February 2, 2001
Submitted by Betsy Peck Learned, Co-Editor
(401) 254-3565 (Fax)
Stephanie C. Sigala, St. Louis Art
Betsy Peck Learned, Roger Williams University, Co-Editor
Eileen Markson, Bryn Mawr College, Copy Editor
Joan Stahl, Smithsonian American Art Museum, Review Editor
At ARLIS/NA Headquarters:
Elizabeth Clarke, ARLIS/NA Executive Director
Michael Birklein, Production Manager
The Editorial team met in Pittsburgh at the 2000 ARLIS/NA Annual Conference to discuss current production issues.
Stephanie Sigala took a leave of absence in Fall, 2000 due to new job responsibilities at her institution. She will be helping to acquire content for the Fall, 2001 issue but will not be participating in editing of that issue. Eileen Markson has been indispensable in helping with the editing of content.
ARLIS/NA is currently conducting a search for the replacement of the co-editors for content. Both current co-editors have participated in the search process by revising the job description and suggesting candidates for consideration. It is hoped that new editors will be appointed by Fall of 2001.
v. 19 #1: Spring, 2000. Theme: Plus Ca Change, Plus C’est la Meme Chose
This issue was published in April, 2000 and celebrated the new millenium with an eclectic mix of articles reflecting both the new and old in art librarianship.
v. 19, #2: Fall, 2000 Theme: The Real World of Virtual Art.
This issue was the first one published with ARLIS/NA’s management firm Clarke Associates. The process was an unusually long one due to Clarke’s misconception that Art Doc was slated to achieve a "new look." Undoing the new look that was presented in the first set of galleys took much time for all the editors. To complicate matters further, problems with the mailing house made receipt of the publication by members erratic and quite late. While some members received their copies in early January, others received their copies only this past week.
However, there were also some improvements to the publication process. Galleys are now sent to the editors via pdf files, thereby cutting down on the time and expense of sending paper copies by FedEx. Although reproducing illustrations was problematic at first, the production people were able to iron out all problems quickly and professionally. If publication and mailing can be kept to the production schedule in the future, we are confident problems should be minimal.
v. 20, #1: Spring, 2001. No theme
Articles for this issue were submitted two weeks ago to Ion Communications. They include, among others, several articles dealing with controversial issues such as erotica, research on a gay Nazi era artist, and a provocative article examining the pros and cons of dual degrees for librarians.
All editors have participated in the work of the Publications Committee this year. Stephanie and Eileen attended the committee’s annual meeting in Pittsburgh last year.
Stephanie coordinated the reworking of the Art Doc Contributor Guidelines and the Art Doc Production Manual to assist the new production team.
Images of book jackets were added to the print version of the magazine, and "Brief Reviews" were added to the review column, as a way of increasing the number of titles that can be reviewed in each issue.
Issues for the Board:
Timeliness of publication and mailing is our utmost concern at this time. We will be informing the Board of any continuing tardiness that occurs at any point in the production process. An additional concern was the lack of communication between Elizabeth Clarke and the editors over the reasons for the Fall issue’s delay in publication. Only after several e-mail messages to her did she respond that there were problems with the mailing house.
Publishing reviews on AWS has been a frustrating endeavor this past year. Two years ago Joan requested and got Board approval for the redesign of this area of the Web site, but both past and present management firms have not addressed her requests. Joan has also been unsuccessful in getting the firm to post images of book jackets to the "Reviews on the Web." We are hopeful that these improvements to AWS will be made this year by the new AWS Editor, Jonathan Franklin.
The Editors request the award of an
annual honorarium to the Review Editor, comparable to the awards of all
other editors, including the Art Doc [Content] Editors, the Copy Editor,
the Update Editor, and the Occasional Papers Editor. The responsibilities
of the Book Review Editor have changed over the past year in the following
1. The Review Editor contacts and requests images from publishers for publishing with reviews in Art Doc and on AWS.
2. The Review Editor prepares image files for printing in Art Doc and posting to AWS.
3. The Review Editor prepares html files of the reviews for posting to AWS.
4. The Review Editor works with AWS staff to make reviews (current and past) more accessible on the Web site.
5. The Review Editor participates as an equal member of the Art Doc team in reviewing all guidelines, procedures, and editorial decisions.
We are hopeful the Board will be able to appoint new content editor(s) during the coming year.