ansi</surname>
</name>
,
<source>American National Standard for Synoptics ANSI Z39.34-1977 (R1983)</source>
,
<publisher-name>American National Standards Institute</publisher-name>
,
<publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
,
<year>1977</year>
; reaffirmed
<year>1983</year>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>D. Barr</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>Access to journal literature: short-term and long-term prospects</article-title>
,
<source>Aslib Proceedings</source>
<volume>28</volume>
(
<issue>3</issue>
) (
<year>1976</year>
)
<fpage>116</fpage>
-
<lpage>119</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>D. Barr</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>A synoptic journal for management research</article-title>
,
<source>Journal of Research Communication Studies</source>
<volume>1</volume>
(
<year>1978</year>
/1979)
<fpage>329</fpage>
-
<lpage>333</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>S. Dutta</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>Synopsis journals - communication media for a transition period</article-title>
,
<source>Annals of Library Science and Documentation</source>
<volume>29</volume>
(
<issue>2</issue>
) (
<year>1982</year>
)
<fpage>45</fpage>
-
<lpage>50</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>E. Garfield</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>Alternative forms of scientific publishing: keeping up with the evolving system of scientific communication</article-title>
,
<source>Current Contents</source>
<volume>22</volume>
(
<issue>36</issue>
) (
<year>1979</year>
)
<fpage>5</fpage>
-
<lpage>9</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>J. Michel Gibb</surname>
</name>
and
<name name-style="western">
<surname>Maunce Line</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>The System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE)</article-title>
,
<source>Aslib Proceedings</source>
<volume>34</volume>
(
<issue>11/12</issue>
) (
<year>1982</year>
)
<fpage>493</fpage>
-
<lpage>497</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>H. Grünewald</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>De toekomst van het wetenschappelijke tijdschrift (Dutch)</article-title>
,
<source>Universiteit en Hogeschool</source>
<volume>24</volume>
(
<issue>6</issue>
) (
<year>1978</year>
)
<fpage>340</fpage>
-
<lpage>353</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>G.V. Jacks</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>The summary</article-title>
,
<source>Soils and Fertilizers</source>
<volume>24</volume>
(
<issue>6</issue>
) (
<year>1961</year>
)
<fpage>409</fpage>
-
<lpage>410</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>P.W. Lea</surname>
</name>
,
<source>Trends in scientific and technical primary journal publishing in the USA, Bntish Library Research & Development Report 5272 HC</source>
.
<publisher-name>British Library Lending Division</publisher-name>
,
<publisher-loc>Boston Spa</publisher-loc>
,
<year>1976</year>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>P.W. Lea</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>Alternative methods of journal publishing</article-title>
,
<source>Aslib Proceedings</source>
<volume>31</volume>
(
<issue>1</issue>
) (
<year>1979</year>
)
<fpage>33</fpage>
-
<lpage>39</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>M.B. Line</surname>
</name>
,
<source>Innovation and external factors affecting producers and users</source>
, in:
<name name-style="western">
<surname>L.J. Anthony</surname>
</name>
, ed.,
<source>EURIM 4: A European Conference on Innovation in Primary Publishing - Impact on Producers and Users</source>
,
<publisher-loc>Brussels</publisher-loc>
,
<year>1980</year>
(
<publisher-name>Aslib</publisher-name>
,
<publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>
,
<year>1980</year>
)
<fpage>57</fpage>
-
<lpage>59</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>M.B. Line</surname>
</name>
and
<name name-style="western">
<surname>B. Williams</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>Alternatives to conventional publication and their implications for libraries</article-title>
,
<source>Aslib Proceedings</source>
<volume>28</volume>
(
<issue>3</issue>
) (
<year>1976</year>
)
<fpage>109</fpage>
-
<lpage>115</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>A.A. Manten</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>Experiment in synopsis publishing</article-title>
,
<source>Landscape Planning</source>
<volume>3</volume>
(
<year>1976</year>
)
<fpage>147</fpage>
-
<lpage>150</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>A.A. Manten</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>Possible future relevance of publishing primary scholarly information in the form of synopses</article-title>
,
<source>Journal of Information Science</source>
<volume>1</volume>
(
<year>1980</year>
)
<fpage>293</fpage>
-
<lpage>296</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>A.A. Manten</surname>
</name>
,
<source>Synopsis journals</source>
, in:
<name name-style="western">
<surname>L.J. Anthony</surname>
</name>
, ed.,
<source>EURIM 4: A European Conference on Innovation in Primary Publication - Impact on Producers and Users, Brussels</source>
.
<year>1980</year>
(
<publisher-name>Aslib</publisher-name>
,
<publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>
,
<year>1980</year>
)
<fpage>27</fpage>
-
<lpage>30</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>J. Martyn</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>Present and future pressures on service operators</article-title>
,
<source>Aslib Proceedings</source>
<volume>28</volume>
(
<issue>10</issue>
) (
<year>1976</year>
)
<fpage>341</fpage>
-
<lpage>346</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>A.J. Meadows</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>Documentation and the scientific producer/user</article-title>
,
<source>Journal of Documentation</source>
<volume>34</volume>
(
<issue>4</issue>
) (
<year>1978</year>
)
<fpage>324</fpage>
-
<lpage>332</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>R.J. Millson</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>Institutions and learned societies as information sources</article-title>
,
<source>Aslib Proceedings</source>
<volume>30</volume>
(
<issue>2</issue>
) (
<year>1978</year>
)
<fpage>48</fpage>
-
<lpage>54</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>R.J. Millson</surname>
</name>
,
<source>An experiment in synopsis publishing in the field of mechanical engineering</source>
,
<publisher-name>British Library Research & Development</publisher-name>
Report 5498,
<publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>
,
<year>1979</year>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>C. Oppenheim</surname>
</name>
and
<name name-style="western">
<surname>S. Price</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>Pricing, delay times and prestige of synoptic journals</article-title>
,
<source>Journal of Research Communication Studies</source>
<volume>1</volume>
(
<year>1978</year>
/1979)
<fpage>305</fpage>
-
<lpage>313</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>N.W. Posnett</surname>
</name>
and
<name name-style="western">
<surname>W.J. Baulkwill</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>Working with non-conventional literature</article-title>
,
<source>Journal of Information Science</source>
<volume>5</volume>
(
<year>1982</year>
)
<fpage>121</fpage>
-
<lpage>130</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>J.F.B. Rowland</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>Synopsis journals as seen by their authors</article-title>
,
<source>Journal of Documentation</source>
<volume>37</volume>
(
<issue>2</issue>
) (
<year>1981</year>
)
<fpage>38</fpage>
-
<lpage>42</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>J.F.B. Rowland</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>The scientist's view of his information system</article-title>
,
<source>Journal of Documentation</source>
<volume>38</volume>
(
<issue>1</issue>
) (
<year>1982</year>
)
<fpage>38</fpage>
-
<lpage>42</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>J.W. Senders</surname>
</name>
,
<source>The electronic joumal</source>
, in:
<name name-style="western">
<surname>L.J. Anthony</surname>
</name>
, ed.,
<source>EURIM 4: A European conference on Innovation in Primary Publication - Impact on Producers and Users, Brussels, 1980</source>
(
<publisher-name>Aslib</publisher-name>
,
<publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>
,
<year>1980</year>
)
<fpage>14</fpage>
-
<lpage>16</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>J.M. Strawhorn</surname>
</name>
,
<source>Synopsis publishing in North America</source>
, in:
<name name-style="western">
<surname>M.H. O'Hare</surname>
</name>
, ed.,
<source>Future roles for synopsis publishing, Report of a seminar organized by the CEC</source>
,
<publisher-loc>Luxembourg</publisher-loc>
,
<year>1979</year>
,
<publisher-name>British Library Research and Development Department</publisher-name>
,
<publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>
,
<year>1980</year>
, pp.
<fpage>5</fpage>
-
<lpage>9</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>A.J. Szczepanski</surname>
</name>
,
<source>Synoptic publishing and on-line full text (draft report), Pnmary Communication Research Centre</source>
,
<publisher-name>University of Leicester</publisher-name>
,
<publisher-loc>Leicester</publisher-loc>
, July,
<year>1983</year>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>S.J. Teague</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>A university librarian's view of synopsis publications</article-title>
,
<source>Journal of Research Communication Studies</source>
<volume>1</volume>
(
<year>1978</year>
/1979)
<fpage>325</fpage>
-
<lpage>328</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>S.W. Terreant</surname>
</name>
,
<source>Synopsis journals: a commentary</source>
, in:
<name name-style="western">
<surname>L.J. Anthony</surname>
</name>
, ed.,
<source>EURIM 4: A European Conference on Innovation in Primary Publication - Impact on Producers and Users, Brussels, 1980</source>
(
<publisher-name>Aslib</publisher-name>
,
<publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>
,
<year>1980</year>
)
<fpage>31</fpage>
-
<lpage>32</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>S. Vickers</surname>
</name>
and
<name name-style="western">
<surname>D.N. Wood</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>Improving the availability of grey literature</article-title>
,
<source>Interlending Review</source>
<volume>10</volume>
(
<issue>4</issue>
) (
<year>1982</year>
)
<fpage>125</fpage>
-
<lpage>130</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>I.A. Williams</surname>
</name>
,
<source>New methods in publishing: the launching of Journal of Chemical Research, in: STM Symposium on Trends in Scientific Publishing</source>
,
<publisher-loc>Frankfurt</publisher-loc>
,
<year>1977</year>
(
<publisher-name>International Group of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers</publisher-name>
,
<year>1978</year>
)
<fpage>33</fpage>
-
<lpage>44</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>I.A. Williams</surname>
</name>
,
<article-title>Experiences in planning and publishing a synopsis journal in chemistry</article-title>
,
<source>Journal of Research Communication Studies</source>
<volume>1</volume>
(
<year>1978</year>
/1979)
<fpage>317</fpage>
-
<lpage>324</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western">
<surname>D.N. Wood</surname>
</name>
,
<source>Some developments concerning access to grey literature</source>
, in:
<name name-style="western">
<surname>L.J. Anthony</surname>
</name>
, ed.,
<source>EURIM 4: A European Conference on Innovation in Primary Publication - Impact on Producers and Users</source>
.
<publisher-loc>Brussels</publisher-loc>
,
<year>1980</year>
(
<publisher-name>Aslib</publisher-name>
,
<publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>
, (
<year>1980</year>
)
<fpage>95</fpage>
-
<lpage>97</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
</istex:document>
</istex:metadataXml>
<mods version="3.6">
<titleInfo lang="en">
<title>Synopsis publishing for improving the accessibility of 'grey' scholarly information</title>
</titleInfo>
<titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA">
<title>Synopsis publishing for improving the accessibility of 'grey' scholarly information</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Dirk G.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">van der Heij</namePart>
<affiliation>Pudoc (Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation), 6700 AA Wageningen. The Netherlands</affiliation>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Sage Publications</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</placeTerm>
</place>
<dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1985-09</dateIssued>
<copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1985</copyrightDate>
</originInfo>
<language>
<languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
<languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm>
</language>
<physicalDescription>
<internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType>
</physicalDescription>
<abstract lang="en">In the 1970s, synopsis publishing was one of the topics raised in discussions on the future of primary communication. Tradi tional publishing practices were widely felt to be inefficient for users and producers alike. Since economic constraints were the main incentive for most synopsis publishing experiments, inter est in this idea faded away when journal publishers no longer felt that their journals' future was jeopardized, though author resistance was the main cause of the early discontinuation of many of these experiments. In this paper a plea is made for the virtues of synopsis publishing, not only as an economic necess ity but also for fundamental reasons, for the possibility it gives to separate physically the access, dissemination and archival functions of primary journals. Several attempts have been, and are being, made to improve the accessibility and availability of 'grey' scholarly literature, a large proportion of the world's scientific literature. Thus paper discusses some of these attempts and suggests that the dissemi nation function could be improved by bridging the gap between the bibliographic information in databases and the full docu ments in depositories. Most experiments in synopsis publishing so far have been based on full papers used as back-up for the synopses; the full papers were either published in mini- or microform, or made available on request. Grey literature as back-up to synopses has hardly been discussed in the literature, and the only standard on synopsis publishing issued so far treats this possibility only in an aside. This paper discusses the applicability of the synop sis publishing principle to grey reports and concludes that such ventures are likely to meet less disapproval and resistance from authors and other parties involved than are article-based sys tems. In 1984, Pudoc established the Netherlands Agricultural Report Depository (NARD), a venture in synopsis publishing based on Dutch unpublished reports in agriculture and (ap plied) biology. NARD's approach, procedures and early results are briefly discussed.</abstract>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Journal of Information Science</title>
</titleInfo>
<genre type="journal">journal</genre>
<identifier type="ISSN">0165-5515</identifier>
<identifier type="eISSN">1741-6485</identifier>
<identifier type="PublisherID">JIS</identifier>
<identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">spjis</identifier>
<part>
<date>1985</date>
<detail type="volume">
<caption>vol.</caption>
<number>11</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue">
<caption>no.</caption>
<number>3</number>
</detail>
<extent unit="pages">
<start>95</start>
<end>107</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="istex">B088D84EAE523BAC23D3C2EFFCB23E67F792C8ED</identifier>
<identifier type="DOI">10.1177/016555158501100301</identifier>
<identifier type="ArticleID">10.1177_016555158501100301</identifier>
<recordInfo>
<recordContentSource>SAGE</recordContentSource>
</recordInfo>
</mods>
</metadata>
<serie></serie>
</istex>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Agronomie/explor/SisAgriV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001261 | SxmlIndent | more

Ou

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001261 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Agronomie
   |area=    SisAgriV1
   |flux=    Istex
   |étape=   Corpus
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     ISTEX:B088D84EAE523BAC23D3C2EFFCB23E67F792C8ED
   |texte=   Synopsis publishing for improving the accessibility of 'grey' scholarly information
}}

Wicri

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.28.
Data generation: Wed Mar 29 00:06:34 2017. Site generation: Tue Mar 12 12:44:16 2024