Polling Our Readers: The Response

Polling Our Readers: The Response The shift to the right, globalization, and a slow economic recovery combined with cutbacks in government subsidies have dovetailed with new information technologies to create unprecedented, if not risky opportunities for journals and magazines interested in publishing electronically. Many positive changes already have occurred in aid of research dissemination, from a shift towards a more paperless office (the legacy of electronic mail and desktop publishing) to networks, bulletin boards and World Wide Web (WWW) sites on the information highway. Some of these changes have led to greater speed, efficiency, accessibility and cost-effectiveness (such as using electronic mail when dealing with assessors, authors, readers and subscribers), but others, for the technologically literate no less than for the Luddite, are tremendously time-consuming and offer little in return. And not all of these changes allow journals to retain full control over their "product," production process or revenues. To "market" a scholarly journal's contents on the Internet raises as yet unresolved issues of copyright and text integrity: the "hype" about electronic publishing notwithstanding, a journal's quality, accessibility and revenues could be compromised. The savings that should accrue from publishing electronically are vastly overestimated to the extent that printing, paper and postage still count for less than labour costs, and there is no reason to believe that editorial labour is lessened by going electronic - ifanything, the reverse would apply, particularly if one also wishes to retain a print version. Refereed electronic journals, especially those conceived and designed exclusively for the new medium, do possess their merits. However, these should not be confused with the so-called merits of supposedly "inevitable" funding policies whose effect, whatever their intention, likely would be to rationalize the operations and, indeed, the numbers of surviving printjournals. Thatsaid, there is no reason why - ifnew andadditional funding can be found for new and additional projects (that is to say, not at the expense ofexisting programs and budgets for more ''traditional" formats) - electronic applications such as making available online, for example, a journal's back issues, an up-to-date and searchable index, and upcoming tables ofcontents should not enhance the survival of the printed, bound volume. But let us not underestimate the real exigencies of such start-up costs. Feeliilg the need to address such issues, we decided to poll our readers, to whom we feel accotIDtable, by means ofa survey circulated with theVolume 29, Number4 issue. Overwhelmingly, the response obtained was, in effect, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" From a circulation of about 1200, of whom well over one third are international subscribers, about 10 percent (125) returned the questionnaire despite the lack of a stamped, self-addressed envelope. While their responses may not be representative, they are quite revealing. Before summarizing these, a statistical breakdown ofrespondents ' profiles might be useful. Of the 125 respondents, 73 claim currently to use or will be accessing the Internet Of all respondents, the bulk consists of academics (over half), librarians (17) and students both graduate and LIDdergraduate (16), although we Journal ofCanadian Studies Vol. 30, No. 2 (Ere 1995 Swnmer) 3 also heard from a few actors, archivists, composers, high school teachers, independent scholars, publishers, Trent alUilUli and freelance writers. Eleven are American, six European, and eight francophone. Not everybody answered all questions, but61 (about halt) fell into the 3049 age range (including many graduate students and ix:ut-time or ses&onal faculty), followed by 42in the50-09 range, nine under 30and twoover70. Despite the fact that 58.4 percent are or soon will be on the Internet, almost all indicated a very strong preference for bound, print journals, citing portability, ease of access, and pleasure in handling, and objecting to eyestrain, the cost of downloading and the difficulty of browsing when dealing with online versions. Several reminded us that journals possess a dual function: that of a data bank, or information more usefully accessed electronically, and that of a book, a tangible object read for pleasure and stimulation. More comments were stimulated by the need to preserve the latter function than by the need to develop the former. One reader stated "I spend much of my day staring at a screen...