On Fri 5/26/00 11:28 AM, Marc Wolfe [rmejournal@YAHOO.COM], posted the following message to the RECMGMT-L@LISTS.UFL.EDU.

On May 4 I mentioned to the listserv that I was in the planning stages of publishing an E-journal for RM. While we are still working out some of the details of format, editing, and frequency of publication for this journal, along with certain other legal niceties, the basic premise remains the same: our perception of this venture is that it will provide a venue for the publication of RM-related

issues from any or all points on the RM spectrum by persons wishing to write and to share about their own particular area of expertise, but who find the process of publishing through the more conventional means of existing publications either too daunting or perhaps too far removed from the practical world of RM.

Our project has entered the market research phase. We are soliciting not articles but article *proposals* at

the address RMejournal@yahoo.com. Our purpose is to establish that we have enough would-be authors to make this a viable product. If you would like to write an article, please send us a message briefly describing your topic, its scope, a projected word-count, and date of availability.

Based on your input we will make our decision on when to launch, and possibly frequency of publication.

Below are criteria for acceptable submissions. You should use them to determine if your topic is appropriate, and if we accept your proposal, the journalistic level of expectation you will have to meet to have an article published.

Marc Wolfe Publisher, Records Management E-Journal

The requirements which have to be met in order to have

an article published are, we think, substantially fewer than you will encounter from other publications. Principally, these requirements are as follows:

1. Your topic MUST be RM-related. We will use a very liberally defined lens to examine submissions, and we acknowledge willingly and gladly that RM is a multi-faceted persuasion/profession, so much so that one would almost have to intentionally TRY in order to come up with some topic which was not in some way, shape, or form RM-related; and no doubt someone will. We won't be publishing it unless it has demonstrable RM connotations.

2. Your work must be your work. Co-author and collaborate with whom you will, but plagiarism and other forms of thievery will of course not be tolerated.

3. A passion for your topic is expected; libel and slander, however, are two passions we must do without.

Ad hominem attacks, even when they fall well within the parameters of non-libelous, non-slanderous ntellectual debate, are going to be perceived by the readership as personal vendettas and consequently boring, so we ask that you adhere to passion to your heart's content, but to keep it "Marquis of Queensberry": no punching below the belt, no blind-siding.

4. Experience and instincts are valuable assets of all Records Managers, and opinion is first cousin to both.

Therefore, we do not preclude from publication an article which relies very strongly on one's own personal experiences and opinions. We do require at least a nodding acquaintance with elementary logic insofar as stated conclusions are concerned, but this does not suggest that we must AGREE with either the conclusions themselves or the opinions that went into their formation, only that they must make sense to the

reader.

5. Lengthwise, our only requirement is that you be reasonable and that you do not ramble. Think in terms

of the listserv; in that venue, the idea is now and always has been to make a large salient point with a small number of words; of course, not everyone has always managed to actually DO this. In this forum, however, articles should be as long as is necessary to

make your point, to illustrate it with an appropriate number of hypothetical examples and/or real-life experiences, and to form either some convincing conclusions or some thought-provoking questions. If that can be done in 2,000 words, so be it; if it cannot be done in less than 20,000 words, so be that, too.

6. The purpose of communication is to make an understandable point, the operative word being "understandable". The reader will want to be spoken to as a peer, as a colleague, even perhaps as a friend. He/she will not want to have to wade through reams of pseudo-intellectual puffery in order to determine what

you are talking about, and no doubt will not consent to do so. Therefore, we ask that you employ common, everyday English, and that you in fact BE "understandable". To that end, we will have your articles read in advance, and we reserve - indeed, insist on - the right to make suggestions which we feel will make your article more "understandable". This should in no way be perceived as implied censorship as to content or conclusions; only that we wish to produce a journal that is readable.

If the intellectual and creative needs of the RM community were already being met by the existing forums and publications of that same community, we would not be contemplating embarking on this project. However, past discussions, some of them quite recent, have brought to the forefront a certain feeling of discontent from some members of the profession - or in any event from some subscribers to the Recmgmt listserv - where these aforementioned forums and publications are concerned, and that is the niche we hope to address with this journal: topics of day-to-day concern to RMs everywhere, written by RMs who have considerable experience - real-life, NOT hypothetical - where those

same topics are concerned, and who have both a desire to memorialize their respective professional experiences in writing, AND to share it with their colleagues in the profession, in the spirit of collegiality and of furthering the prestige and influence of Records Management in the broader community of the business world at large.

Jerome Kendall Managing Editor, Records Management E-Journal

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000