We have not yet considered other aspects of electronic publishing that sets the practice apart from print-based processes. For example, one can revise an electronic text once it is 'printed.' The tradition would imply that one knows what was written in 1989 or any other time has not changed - or if an author places the text in a newer form, there is an accompanying indication that this is or is not a revised version of the original text. Within the electronic world, such convention is only beginning to be established, most notably by the rather ambiguous 'trailer' "Last updated: October, 1997." This does not indicate what changes, if any have in fact been made, nor does it indicate the publishing "history" of the piece in question. This is, as yet, new territory wherein standards need to be discussed, and new conventions established that guide decision-making in a fair and equitable manner.
We also have not discussed "prestige" as a factor in assessing on-line journals. Within the traditional format, there is a hierarchy established, though seldom claimed in print, that validates publication in one journal as more prestigious than in another. The indices are based on such factors as national stature over a period of time, acceptance/rejection rates, perceived quality of the editorial board, etc. To some extent, this format can be transferred over into the electronic world. One can, for example, examine the editorial "make-up" of the American Communication Journal by attending to its web site and make whatever judgment one desires having reviewed "who's involved." Stature is somewhat more nebulous as a standard, as time is not an applicable factor given the newness of on-line journals. Postmodern Culture, Kairos, the Electronic Journal of Communication and others have established themselves. Reliability in publishing on a sequential, known schedule is another measure that can be applied, as the academy generally tends to give higher regard to journals that publish on a regular rather than "occasional" basis.
In moving further afield, we have not discussed what may be seen by some as "ancillary issues" in publishing on the Net. What does one do, for example, with reviews published on H-Rhetor? What is the status of contributions to a particular listserve, such as CRTNET? More to the point, how does managing a listserve, much less keeping one's own web page current, count as part of one's overall professional life? Where does scholarship and "service" begin and end in considering involvement in the electronic world? Some will have definite answers to these and similar questions; others will have not a clue. We will, in the very near future, be faced with such questions, as the demand is present within the scholarly community to consider more broadly than before what counts as scholarship, and what it means to be an "intellectual" in the contemporary academy.
Among the myriad of issues we have not addressed is the current practice of putting unpublished work on one's own Web page. While this has not been an issue with respect to "counting" towards tenure -- it is done to facilitate student access as well as access by other scholars, the practice is not routinely applauded. The APA has taken a stand that has a potentially chilling effect on what one may ultimately do with such unpublished work. The APA Publications and Communications Board has adopted as an "interim" policy the following guideline:
Nor are they alone, as journals such as Neuroscience and the New England Journal of Medicine take the same stance toward papers on the Net. The APA also points out that even putting published papers on the Net, and thereby making them accessible to downloading, may be a copyright infringement. Thus, the conflict is revealed between the impulse to extend the communities we might serve through our writing and protect the products of our intellectual labor through these regulatory practices. The result? Consider Social Science Electronic Publishing, an organization that maintains an on-line database of paper topics organized according to "networks" such as Accounting Research, Latin American, and Legal Scholarship. Business Week quoted one of the founders of that venture as saying: "We are changing the academic landscape. People used to publish to get tenure. Now there will be less junk because they will be writing for public consumption. People have to focus on good topics" (cited in Edupage). Are organizations such as these to be lumped in with term paper mills? Should an author's willingness to place a draft of her or his work into the public domain eliminate the potential of that work to garner recognition by a tenure board?
We end this essay with four additional "Talking Points" among the myriad that could be selected to further the discussion. That this is a complex issue, with more vectors and facets than a single essay could delineate, should be by now clear. These "TPs" serve, then, to further the discussion of the nature of electronic publishing and the manner in which it may be judged.