[Bell Historians] Learned Journal

[Dickon Love]

GD:

> I see in todays RW (29.11.02 p 1203) in the report of the Library
> Committee that a technical journal is proposed...

I strongly agree with the comments made by both Messrs Dawson and 
Cawley. 

DJB:

> Personally, I DO think that a journal would be a good idea.
> Historical articles in the RW are inevitably limited in number and
> length as the journal has to encompass all of the diverse aspects
> of ringing. 

To be honest, I think the number published is limited by the number 
of contributions. Obviously there is a limit, but I am sure that 
Robert would agree that we haven't reached it yet.

> Also, most writers of historical articles (myself included) tend to
> make RW articles readable for those with only a passing interest in
> bell history. If there was a specialist journal, there would be no
> problem with using jargon.

I understand the jargon, but find articles that immerse themselves in 
jargon tedious to the extreme. It is therefore good practice to write 
in as readable a style as possible. I think any author writing with 
the RW readership in mind is likely to produce better articles 
without compromising the content.

> I'm not a subscriber to the RW so I haven't yet seen this week's

Shame on you! :)

In summary though, I think the balance we have is a good one:
1. Article in the RW -> If more detail is needed that can't be 
accommodated by the journal then the article can refer to further 
reading which can be:
2. A web site (which can be albeit transitive)
3. An article in another specialist journal (e.g. archaeology)
4. A book.

If you miss out step 1, you stand little chance of promoting 
readership to steps 2-4. It also puts the RW at risk, and that would 
be a bad thing.

DrL