Mainstream Academic Acceptance of USENET
Dr. Albert Hybl UMAB-BIOPHYS
hybl at umbc3.umbc.edu
Thu Sep 5 08:47:50 EST 1991
The following e-mail message is being posted for Professor
>>From uucp Wed Aug 28 14:06 EDT 1991 remote from mbph
>>From wpi.WPI.EDU!phillies Wed Aug 21 23:20:10 1991 remote from umbc3
>Received: by wpi.WPI.EDU (5.65/4.7)
> id AA10420; Wed, 21 Aug 91 23:20:05 EST
>Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 23:20:05 EST
>From: umbc3!wpi.WPI.EDU!phillies (George D. Phillies)
>Subject: Scientific Computing
>I believe the sci.sci-computing group was to be a discussion of
>languages/styles group, not just a program store.
>How many top scientists think that any newsgroup is worth reading? An
>excellent question, perhaps as significant as anything I have seen on
>the net other than Kahaner's reports on computer research in East Asia.
>I suspect the answer is small. To refer to our common discipline,
>sci.phys is occasionally infested with UFO crackpots, conspiracy
>theorists convinced that Detroit is suppressing high-mileage cars,
>et extremely tedious cetera. The comp groups are much better.
>I recently circulated a review article/preprint (which is *not* common in
>my field: complex fluids, especially polymer and biopolymer solutions)
>and included my EMAIL address (which I've only had for a few months).
>I had one response via EMAIL, and suspect that sci.* readership is
>smaller than EMAIL usage. (I confess that I have little use for EMAIL
>other than occasional notes of this style, and arranging lunch dates with
>my collaborator at Clark U across town.)
>A recent issue of Science or Nature claimed that in some fields large
>parts of the research communications were now done via EMAIL, so that
>mere readers of preprints were cut out of activity, while journal
>articles were primarily archival. For the physical sciences, I find this
>a bit hard to believe. I certainly do not see anyone communicating
>any scientific data via newsnets, other than FLASH astronomy announcements
>(lets me look for aurora). Actually, in my field (which may be a bit
>odd, for all I know) journals are still the main path of data communications,
>with only a few colleagues circulating preprints.
>I have occasionally considered contributing actively to sci.phys or sci.chem
>(I was previously a Chemistry faculty member, at UM), largely to keep the
>undergraduates pointed in the right direction. It may not contribute to my
>vita, but it may qualify as teaching.
>You are welcome to post any or all of this; I haven't worked through
>methods for posting directly to the net.
> Sincerely yours
> George Phillies
> Professor of Physics
> WPI, Worcester MA 01609
More information about the Bioforum