[Prev][Next][Index]
FW: VCR synthesis volume
When last I wrote, I had received a short rejection of our prospectus
from Kirk Jensen of Oxford U. Press. I included his note in my message
to you. Now I am including (BELOW) my response. Also, the Publications
Comittee of the LTER has been informed of events, and Dave Coleman has
been supportive.
Please, read my response to Kirk Jensen. Do you agree with my
perception of our original intent? It seems that our goals (to
synthesize our work) and those of Oxford (to sell books) were not
compatible with our format. OK, I can live with that.
Here is where I begin to ramble with a string of thoughts about the
matter.
BUT my question now is, "What is the best way for us to spend our time?"
Do we modify our plans to accommodate their format? Or do we commit
ourselves to the need for synthesis and use the outlines as a guide and
write a series of journal articles. But would we follow through with
such a plan or be diverted? Do we need a book at this point to
accomplish our goals and keep us on track? Or could we find a journal
that might allow a special issue? Is anyone an editor of an appropriate
journal? This is not to say that a book would not be in our future. Is
now the time, though?
John has offered that I can be part of Monday's PI meeting via a speaker
phone. That way I can make faces at each of your comments, and you'll
never know. Let's talk about it then.
Bob
Robert R. Christian
Professor
Biology Department
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC 27834
Phone: 919-328-1835
Fax: 919-328-4178
email: christianr@mail.ecu.edu
> ----------
> From: Christian, Robert R.
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 1997 10:32AM
> To: 'Kirk Jensen'
> Cc: 'John Porter'
> Subject: RE: VCR synthesis volume
>
> Dear Kirk,
>
> Was your disappointment in our revision comparable to my
> disappointment in your reply? Obviously, I misunderstood and
> underestimated the concerns you expressed last year. We did try to
> make more explicit our attempts to broaden the audience, although I
> mistakenly thought that the problem could be fixed more in the
> presentation of our prospectus than by changing the original format
> and intent. Our program will need to consider our options at this
> point, but allow me to try to make clear some of our process and
> thinking. I do this not to change your mind, but to demonstrate
> that we had thought that we had addressed your previous concerns.
>
> 1. The VCR-LTER program is composed of a relatively large group of
> co-principal investigators (>20) working within a number of quite
> different ecosystems (e.g., beaches, forests, marshes). From the
> beginning we viewed the book as a vehicle to integrate the work and
> ideas of the various scientists within the group. It was seen as an
> inclusive exercise. Given this original intent and my understanding
> of our earlier conversation, the thought of limiting authorship would
> never have entered my mind. The decision to restrict authorship will
> have to be a group decision.
>
> 2. You inferred from our prospectus that integration only occurred in
> the final chapter. We envisioned that integration was a hierarchical
> process which included sections II, III and IV. Again let me stress
> that our program is studying a diversity of systems. In section II we
> had hoped to integrate the various aspects of disturbance and response
> within a landscape unit. In section III integration was to be done
> for specific processes across the landscape units. Section IV was to
> have the grand synthesis, building on the previous two sections.
> Further, each group of authors per chapter was directed to include
> comparisons with other systems outside the VCR. This is explicit in
> many of the detailed outlines.
>
> 3. Only section I was to be descriptive. We considered it necessary
> to provide the reader with the background of the VCR and its
> relationship to similar systems along the coast. The outline of
> chapter I.4 is particularly long, as it provides much of the
> system-specific description. However, the length of the outline is
> not proportional to the expected chapter length. Each section is
> expected to be rather short.
>
> 4. As we stated, the VCR is representative of many areas of coast
> throughout the USA and the world. We feel that its susceptibility to
> disturbances and the nature of its responses should be of interest to
> a broad audience. Further, we provide a mechanism, through the 3
> surface hypothesis, by which disturbance occurs and to which it is
> responded. This advances the theory of the ecology of disturbance.
>
> It sounds like (1) I did not convey some of these ideas well enough,
> and (2) even if I did they are not in keeping with Oxford's needs. We
> need to regroup. Our next meeting is in January. Hopefully, we will
> decide what we are to do then.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Bob Christian
>
> Robert R. Christian
> Professor
> Biology Department
> East Carolina University
> Greenville, NC 27834
>
> Phone: 919-328-1835
> Fax: 919-328-4178
> email: christianr@mail.ecu.edu
>
>
> ----------
> From: Kirk Jensen[SMTP:KAJ@OUP-USA.ORG]
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 1997 11:12AM
> To: CHRISTIANR@MAIL.ECU.EDU
>
> Dr. Robert Christian
>
> Dear Dr. Christian:
>
> There appears to be very little change in your plans and
> outline for the Virginia Coast Reserve site synthesis volume since
> you sent the earlier draft in July 1996. The prospectus reads like a
> report, but appears not to aim for any broader readership beyond
> the small cadre of workers who may want to access data specific
> to the site. There are too many small sections or chapters, that are
> too purely descriptive, with integration and unspecified electronic
> support materials at the end. You should, in larger synthetic
> chapters, lay out for the broader ecological community what has
> been learned about the fundamental biological questions and
> processes that have been addressed at this site, in the context of
> the relevant scientific literature on coastal ecology. The material
> as you have it presently organized appears as if it could all go on
> a website for those individuals wanting specific data and
> descriptions, but the book should be a critical scientific synthesis,
> not just a site report. Larger, more ambitious chapters, and fewer
> authors, would help. Can you envision making the complete
> revision of basic plan that would broaden the book's appeal?
>
> Sincerely,
> Kirk Jensen
> Executive Editor
> (212)726-6035
> FAX (212)726-6443
> kaj@oup-usa.org
>
>