I was wondering if the journal of cephalopod biology still existed. In the litterature, I came accross a few papers published in this journal but after a search on the web it seems not to exist . Does anybody have some info ?
Here's what WorldCat has to say about locations. There are probably a lot more libraries that have it that don't share their collections with OCLC.
CA CALIFORNIA ACAD OF SCI v.1-v.2 1989-93
CA STANFORD UNIV LIBR
CA UNIV OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
CA UNIV OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA
FL UNIV OF MIAMI, RSMAS LIBR v.1-v.2 1989-1993
MA MARINE BIOLOGICAL LAB/WOODS HOLE OCEANOG v.1-v.2 1989-1993
NY AMERICAN MUS OF NATURAL HIST vol: 1- 1989-
SC COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON
WA NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERV, NW
NL MEMORIAL UNIV/NEWFOUNDLAND, ELIZABETH II
NS DALHOUSIE UNIV, KILLAM LIBR
ON LIBRARY AND ARCH CANADA, ABS
That's not to say that an online 'journal' could not be developed, or, if people were interested, a comparable hard-copy journal - basically desktop publishing.
I think that this would be a great idea. To keep the price down you wouldn't be talking the fancy gloss pages of modern journals, but a bound hard copy could be very easy to produce. All it requires is articles; I would draw the line at describing new taxa in it - at least until it became established (several volumes in).
How about the launch of the first issue at TONMOcon?
If you have something that you'd like to have read, and to have preserved in perpetuity, then send it to me. If I had 10 papers I could get it run off in no time (after editing), and then mailed off to contributors and interested parties alike.
It might be best to ensure a continuous source of articles so that you can publish it regularly. I don't know if you would send a copy of the proof to the Library of Congress and get an ISSN number for it, but it is free. Would you bother with any sort of peer review or just accept anything that looks decent?
Because this is a rather friendly site, and because many of the members aren't 'scientists' so to speak, it wouldn't be fair to people to subject them to the same sort of editorial review that more-formally published papers receive.
A more formal peer-reviewed journal would not accept any manuscript for publication if it has been published elsewhere (in full), and for some journals, in any substantial part. Obviously a TONMO journal would not be an appropriate journal in which to publish ground-breaking news (for the scientific community). HOWEVER, it would be an appropriate place for science folk to publish abridged versions of earlier-published works. It would also be an excellent journal for non-scientific folk to publish their first and subsequent articles.
It would be peer-reviewed in the sense that Kat or I would review those articles covering subject matter with which we were familiar, and I'm sure that there are other members online, experts in their respective fields, many moderators and other members, that would assist in the review process.
What I'm trying to say is that we wouldn't be publishing rubbish (not that anyone would submit anything like this). It needn't be full of scientific jargon (personally I find such papers exhausting to read); simple English is preferred (so nobody need worry about this).
For the journal to survive a supply of articles would be necessary; this is the gamble, but I believe a worthwhile gamble. It might not be the world's most regular journal, but for us it would be a great resource.
I think it's a great idea! Would the articles be ranging from ceph care, culture to biology but also recipes & others ceph related stuff? Or would you like it to be more restricted? Also, I think it be would be interesting to have review articles. students, generally have to submit essays that reviews a specific field. If someone feels his essay is well constructed, critically reviews the topic and could be interesting for others to read, why not publish it in the TONMO journal? Of course it will be related to cephs!!
I'm for all for this (ceph care, culture, biology, fossils, and ceph-related stuff), but my instant reaction to accepting 'recipes' as articles was a definite 'no'. Then I paused for a breath and thought 'why not'. Another breath later and I thought 'hold all recipes for a special recipe edition' (rather than mix a recipe with a behavioral paper, or one dealing with culture), and a few breaths later I thought of theme-related issues, but I don't think that there would be sufficient input for such an issue at any given time, and that we'd have to be less selective and publish what we have, as and when it was submitted.
After passing out with all of this hyperventilation, waking up with my tongue resting on the letters f, g, v and b on the keyboard, I guess recipes would be ok, but I'd prefer an article to include a review of a particular ceph-cooking technique than something that just lists contents for a meal, a pinch of this, sprig of that, bake at x°C/F for y minutes, toss a handful of this, stir for q minutes and serve......