PART 1
Please excuse the l-e-n-g-t-h (22K) of this post. If you respond
PLEASE DON'T HIT THE REPLY BUTTON - the bane of discussion lists -
and thereby inflict it yet again on subscribers (as well as those on
the "cc" list).
In his PhysLrnR/Phys-L post "PER CENTRAL (Digital Library) request
for features" Bob Beichner (2003) wrote:
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Bruce Mason (AAPT's Physical Sciences Resource Center Director) and I
are putting together a proposal to the NSF's National Digital Library
Initiative <http://nsdl.org/render.userLayoutRootNode.uP> . . .[I
have corrected Bob's bogus URL). . .] Our proposal would fit into the
AAPT/AIP/APS/AAAS (already funded) effort called COMPADRE . .
.[COMmunities for Physics and Astronomy Digital Resources in
Education]. . .
<http://www.aip.org/education/sps/networking/compadre_info.htm>. The
idea is to create a virtual place where PER practitioners can find
resources and tools to help them with their R & D efforts and PER
users (e.g., teachers, administrators, etc.) can find helpful
guidance. The NSF funding would be for two years. After that it has
to be self-supporting."
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
After suggesting many valuable features that might be made available
on PER CENTRAL (Community Enhancing Network for Teaching, Research,
And
Learning) and indicating the Herculean tasks involved in implementing
such a project, Bob got to the interesting part:
"You have probably already guessed that this could be the home of an
Electronic Journal Of Physics Education Research. (Anybody have a good
acronym? . . . [DAPER (Digital Access to PER)]. . . . . . The rapid
growth of our field is also our Achilles Heel. If we don't have a
place where all the newly-hired PER faculty can publish, there won't
be any newly-tenured PER faculty in a few years!"
Then too, in my opinion, the lack of an archival PER counterpart of
the "Physical Review" seriously impedes the progress of PER. I am
painfully aware of this because the sad suppression of Hake (1998b)
with its extensive data tables, case studies, references, and
footnotes has led to continual misunderstandings, misrepresentations,
misinterpretations, unjust criticism, and under-utilization of the
quantitative and qualitative data of Hake (1998a,b); as well as
misunderstanding of the Socratic Method [see footnote #39 of the
suppressed Hake (1998b)].
In a PhysLrnR post "PER Requires an ARCHIVAL Journal" Hake (2002b) I
wrote [see that post for the references]:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
"In my opinion, serious consideration should be given to the
establishment of a FREE, scholarly, peer-reviewed electronic journal,
perhaps along the lines of 'Conservation Ecology'
<http://www.consecol.org/Journal/>, a journal of integrative science
and policy research established in 1993 . . .[featuring a readers'
comment section for each article].
I have yet to hear any SUBSTANTIVE arguments as to why such a journal
cannot or should not be established. In fact Bob Beichner (2001), in
a moment of weakness (insanity? drug overdose?) actually suggested
that he might be willing to oversee such a project.
In Hake (2001b), I responded to comments by Joe Redish on costs of an
electronic journal; Scott Franklin (2001) on the scholarly
credibility of articles published in ejournals; and Bob Beichner's
(2001) "random brain dumps" on (a) the need for an archival journal,
(b) whether or not PERS should be aimed only at researchers, and (c)
the costs of an ejournal.
The exchange regarding the scholarly credibility of articles
published in ejournals is as follows:
Franklin (2001): "An issue, raised during the PER committee meeting
at the Rochester meeting, is the credibility a free electronic
journal has with tenure-review committees. The general feeling was
that committees were less likely to recognize the peer-reviewed
nature of a free journal."
Hake (2001b): "The issue of the scholarly credibility of articles
published in ejournals and the evaluation of electronic publications
by tenure review committees has been raised repeatedly over the years
during discussions of PER publication possibilities. It's possible
that PER committee members at the Rochester meeting weren't aware of
recent science citation evidence (Lawrence 2001, Fosmire & Yu 2000)
for the rapidly increasing impact on science fields by free
ejournals. Increased credibility of PER might result from the
increased impact afforded by free electronic publication." See also
Holling (2001).
The exchange on the archival aspect is as follows:
Beichner (2001): "If the journal is not archival, respected (by
those inside and outside the PER community), and useful then it is
not worth the effort it would take to make it happen."
Hake (2001b): In my opinion . . .(PERS). . . . is NOT archival. .
.(see, e.g., Hake (1998b). . . . in the sense that the "Physical
Review" (PR) is archival. PR publishes almost all substantive data
which is regarded as reliable, regardless of the Editor's and/or
referees disagreements with its interpretation. The PR mode of
publication helps to build a "community map" (Redish 1999); PERS
suppression of data-filled articles does not.
Perhaps the need for an archival PER journal should be discussed:
a. yet once again on PhysLrnR,
b. at the AAPT Boise Meeting, 3-7 August 2002.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
As far as I know, the possibility of an archival PER journal was NOT
discussed in regular sessions of the AAPT Boise Meeting. However,
after Duncan McBride's Plenary talk "NSF Support for Physics
Education Research and Related Activities at the Undergraduate Level"
I voiced my oft-expressed opinion (see, e.g., Hake 2001a,b; 2002b,c)
that a PR-type archival journal was the most crucial current need of
PER. I asked him if NSF support might be a possibility and, if so,
could it be continued past the start-up phase. He answered YES to the
first part and NO to the second part of the question. After the
session Duncan told me privately that NSF would be interested in a
proposal for initial start up of a journal.
BTW, I once set up a mini-digital library (Hake 1999) devoted only to
"REsearch, Development, and Change, in Undergraduate Biology
Education" (REDCUBE). However, it was generally ignored, possibly
because its acronym didn't measure up to COMPADRE or CENTRAL.
I have taken the liberty of placing the REDCUBE "Epilogue" in the
APPENDIX because it contains some cogent quotes on the need for a
"Digital National Library for Undergraduate Science, Mathematics,
Engineering, and Technology Education" (NRC 1997).