Re: CAS Abstracting of chemistry on the Web
On May 21, 9:10am, Rzepa, Henry wrote:
Subject: CAS Abstracting of chemistry on the Web Because this is setting a new precedent, I am circulating a mail from David Weisgerber of CAS regarding the ECTOC Web conference.
Any comments?
"Yes, we did receive the ECTOC-1 CD-ROM. We ended up selecting 66 of the 77 papers and posters for abstracting and indexing. Eleven were not judged to contain sufficient information.
I think this is the critical observation, and one that bears consideration. A ready criticism of electronic publishing, as in an electronic conference or a web page in general, is the ease with which low information content documents are 'published'. For this medium to preserve high information density I think one needs examine the eleven that were rejected by CAS and determine if similar content should be rejected in subsequent electronic conferences. I think there may still be a place for such postings, but perhaps with a distinction made between them and the rest. Regard them as data on scratch space, volatile. Henry, could you elaborate on those eleven papers? -- M. Dominic Ryan (610)-270-6529 SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals ryanmd@mms.sbphrd.com King of Prussia, PA ----- chemweb: A list for Chemical Applications of the Internet. Archived as: http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/chemweb/ To unsubscribe, send to listserver@ic.ac.uk the following message; unsubscribe chemweb List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
I think this is the critical observation, and one that bears consideration. A ready criticism of electronic publishing, as in an electronic conference or a web page in general, is the ease with which low information content documents are 'published'.
For this medium to preserve high information density I think one needs examine the eleven that were rejected by CAS and determine if similar content should be rejected in subsequent electronic conferences. I think there may still be a place for such postings, but perhaps with a distinction made between them and the rest. Regard them as data on scratch space, volatile.
Henry, could you elaborate on those eleven papers?
Actually, CAS did not let me know which 11 they were, and even if I did, I think it would breach confidentiallity if I passed the info on to a forum such as this. I should however point out that only about half the articles were actually classified as "papers", the rest being posters. CAS have always adopted a policy of abstracting posters only if they felt the chemistry was sufficiently well defined to merit abstraction. Thus by this criterion, a very large proportion of the posters got abstracted! This aspect, of CAS applying selection to posters, actually does NOT set a precedent, and I don't think we should get too worked up about it. I should point out that the "ECTOC" process does establish a mechanism for greater permanency on the Internet. Whilst in this instance, CAS waited for the CD ROM version before abstracting (because I had told them it was coming), in other instances, they might be prepared to abstract only against the e-version. In doing this, they are aware that in a few years time, that abstract might be the ONLY record of that original e-document. Dr Henry Rzepa, Dept. Chemistry, Imperial College, LONDON SW7 2AY; rzepa@ic.ac.uk; Tel (44) 171 594 5774; Fax: (44) 171 594 5804. URL: http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/ (Eudora Pro 3.0) ----- chemweb: A list for Chemical Applications of the Internet. Archived as: http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/chemweb/ To unsubscribe, send to listserver@ic.ac.uk the following message; unsubscribe chemweb List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
participants (2)
- 
                
                Rzepa, Henry
- 
                
                yanmd@mms.sbphrd.com