Editorial

EDITORIAL Readers' indulgence is requested for the appearance of this issue, which marks a transition from one word -processor-printer to another. Used in this issue are some of the fonts available to the Macintosh ImageWriter combination. By the time of the Winter issue we hope to have a standard format, using either an impact printer or a LaserWriter facility. The first article in this issue has not been put through the new process but has been reproduced directly from the authors' printout. One reason for doing so eliminates the possibility of copyist error while reducing editorial labor. A more important reason is that the new inventory of symbols for ASL handshapes and facial elements proposed by its authors can thus be introduced to readers appreciably earlier than would otherwise be possible. For this reason also the paper has not been submitted to the usual review process: unlike research reports, an inventory of symbols for writing a sign language needs to be tried and evaluated by its potential users, who alone can judge whether it meets their needs. Comments on the typography, format, legibility, and appearance of this and earlier issues will be appreciated. Long term readers know, and others may be interested to learn, that Sign LanguageStudies first appeared (Nos. 1-5) under the Mouton imprint) and set on an IBM electronic typesetting machine at the Indiana University's Center for Studies in the Language Sciences. One article in No. 7 (June 1975) was set on an IBM Executive typewriter with proportional spacing, the typography used regularly from Fall 1975 through Winter 1982. From Spring 1983 until this issue, an Apple computer and a series of short-lived daisywheel impact printers produced the copy for the cameras of the offset printing firm we use (most recently St. Mary's Press). With this issue we make another innovation, which may be continued if it finds favor. Ten of our 55 issues are out of print. A number of the most cited articles from them are reprinted in Sika & Culture;others remain accessible only in a few provident libraries. We propose therefore to offer experimentally in this issue, and future issues if you like, reruns of selected out-of-print articles. The last article in this issue, first published in SLS 10, remains a model of design, execution, and reporting. Fall 1987 5S.5 56 EDITORIAL Readership Survey: First Returns As of August tenth, thirty of the questionnaires sent with Sign LanguageStudies have been returned. Although the number is small (There has not yet been time for returns from the many isssues mailed overseas), the answers are, to say the least, encouraging. As editor and potential colleague (see last paragraph ), I am most grateful. All respondents want SignLanguage Studies to continue, some adding: The field still needs its primary journal... The only place such materials ISL Books] are reviewed... Journal is used & appreciated by students in our rehabilitation & counseling programs...(A librarian) In reference to competition -- the recent appearance of SLrelated articles in other journals; one respondent writes: ...a fair number of published studies ... contain methodological errors, inadequate reviews of the literature, poorly stated questions, misconceptions of deafness, and farfetched conclusions based on flimsy data. Many of these appear in the so-called prestigious journals; e.g. [deleted]... Due to the very nature of Sign Language Studies quality control is assured. This is a major consideration that favors the continued support for the principal focus of SLS. Four out of five of the respondents checked one or more boxes in part IV, thus assuring the editor of a source of help, and the readership of a broadening of the peer-review base. If some of those who have not yet responded are working on papers they will soon be submitting, the smooth continuation of our joint labors will be assured. To all, My thanks, wVCS SLS 56 Fall 1987 ...