Difference between revisions of "Code4lib Journal Republication Guidelines"
From Code4Lib
(the process was suggested by Peter Murray on c4lj-articles) |
m |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Periodically editors may run across | + | Periodically editors may run across published web content (blog posts, etc) that they feel would work well as a code4lib journal article. The following is a process for allowing that to happen. |
# Someone from the editorial board nominates an article by adding it to the Proposals tab in the Article Tracking spreadsheet and then emailing c4lj-articles | # Someone from the editorial board nominates an article by adding it to the Proposals tab in the Article Tracking spreadsheet and then emailing c4lj-articles | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
# If yes, it follows the normal process | # If yes, it follows the normal process | ||
| − | Note, it is important | + | Note, it is important not to contact the author to see if they are interested in re-publishing their article prior to the proposal being accepted by the editorial board. This will prevent unnecessary disappointment or potential insult if the proposal is ultimately voted down. |
[[Category: Code4Lib Journal]] | [[Category: Code4Lib Journal]] | ||
Latest revision as of 22:43, 1 June 2017
Periodically editors may run across published web content (blog posts, etc) that they feel would work well as a code4lib journal article. The following is a process for allowing that to happen.
- Someone from the editorial board nominates an article by adding it to the Proposals tab in the Article Tracking spreadsheet and then emailing c4lj-articles
- Editors vote on it as if it came from outside the editorial board
- An editor volunteers (not necessarily the same person as #1)
- The editor contacts the author to see if they are interested in re-publishing the article in c4lj
- If yes, it follows the normal process
Note, it is important not to contact the author to see if they are interested in re-publishing their article prior to the proposal being accepted by the editorial board. This will prevent unnecessary disappointment or potential insult if the proposal is ultimately voted down.
