Thought that I would get this put over onto a new thread. I am not sure that we can have three referees VAD; perhaps two might be enough for now. One of the ideas that I had years ago was to get the "older" engineers to write short notes on interesting projects that were geared to how to get the engineers to think; and, perhaps, say: "Damn, that sounds like my situation." To this end, I will contact Fred Matich (former Geocon President) Vic Milligan and John Seychuk of Golders, Chuck Brawner and a few others and see if they might be interested in this type of paper/submission. I would give us credibility to be able to have some of these well-known PRACTICING engineers in the fold for a few notes. Also, we should check into getting recognized (later perhaps) for the purpose of practicing engineers getting continuing education points by submitting papers. Some thoughts there. I would suggest that all can contact me directly and I, along with SRE, can co-ordinate efforts, etc. put together a mailing/address list of our members (if anyone would object, then please advise).
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
ETJPE Home Thread
- Thread starter BigH
- Start date
SlideRuleEra
Structural
BigH - As you mentioned in your post, I have been checking on the potential of an author receiving Continuing Education Credits (PDHs) for having a paper published by ETJPE. Turns out that, in the US, getting ETJPE "approved" is not a problem - if we have and enforce reasonable requirements for publication. There is NO approval process.
The (US) National Council of Examiners for Engineering & Surveying (NCEES) has published guidelines for "Continuing Professional Competency". I have put both a summary & the entire document on the "Ghost Web Site". In a nutshell, individual state boards typically do not preapprove any "source" of PDHs. Upon publication of a "qualified" paper the author may "claim" 10 PDH.
The (US) National Council of Examiners for Engineering & Surveying (NCEES) has published guidelines for "Continuing Professional Competency". I have put both a summary & the entire document on the "Ghost Web Site". In a nutshell, individual state boards typically do not preapprove any "source" of PDHs. Upon publication of a "qualified" paper the author may "claim" 10 PDH.
SlideRuleEra
Structural
MRM - Good point, we do have time to consider that factor. Mccoy touched on this subject in the other thread.
We seem to be leaning toward posting a "batch" of papers at the same time. Then getting another set ready for the next release. This lends itself toward having discrete "issues" of the journal. I tend to favor this concept. The old issues will still be readily accessible, but can be archived "as-is" and put out of the way.
Exactly how things look will probably be limited by my skills as a webmaster - but I'm learning & willing to try various concepts. The "Ghost Web Site" (thanks for coining that term) is just to give a general idea of what we can make happen. I do volunteer work as a sort of "graphic designer" using these same general skills. It's not too difficult.
Should have comments on your paper back to you tommorrow (Wednesday).
We seem to be leaning toward posting a "batch" of papers at the same time. Then getting another set ready for the next release. This lends itself toward having discrete "issues" of the journal. I tend to favor this concept. The old issues will still be readily accessible, but can be archived "as-is" and put out of the way.
Exactly how things look will probably be limited by my skills as a webmaster - but I'm learning & willing to try various concepts. The "Ghost Web Site" (thanks for coining that term) is just to give a general idea of what we can make happen. I do volunteer work as a sort of "graphic designer" using these same general skills. It's not too difficult.
Should have comments on your paper back to you tommorrow (Wednesday).
That sounds good concerning the comments, SlideRuleEra. I appreciate your time.
Discrete issues of the journal sounds good to me as well. Now, I was picturing each "issue" including several papers, each in pdf format. Were you also thinking pdf? It seems to load up easily, it "holds" the original author's format well, and it is easy to print. Although maybe there are those who do not have Adobe...
I've honestly never seen an online version of an existing technical journal, so I wouldn't know how they are formatted. I've only really used the hard copy versions. How do most journals have their on-line versions formatted?
Discrete issues of the journal sounds good to me as well. Now, I was picturing each "issue" including several papers, each in pdf format. Were you also thinking pdf? It seems to load up easily, it "holds" the original author's format well, and it is easy to print. Although maybe there are those who do not have Adobe...
I've honestly never seen an online version of an existing technical journal, so I wouldn't know how they are formatted. I've only really used the hard copy versions. How do most journals have their on-line versions formatted?
The format is usually .pdf because it can't (theoretically) be modified. I don't know if other formats are catching up.
Of course the adobe format conversion software should be in possess of the editor or the webmaster, if not of the author. Reading it is no prob though, the reader is freely available, and a link to it is usually provided by the webmaster. For those who have the password (I don't), ASCE geotech is online as well, but usually the e-version of the paper journals is a scanned copy of the original, a purely electronic magazine is not so constrained.
I was considering: even if the lenght is not much relevant in an e-magazine, maybe a page limit should be applied to avoid excessive redundancy. And what about attachments? The possibility of adding extra material (pics, equations, test logs and results, software, ...)beyond the page limit is a definite advantage of e-journals and should be taken advantage of.
At the beginning maybe better not to set up too a rigid release schedule, until the procedure is well tested.
Of course the adobe format conversion software should be in possess of the editor or the webmaster, if not of the author. Reading it is no prob though, the reader is freely available, and a link to it is usually provided by the webmaster. For those who have the password (I don't), ASCE geotech is online as well, but usually the e-version of the paper journals is a scanned copy of the original, a purely electronic magazine is not so constrained.
I was considering: even if the lenght is not much relevant in an e-magazine, maybe a page limit should be applied to avoid excessive redundancy. And what about attachments? The possibility of adding extra material (pics, equations, test logs and results, software, ...)beyond the page limit is a definite advantage of e-journals and should be taken advantage of.
At the beginning maybe better not to set up too a rigid release schedule, until the procedure is well tested.
I thought I sent a response to MRM but maybe not. The pdf format is used to publich electronically for reasons stated by MRM and Mccoy. However, for reviw of papers the word format is generally used until the final version is required. Generally, the editor organizes for publication. In our case if all is okay then the author can provide the final pdf.
MRM did you receive my coments on your paper. I sent same to your e-mail address given on paper. If you did not, I can resend.
I have passed on to SRE and Big H ASCE journal review information which is available on geo-institute web site. Type in geo-institute on net search and you can access same.
Regards
MRM did you receive my coments on your paper. I sent same to your e-mail address given on paper. If you did not, I can resend.
I have passed on to SRE and Big H ASCE journal review information which is available on geo-institute web site. Type in geo-institute on net search and you can access same.
Regards
SlideRuleEra
Structural
Good points being dicussed.
Mccoy - I have given thought to putting software downloads on my existing web site. To date have talked myself out of it because of the real potential that the software results can easily be misused, "garbage in - garbage out". I am not comfortable with that prospect.
Converting Word, Excel, Photographs, etc. into Adobe .pdf is no problem. Freeware from this link does a nice job As for attachments, if it can be printed (on paper), it can be converted (directly - not scanned) to .pdf format.
Adobe .pdf documents can be "locked" with a password to control use of the document, but it is a false sense of security. There are at least three different ways to get around that, with freeware. (I don't DO this kind of thing, but have stumbled onto how it can be done).
About existing on line technical publications, there are some good ones out there (stiff competition). Here are some examples:
<
<
or, take your pick here <
Mccoy - I have given thought to putting software downloads on my existing web site. To date have talked myself out of it because of the real potential that the software results can easily be misused, "garbage in - garbage out". I am not comfortable with that prospect.
Converting Word, Excel, Photographs, etc. into Adobe .pdf is no problem. Freeware from this link does a nice job As for attachments, if it can be printed (on paper), it can be converted (directly - not scanned) to .pdf format.
Adobe .pdf documents can be "locked" with a password to control use of the document, but it is a false sense of security. There are at least three different ways to get around that, with freeware. (I don't DO this kind of thing, but have stumbled onto how it can be done).
About existing on line technical publications, there are some good ones out there (stiff competition). Here are some examples:
<
<
or, take your pick here <
Folks,
Not wanting to rush you, please let me comment on the discussion thus far:
First, I very much concur with SRE about pdf995. It does a fantastic job and is accessible to any application that can output to a Windows printer.
Second, the USACOE publications on line have several download options for each publication. These include the entire document with all appendices and bells and whistles. Alternatively, one may also download an individual chapter or appendix. I propose that large digital data objects (photos, charts, data tables, etc.) that are useful but not critical to the paper in question be made available as a separate download from the "core" paper itself.
Good luck with the journal!
Jeff
Jeffrey T. Donville, PE
TTL Associates, Inc.
Not wanting to rush you, please let me comment on the discussion thus far:
First, I very much concur with SRE about pdf995. It does a fantastic job and is accessible to any application that can output to a Windows printer.
Second, the USACOE publications on line have several download options for each publication. These include the entire document with all appendices and bells and whistles. Alternatively, one may also download an individual chapter or appendix. I propose that large digital data objects (photos, charts, data tables, etc.) that are useful but not critical to the paper in question be made available as a separate download from the "core" paper itself.
Good luck with the journal!
Jeff
Jeffrey T. Donville, PE
TTL Associates, Inc.
SlideRuleEra
Structural
VAD has requested that a typical "Procedure for Reviewing Papers and Technical Notes" be posted on the Ghost Web Site (GWS) for all to review. Here is the link to the GWS
The home page link to "Peer Review & Publication Requirements for ETJPE" will take you there.
jdonville - Thanks for the input, please continue to contribute.
The home page link to "Peer Review & Publication Requirements for ETJPE" will take you there.
jdonville - Thanks for the input, please continue to contribute.
- Thread starter
- #12
I'm glad, thanks to MRM, we are starting more interaction. I will send SRE the "format" of conference papers here in India's IIT; it is simple and would be perfectly okay for us. I think that we should have the Eng-Tips icon on the document in, say, the left hand corner and a "Foundations by Terzaghi" logo on the right hand side. Haven't really thought of one yet but perhaps Foundations holding up Terzaghi??
T
E
R
Z
A
G
H
I
FOUNDATIONS
but hopefully much fancier. Could have a pressure bulb below foundations. (But let's not tip the Terzaghi to appear like the Strathscona Grain Elevator distress.
PDF is the way to go - at the end. VAD is right that review and editing is best done in word or wordperfect. MRM is right in that not everyone has access to acrobat for printing but it is good to know that there is a freeware out there. Of course, over here . . . We will need to ensure a legal version of whatever software we will use.
Anyway - I do propose SRE as the Webmaster - hopefully by acclamation. For the other, each of us can give some thought to it and will come later. I'll post the "conference" format for you in next day or so. I'm glad that authors can get pdh's out of this - we need to be good enough to make all sit up and take a look!
One other idea I have is to request eminent (read that old timers???) engineers for a guest paper etc that might give an interesting facet of their viewpoints/experience/etc. More later - but, this boy has got to sleep! I might be able to get Fred Matich, Vic Milligan among others on stream in this regard (if you are Canadian Geotechs you would know them).
Chao
T
E
R
Z
A
G
H
I
FOUNDATIONS
but hopefully much fancier. Could have a pressure bulb below foundations. (But let's not tip the Terzaghi to appear like the Strathscona Grain Elevator distress.
PDF is the way to go - at the end. VAD is right that review and editing is best done in word or wordperfect. MRM is right in that not everyone has access to acrobat for printing but it is good to know that there is a freeware out there. Of course, over here . . . We will need to ensure a legal version of whatever software we will use.
Anyway - I do propose SRE as the Webmaster - hopefully by acclamation. For the other, each of us can give some thought to it and will come later. I'll post the "conference" format for you in next day or so. I'm glad that authors can get pdh's out of this - we need to be good enough to make all sit up and take a look!
One other idea I have is to request eminent (read that old timers???) engineers for a guest paper etc that might give an interesting facet of their viewpoints/experience/etc. More later - but, this boy has got to sleep! I might be able to get Fred Matich, Vic Milligan among others on stream in this regard (if you are Canadian Geotechs you would know them).
Chao
SRE, that's a great start. It looks like we'll need some biographys at some point... It looks like the whole "process" is coming together. I second the nomination of SRE as the webmaster. The logo idea is very promising as well. Is there a way to make the word "foundations" have a sort of concrete look to it? BigH, I think it would certainly be a great way to begin to have someone as you mentioned agree to participate. I believe I just listened to Vic in Minneapolis in February of this year...
How's that for some random comments/thoughts this evening?
How's that for some random comments/thoughts this evening?
I've just posted a message in the other thread and I began having some additional thoughts for the journal;
I've thought about it, and I believe the kind of feedback I received will set this journal apart from the others. If we just do little things that were just done for me, like acknowledging receipt of the work, and perhaps giving very brief updates for papers that will take extra time to review, I think we'll have tremendously improved the process of submitting a paper.
I realize we're not trying to run a conventional "customer is always right" business with hosting a journal and not every paper may be suitable, but what I think we do owe the future authors is to simply let them know a)how their paper can be improved and published, or b)why it can't be accepted. That along with just brief updates as mentioned above. I think we're on the right track, based on the trial run with my paper.
Here's one more "journal structure" question for you; Will we eventually have the reviewers be anonymous? Should we have them known so that the author can interact more effectively? What is the convention in the technical journal world? My vote would be to have the chance to have some online discussion with the reviewers, unless there's a good reason not to. So far, that's worked a lot better than the anonymous reviewer format with ASTM. That, I believe, led to a lot of confusion...
I've thought about it, and I believe the kind of feedback I received will set this journal apart from the others. If we just do little things that were just done for me, like acknowledging receipt of the work, and perhaps giving very brief updates for papers that will take extra time to review, I think we'll have tremendously improved the process of submitting a paper.
I realize we're not trying to run a conventional "customer is always right" business with hosting a journal and not every paper may be suitable, but what I think we do owe the future authors is to simply let them know a)how their paper can be improved and published, or b)why it can't be accepted. That along with just brief updates as mentioned above. I think we're on the right track, based on the trial run with my paper.
Here's one more "journal structure" question for you; Will we eventually have the reviewers be anonymous? Should we have them known so that the author can interact more effectively? What is the convention in the technical journal world? My vote would be to have the chance to have some online discussion with the reviewers, unless there's a good reason not to. So far, that's worked a lot better than the anonymous reviewer format with ASTM. That, I believe, led to a lot of confusion...
MRM,
usually the authors AND the reviewers don't know each other.
This for 2 basical reasons:
1- anonimity of the author avoids biases due to every conceivable cause: unknown guy, rivalry, nationality, sex, you name it
2-anonimity of referees avoids anger and harrassment against them if review is negative.
The editor is the only one who knows both sides.
Of course the above rules may not apply to the partecipants of this forum. If a more friendly and relaxed way is desired, it might well be as RMR suggest, preferably in an "organized" way; also, I remind you that "outsiders" may want to publish and in this case the basic rules of undisclosure of referees should be followed.
Also, the editor can be heard about prior impressions and judgment on the paper's feasibility for the magazine. He has the final judgment on publication. If I wanted to submit anything, I would ask him before, maybe sending an abstract or outline of what I mean to do, and follow eventual suggestions.
I doubt though this is going to be like Nature magazine, where only 1 out of 7 submissions are accepted on the average.
All suggestions given in the preceding posts seem sensible to me.
Thanks to SRE, who is going to devote time to the project as webmaster. Now, who is going to commit himself as editor-in-chief?
BigH, I think everyone would agree upon you, if you are willing.
usually the authors AND the reviewers don't know each other.
This for 2 basical reasons:
1- anonimity of the author avoids biases due to every conceivable cause: unknown guy, rivalry, nationality, sex, you name it
2-anonimity of referees avoids anger and harrassment against them if review is negative.
The editor is the only one who knows both sides.
Of course the above rules may not apply to the partecipants of this forum. If a more friendly and relaxed way is desired, it might well be as RMR suggest, preferably in an "organized" way; also, I remind you that "outsiders" may want to publish and in this case the basic rules of undisclosure of referees should be followed.
Also, the editor can be heard about prior impressions and judgment on the paper's feasibility for the magazine. He has the final judgment on publication. If I wanted to submit anything, I would ask him before, maybe sending an abstract or outline of what I mean to do, and follow eventual suggestions.
I doubt though this is going to be like Nature magazine, where only 1 out of 7 submissions are accepted on the average.
All suggestions given in the preceding posts seem sensible to me.
Thanks to SRE, who is going to devote time to the project as webmaster. Now, who is going to commit himself as editor-in-chief?
BigH, I think everyone would agree upon you, if you are willing.
I see what you mean about anonymity. Those are indeed good points, Mccoy. However, in submitting my paper to ASTM, it makes me feel like I should have had the option to also remain anonymous as well. I don't know ASTM's policy about author disclosure to its reviewers exactly, but maybe I should have left my name off the title page, and skipped the acknowledgement page until after had final comments.
I wonder if there's a way for us to maintain anonymity throughout the review, while at the same time being able to communicate our concerns about a paper via e-mail. That way, the author would have a better chance of having questions answered and vise versa. Perhaps that's not realistic if the review board is made known somewhere in the publication...
I wonder if there's a way for us to maintain anonymity throughout the review, while at the same time being able to communicate our concerns about a paper via e-mail. That way, the author would have a better chance of having questions answered and vise versa. Perhaps that's not realistic if the review board is made known somewhere in the publication...
Points taken re reviewers being unknown. This is how it is done by the ASCE journals. I would go along with SRE and BIG H for the recommended positions. One of the issues would be to have a roster of reviewers who would be knowledgeable in a variety of subject areas so that a paper can be sent to the appropriate reviewers. This may or may not be a simple task. We have to determine these people and their available time. One thing for MRM is that the names of reviewers are generally published in the December's issue of theJournal of Geotechnical Engineering,ASCE. Many of those you may recognize or know but you do not know to whom paper was sent for review. Many reviwers provide comments that would allow you to review your paper in a positive fashion, some do not.
One would have to solicit interest and then categorize reviewers wrt to subject area. At the inception, the editor-in- chief would have to do this work or it can be shared with aan Assistant. As the system grows then there would be a need for other editors similar to what ASCE does. WE should not get too complex but it eventually gets there.
One of the things we have to look at carefully is the type of papers that we are going to accept re the limitations of the review panel. The MRM paper is a good example. To many of us from a practicing view point the gist of the paper was good but to the ASTM reviewers this required re working etc - I do not know the details of their comments. I would suggest that we want papers on case studies in particular and things that would allow the practicing engineer to be able to readily adopt or to look out for in his/her day to day practice. The more academic stuff can be found in the other journals that already exist. I am not saying that we should not be open to such papers, but we may wish to suggest that such apaper may be more suited to so and so journal. Some initial thoughts only.
IOn an paper review it is unlikely that all reviewers would have the same comments unless the paper is well done. The task of deciding on acceptance is often a difficult one and sometimes the editor choses to reject ebased on the opinions of ony one reviewer. This can be redaily observed from review comments. It may be that he thinks that that reviewer is of better calibre than the others etc- all of these come in. What can be done is for the editor to have a discussion with the reviewers re circulating the comments of reviewrs to each other and perhaps asking for a consolidated final comment on the paper. I am not sure of how this will work practically and may be only required when there is some serious doubt based on reviewrs responses.
Since geotechnical engineering is more an art than a science we would also like to present/publish what some may feel has not met all the so called nicities. Remember this subject area was in existence a long time ago and most iof its development was based on work done even before Terzaghi's time by practitioners. He, however, saw the value of those works despite that some of those did not suit theories but worked. We are often still amazed how many things work related to the earth that our presnt day theories say they should not. We have to be careful not to stifle creativity or thoughts as sometimes occurs when submissions are made to the more established journals.
I think I have said enough or I may end up writing a philosphical paper. Over to you.
![[cheers]](/data/assets/smilies/cheers.gif "[cheers] [cheers]")
One would have to solicit interest and then categorize reviewers wrt to subject area. At the inception, the editor-in- chief would have to do this work or it can be shared with aan Assistant. As the system grows then there would be a need for other editors similar to what ASCE does. WE should not get too complex but it eventually gets there.
One of the things we have to look at carefully is the type of papers that we are going to accept re the limitations of the review panel. The MRM paper is a good example. To many of us from a practicing view point the gist of the paper was good but to the ASTM reviewers this required re working etc - I do not know the details of their comments. I would suggest that we want papers on case studies in particular and things that would allow the practicing engineer to be able to readily adopt or to look out for in his/her day to day practice. The more academic stuff can be found in the other journals that already exist. I am not saying that we should not be open to such papers, but we may wish to suggest that such apaper may be more suited to so and so journal. Some initial thoughts only.
IOn an paper review it is unlikely that all reviewers would have the same comments unless the paper is well done. The task of deciding on acceptance is often a difficult one and sometimes the editor choses to reject ebased on the opinions of ony one reviewer. This can be redaily observed from review comments. It may be that he thinks that that reviewer is of better calibre than the others etc- all of these come in. What can be done is for the editor to have a discussion with the reviewers re circulating the comments of reviewrs to each other and perhaps asking for a consolidated final comment on the paper. I am not sure of how this will work practically and may be only required when there is some serious doubt based on reviewrs responses.
Since geotechnical engineering is more an art than a science we would also like to present/publish what some may feel has not met all the so called nicities. Remember this subject area was in existence a long time ago and most iof its development was based on work done even before Terzaghi's time by practitioners. He, however, saw the value of those works despite that some of those did not suit theories but worked. We are often still amazed how many things work related to the earth that our presnt day theories say they should not. We have to be careful not to stifle creativity or thoughts as sometimes occurs when submissions are made to the more established journals.
I think I have said enough or I may end up writing a philosphical paper. Over to you.
- Thread starter
- #18
Colleagues and Friends:
I have no problem with editor-in-chief should our forum request.
One thing at this stage is to remember that we are a nice "friendly" group; actually a close knit group; not too many. I would hope that we don't go too "formal" - for the want of a better word. I believe that this is the selling point of our endeavour; we are geotechnical engineers for geotechnical engineers. As this forum started, the idea was to get those who seemed to have a desire to pass on their experiences to others - practicing gurus (not necessarily genius gurus!). As we are seeking papers from practitioners, we might not get the heavy theoretical (which is damn fine by me) that you will get in other journals. So, reviewers, initially from our group, are there to ensure that (1) the papers point(s) are well made and of useful interest (2) it reads well and is logical and (3) it is technically sound. Innovative case histories would be a plus.
Also, I would suggest that we all have "networks" - and have mentors who might be willing to review a paper from time to time - especially in light of the mentor's experience. As an example, I suggested to MRM that I can likely get Dr. I Holubec (whom he referenced) to review the paper as I worked with him for many years. I am sure that I can get Fred Matich, likely Vic Milligan and John Seychuk, Chuck Brawner to assist from time to time. I am sure our other members can add to this list.
The ETJPE should be for the profession - and papers would be accepted from any practicing engineer whether at the greyness of his career or a young whippersnapper biting at the beginning. I would posit that we can also consider professors if they can demonstrate at least 7 years of real engineering practice. This can add a bit polish on some subjects perhaps (say Paul Mayne if we are judging in situ testing). This is, a geotechnically oriented journal; however, relevant topics of concrete or steel from a materials point of view should be considered as many of our practitioners are also from materials labs, etc. Pavements (bitumen and concrete) are also welcome. We should also encourage contractors to write, not just consultants.
I would see that there would be several classes of papers that we should consider.
(1) "Invited Paper" where a known expert is requested to deliver a paper on a specific topic that the editorial (i.e., the Fdns-by-Terzaghi) members) might want to see. This might be on topics such as ground freezing,
(2)Full-blown papers that stand alone and would likely be 8 to 10 pages in length.
(3) Technical Notes that might be 3 pages in length that discuss a specific topic. (example, I have been meaning to write a technical note for years on a simplified method of determining the effect of a new foundation on the behaviour of an existing foundation - settlement approach - while it might not be a great paper, it is a concept of how you can carry out a quick back of envelop type of analysis that tells you if you have a problem or not - and without fancy computer).
(4) "wisdom" paper (better name?)- this goes along with an idea that I've had that requests the "grey hairs" of the profession (before they meet Terzaghi) to provide laid back reminiscences of their career with a point that might get other engineers to "bang their head and say, damn, now I see . . ." - story: Skempton once drove his top of the line Jag down into a deep highrise building excavation on a consulting mission. He was asked why he didn't drive down an old "clunker" instead of this expensive car. His reply was that by driving the Jaguar into the pit, the people he was meeting knew he knew what he was talking about. Perception of confidence! I'd love to hear from Jorj Osterberg; and sadly, we can't from Bjerrum, and many other "fathers" who are now discussing effective stresses with Terzaghi or idiosyncrasies of earth pressures with Coulomb!
(5) discussions - that I would suggest, as we will be an electronic journal, could be appended to the original paper so that it will all be together.
(6) finally, legal topics that might be of interest - cases, etc.
I agree with Mccoy that we should take advantage of the fact that pictures, etc. can be used better in electonic journals - there are ways to take a 1MB photo and "trim" to something like 250kB. There is also a possibility of video (but much much later!!!)
As for anonymity, for the first while, as we are a close knit group, we would all know among ourselves. Outsiders don't need to know - but we need to flesh this out. Again, the type of papers that we are wishing to have shouldn't have people up in arms as, say, more theoretical papers might have. As I had mentioned to MRM privately, when I had my geo reports reviewed by a very experienced senior geo in our firm, he bled all over it. Had it all fixed up (in the days before word processors) and then went to the company's principal engineer for final okay and he bled all over the bled over report. This is the process of reviews and checks in organizations - I welcome it and have always requested others to take a look (JHeidt did this for me on a paper I presented earlier this year here in India).
This is my thoughts on the direction of the ETJPE for your considerations. VAD and I just had a nice chat on msn messenger; any of us can discuss things there as well as here or say yahoo messenger. I would love to hear from you all as to whether my outline is in sync with your thoughts too. Too, we should have a few volunteers to take on specific tasks - e.g., layout of paper (I've an idea or two); sylizing a logo for us; format of the journal - I would suggest along the lines of DFI's conference proceedings or something like that. (Personally I like ICE's journals using section symbols in headings, but . . .). Deciding the number of papers/types as per my suggested thoughts (or modifications as by others).
As for timing, I would hope that we might be able to tie this down by mid-Aug or end of Aug into a working format which we could "mock" up sometime in September. Look for bi-monthly or tri-monthly issues at the start, say starting in November (we need to have some time to get 4 or 5 papers and a couple of notes or "wisdoms".
Gentlemen - living in India is an experience. My power just cut off. Have to close down. I hope that my thoughts given will help point us where we want to go.
SRE: I have a domain name that we could use - I've nothing up on it now - I call it Geotechs4Geotechs. If you want, we could use this - then find your host. By using a broader "name", we can later expand - who knows - the sky is the limit but might be something like even offering "courses by net" so practicing engineers can get pdhs without huge costs.
Chou - and best regards to all ----
I have no problem with editor-in-chief should our forum request.
One thing at this stage is to remember that we are a nice "friendly" group; actually a close knit group; not too many. I would hope that we don't go too "formal" - for the want of a better word. I believe that this is the selling point of our endeavour; we are geotechnical engineers for geotechnical engineers. As this forum started, the idea was to get those who seemed to have a desire to pass on their experiences to others - practicing gurus (not necessarily genius gurus!). As we are seeking papers from practitioners, we might not get the heavy theoretical (which is damn fine by me) that you will get in other journals. So, reviewers, initially from our group, are there to ensure that (1) the papers point(s) are well made and of useful interest (2) it reads well and is logical and (3) it is technically sound. Innovative case histories would be a plus.
Also, I would suggest that we all have "networks" - and have mentors who might be willing to review a paper from time to time - especially in light of the mentor's experience. As an example, I suggested to MRM that I can likely get Dr. I Holubec (whom he referenced) to review the paper as I worked with him for many years. I am sure that I can get Fred Matich, likely Vic Milligan and John Seychuk, Chuck Brawner to assist from time to time. I am sure our other members can add to this list.
The ETJPE should be for the profession - and papers would be accepted from any practicing engineer whether at the greyness of his career or a young whippersnapper biting at the beginning. I would posit that we can also consider professors if they can demonstrate at least 7 years of real engineering practice. This can add a bit polish on some subjects perhaps (say Paul Mayne if we are judging in situ testing). This is, a geotechnically oriented journal; however, relevant topics of concrete or steel from a materials point of view should be considered as many of our practitioners are also from materials labs, etc. Pavements (bitumen and concrete) are also welcome. We should also encourage contractors to write, not just consultants.
I would see that there would be several classes of papers that we should consider.
(1) "Invited Paper" where a known expert is requested to deliver a paper on a specific topic that the editorial (i.e., the Fdns-by-Terzaghi) members) might want to see. This might be on topics such as ground freezing,
(2)Full-blown papers that stand alone and would likely be 8 to 10 pages in length.
(3) Technical Notes that might be 3 pages in length that discuss a specific topic. (example, I have been meaning to write a technical note for years on a simplified method of determining the effect of a new foundation on the behaviour of an existing foundation - settlement approach - while it might not be a great paper, it is a concept of how you can carry out a quick back of envelop type of analysis that tells you if you have a problem or not - and without fancy computer).
(4) "wisdom" paper (better name?)- this goes along with an idea that I've had that requests the "grey hairs" of the profession (before they meet Terzaghi) to provide laid back reminiscences of their career with a point that might get other engineers to "bang their head and say, damn, now I see . . ." - story: Skempton once drove his top of the line Jag down into a deep highrise building excavation on a consulting mission. He was asked why he didn't drive down an old "clunker" instead of this expensive car. His reply was that by driving the Jaguar into the pit, the people he was meeting knew he knew what he was talking about. Perception of confidence! I'd love to hear from Jorj Osterberg; and sadly, we can't from Bjerrum, and many other "fathers" who are now discussing effective stresses with Terzaghi or idiosyncrasies of earth pressures with Coulomb!
(5) discussions - that I would suggest, as we will be an electronic journal, could be appended to the original paper so that it will all be together.
(6) finally, legal topics that might be of interest - cases, etc.
I agree with Mccoy that we should take advantage of the fact that pictures, etc. can be used better in electonic journals - there are ways to take a 1MB photo and "trim" to something like 250kB. There is also a possibility of video (but much much later!!!)
As for anonymity, for the first while, as we are a close knit group, we would all know among ourselves. Outsiders don't need to know - but we need to flesh this out. Again, the type of papers that we are wishing to have shouldn't have people up in arms as, say, more theoretical papers might have. As I had mentioned to MRM privately, when I had my geo reports reviewed by a very experienced senior geo in our firm, he bled all over it. Had it all fixed up (in the days before word processors) and then went to the company's principal engineer for final okay and he bled all over the bled over report. This is the process of reviews and checks in organizations - I welcome it and have always requested others to take a look (JHeidt did this for me on a paper I presented earlier this year here in India).
This is my thoughts on the direction of the ETJPE for your considerations. VAD and I just had a nice chat on msn messenger; any of us can discuss things there as well as here or say yahoo messenger. I would love to hear from you all as to whether my outline is in sync with your thoughts too. Too, we should have a few volunteers to take on specific tasks - e.g., layout of paper (I've an idea or two); sylizing a logo for us; format of the journal - I would suggest along the lines of DFI's conference proceedings or something like that. (Personally I like ICE's journals using section symbols in headings, but . . .). Deciding the number of papers/types as per my suggested thoughts (or modifications as by others).
As for timing, I would hope that we might be able to tie this down by mid-Aug or end of Aug into a working format which we could "mock" up sometime in September. Look for bi-monthly or tri-monthly issues at the start, say starting in November (we need to have some time to get 4 or 5 papers and a couple of notes or "wisdoms".
Gentlemen - living in India is an experience. My power just cut off. Have to close down. I hope that my thoughts given will help point us where we want to go.
SRE: I have a domain name that we could use - I've nothing up on it now - I call it Geotechs4Geotechs. If you want, we could use this - then find your host. By using a broader "name", we can later expand - who knows - the sky is the limit but might be something like even offering "courses by net" so practicing engineers can get pdhs without huge costs.
Chou - and best regards to all ----
SlideRuleEra
Structural
BigH - You have my vote as editor-in-chief.
I will be happy to be the webmaster... and with that, it is time for some "housekeeping business".
About the domain name, I have done some checking, and to my surprise Geotechs4Geotechs.com has already been registered. It is "parked" (not in use) and is offered for sale for $7.95 (US). All of the other common extenisons for Geotechs4Geotechs (.net, .org, .biz, .info, etc. are available). Suggest that we purchase a ".org" extension anyway, seems like most of the serious technical websites opt for this.
Could we consider a name that gives a little "wiggle room" so that Civil & Structural engineers (like me) would not be deterred from submitting papers? It would greatly increase our potential audience.
Concerning keeping ourself somewhat anonymous - it is extremely easy to find out exactly who registered any given web domain (takes about 2 minutes time & at no cost) What is revealed is full name, address, and more. Do any of you have some sort of "vague" alias & address (like a nickname & post office box) etc.? I don't. Payment for the domain name and web hosting is usually made with a credit card, but only the last four numbers are visible (I just checked my own account to verify this). Don't get me wrong - this is only about registering the domain name; I am willing to PAY ($$) my share and handle the webmaster duties.
About the ETJPE logo - today I was at my volunteer "Graphic Designer" job. Have a good start on the suggested logo, including MRM's proposed "concrete look" for the foundation. Should have a draft, for review, on the Ghost Web Site (GWS) in a day or two.
I will be happy to be the webmaster... and with that, it is time for some "housekeeping business".
About the domain name, I have done some checking, and to my surprise Geotechs4Geotechs.com has already been registered. It is "parked" (not in use) and is offered for sale for $7.95 (US). All of the other common extenisons for Geotechs4Geotechs (.net, .org, .biz, .info, etc. are available). Suggest that we purchase a ".org" extension anyway, seems like most of the serious technical websites opt for this.
Could we consider a name that gives a little "wiggle room" so that Civil & Structural engineers (like me) would not be deterred from submitting papers? It would greatly increase our potential audience.
Concerning keeping ourself somewhat anonymous - it is extremely easy to find out exactly who registered any given web domain (takes about 2 minutes time & at no cost) What is revealed is full name, address, and more. Do any of you have some sort of "vague" alias & address (like a nickname & post office box) etc.? I don't. Payment for the domain name and web hosting is usually made with a credit card, but only the last four numbers are visible (I just checked my own account to verify this). Don't get me wrong - this is only about registering the domain name; I am willing to PAY ($$) my share and handle the webmaster duties.
About the ETJPE logo - today I was at my volunteer "Graphic Designer" job. Have a good start on the suggested logo, including MRM's proposed "concrete look" for the foundation. Should have a draft, for review, on the Ghost Web Site (GWS) in a day or two.
- Thread starter
- #20
SRE - look up who owns Geotechs4Geotechs. It damn well better be me! It is parked as I've done nothing. Don't know how it is available for $7.95 - I'll send you my renewal notice separately along with the paper format I talked about. I also have a domain name Engineers4Engineers. Best regards.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question