[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: fixed archival responsibility?



While I find this alternative use of the term annoying, it least it seems to connote on-going value -- an improvement over the computer folks who considered "archiving" the removal of "dead" or obsolete information to off-line storage.  At our institution, promotion and tenure policies now reflect the problem of archiving e-journals.  Any refereed e-journal article you want to count towards promotion and tenure must have an archiving policy and procedure in place (in fact you have to include it in your dossier).  Without it, your article is considered ephemeral.

I've also run into the usage in the science and technology fields where they have "archival" journals vs. current and topical journals.  Articles in the former are considered more substantial and of long-term value, whereas those in the latter are just of current interest and likely to be superseded in a couple of years as research progresses.  This first came to my attention in a Univ. P+T committee meeting when someone said of a nuclear engineer "He hasn't published in any archival journals."  I couldn't imagine why a nuclear engineer would be publishing in American Archivist or Archivaria.  In the privacy of the coffee break I learned of this distinction.  I'm not sure if this is where all those journal titles like "Archives of Otorhinolaryngology" come from as well.

Lee Stout

At 11:07 AM 5/26/00 -0500, Lee Miller wrote:

I was wondering if listserv members had any reaction to the use of the terms
"archiving," "preservation," and "fixed archival responsibility" in this
way.


 
  *********************************************************
  Lee Stout, Penn State University Archivist ---- ljs@psulias.psu.edu
  104 Paterno Library, University Park, PA 16802
  Voice:  (814) 865-7931 ----- Fax:  (814) 863-5318
  ***********************************************************