- View SourceDear Colleagues,
Two items of business:
First, 14 years of SACC Notes are now digitized and available online
through AnthroSource. You might like to take a look at them if you
haven't already. Go to the AAA website and log in with your user name
(e-mail address) and password, then click on AnthroSource, then click
"journals." You'll get a list of all the AAA publications. Click on
ours, then select the issue. If you want to see a particular article,
click on the PDF notation and it will be downloaded to your desktop as
a PDF file. You'll see that the articles appear exactly as the printed
originals. I think it's kinda cool, really.
Second, Mel and I have been communicating with AAA staff and have some
information regarding AnthroSource costs and options that I'd like to
share with you. As you know, we'll need to discuss this issue at
length in Savannah and come to some kind of decision during 2005 about
how we want to proceed as a AAA section. Accordingly, I'm pasting
below recent correspondence and forwarding separately with attachments
a detailed cost and expense breakdown for SACC from (AAA Publications
Director) Susi Skomal.
Some of you have already received some of this correspondence and
others have not, and I'd like as many of our members as possible to
have this information prior to Savannah. Therefore, please forgive any
duplication. I know that not all of us will be in Savannah and I don't
know how many of our members read the SACC listserv. However, I think
that any e-mail discussion we can have prior to Savannah will only
serve us well.
From: "Melvin Johnson" <majohns1@...>
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 2:13:40 PM US/Central
Subject: AnthroSource--notes from AAA meeting
Okay guys, we have to make a decision at our meetings in Savannah. In
order to facilitate that process, I am enclosing the notes that I made
from my meetings with Sandy Berlin and Suzie Skomal, I am also emailing
them a copy of them so that they may correct anything that I may have
1. UCP is preparing their 2007 budget beginning this spring (April or
so) and if we go with UCP it will be in 2007.
2. If we go online in 2007, we must begin working with UCP in 2006.
3. The advantage with going through AAA, from their perspective, is
that there would be continuity in the event of editorship change.
4. Current budget for SACC Notes/Teaching Anthropology (in 2005) is
the following: Digital Publication expense (this is for the back
issues through 2003) to be maintained--this is an expense which we must
bear in perpetuity--$534; print publication expense with duplication,
postage, and editor expense totals $1,910 (is should be noted that we
have seldom used this entire amount)
5. Our issues from 1991 - 2003 were digitized with Mellon grant funds,
issues in 2004, 2005, and 2006, we will have to pay for at
approximately $4/article. This will increase the cost of our Digital
Publication expense by approximately 10 cents per page.
6. If we publish on-line with AnthroSource and continue to produce a
print copy as we are currently doing then the following additional
charges will apply. UCP Marketing and Administration Fee, UCP
Production and Editing Coordination Fee, and UCP Fulfillment Fee will
apply. (The approximate amounts for these fees I am not sure of at the
moment. But they are significant, we will also have to bear the cost of
coding which will also be the case if we have UCP print and distribute
the copies also.
7. If we wish to have UCP do the printing and distribution of SACC
Notes, the fees will be approximately $400 for composition, $800 for
printing, and $750 for distribution, plus anything we deem necessary
for the editor for telephone, postage, etc.
8. I asked S. Skomal about pressure upon SACC if we decide not to do
this. My concern is with the Mellon grant which in essence guarantees
that all print publications will be switched to online by 2006. AAA is
not consistent in their response to the situation of some publications
not going with AnthroSource. Some believe that as long as the peer
reviewed publications are converted then Mellon will be happy, some
insist that all need to be switched in order to meet the requirements
of the grant. I was assured by S. Skomal that no undue pressure would
be placed upon SACC if we opt out at this time.
9. Things which we must consider:
a. Current editorship--what happens when we change editors?
b. Continuity of editorship and technology
c. Copyright issues
d. Potential income from on-line sources
e. Effect on other SACC programs
f. Effect on the direction of SACC in the future
g. Effect on the dues of SACC
h. Effect on the "institutional memberships"
i. Effect on memberships in general--why stay a member?
j. Possible effect on SACC annual meetings and AAA invited sessions
k. Possible change to an interest group if membership stays below 250
for too long.
l. Change of priorities for resources
m. Change of relationship between SACC and AAA
I am sorry that I cannot give you exact figures on the costs for the
UCP overhead accounts and coding costs if we do only on-line, on-line
and print (non-UCP) and on-line and print (UCP). Hopefully S. Skomal
and S. Berlin can fill in the missing data.
My main concern here is the manner in which we are going to be paying
for this. We have several options including raising dues
significantly, raising dues slightly, dropping other activities such as
the annual meeting, invited sessions at the AAA meeting, pushing for
the sale of logo items, placing a minimum donation on the annual
meeting registration fee, there are many things that can be done. What
we have to decided by this coming meeting is precisely what are we
going to be doing in the future?
From: Lloyd Miller <lloyd.miller@...>
Date: Mon Jan 3, 2005 11:56:49 AM US/Central
Subject: Re: AnthroSource--notes from AAA meeting
Thanks so much for gathering all this information and putting it
together. Your listing of things to consider a through m posed some
important questions for SACC. I’ve been struggling these past few days
trying to reconcile who we are and what we do now as an organization
with who and what we’d become as a section with a digitized, on-line
I finally concluded that SACC is what it does. So, what do we do?
We hold an annual conference.
We produce a biannual publication.
We contribute a monthly section column in Anthropology News.
We coordinate a Current Issues in Anthropology-Five Fields Update
Symposium and occasionally one or two other invited sessions at annual
We maintain a web site and a listserv.
Except for some promising developments and networks in community
archaeology programs, other endeavors we’ve tried, such as expanding
membership, K-12 linkages and student scholarships, haven’t worked out
Next, I realized that not all AAA sections have publications. They
contribute AN section columns, conduct their business and enjoy all the
privileges of AAA membership, but are not currently faced with the
So, if our problem is what to do about our publication, what in fact is
SACC Notes? It is a hybrid publication, part newsletter and part
non-peer-reviewed journal. We publish articles and papers mainly on
teaching, some on research, occasionally a book review or a commentary.
Our SACC News section includes summaries of Exec Board and business
meetings, information about past and future conferences and
occasionally news about one or another member (e.g., someone’s new
book, program, award, etc.)
Articles/papers are almost all solicited (rarely do we get “over the
transom” submissions), and nearly all are SACC and AAA conference
presentations, including the Five-Fields. We generally receive enough
to make each issue, but hardly ever a surplus.
Then I considered the following:
Do the authors of these articles and papers really expect to be cited
in other scholarly works? Of course, we’d all like greater audiences
for our writings, but is this a major factor in choosing to publish in
Is there really any reason why SACC Notes should be digitized in
perpetuity? Frankly, in 15 years as editor, I can’t remember anyone
ever requesting a specific back issue or previously published article.
In other words, do we have any particular goals or plans for the
future that AnthroSource might help us to achieve? Do we desire to
change or become something other than what we currently are?
We’ve had largely successful, stimulating and enjoyable annual
conferences for nearly 26 years. We remain financially solvent and
have a current membership approaching 300. I think we could continue
as we are, doing what we’ve been doing, for some time. On the other
hand, some of the changes suggested either to generate income or reduce
expenses (such as dropping the annual meeting) in order to support an
on-line publication might cause SACC to simply fade away.
Even without knowing all the costs of AnthroSource, I think attempting
to have both an on-line and a print publication would be prohibitive.
Along with the added costs, we’d have to follow many rules and
restrictions set down by UCP and indeed would be conforming to a system
set up for peer-reviewed, scholarly journals. And none of the system’s
proposed benefits would really apply to us.
The editor continuity issue is worth considering. As you all know, I
produce SACC Notes on a home computer and Des Moines Area Community
College prints and mails it. SACC reimburses at the college’s cost,
considerably less than Kinko or other commercial printers charge, and
even less than AAA would have charged. Thus we’re inexpensive and
I have no plans or desire to quit in the foreseeable future (realizing
that for a senior citizen retiree, “foreseeable future” is usually
thought of a year at a time). However, what I do is not rocket science
and all my replacement would need is access to a computer, a desktop
publishing program and a similar arrangement with his or her college in
order to continue.
If we continue without participating in AnthroSource, we can still be
on line by placing our publication on our own web site. We have the
capacity and the personnel within our membership to beef up the web
site without appreciably increasing costs.
While I’ve made a case for continuing as we are, I’m willing to steward
the publication through the digitization process should our membership
choose that option. I’m curious about how it all works and interested
in seeing the outcome.
I agree that we must make this decision in Savannah. Accordingly, I
think we should find some way of seeking opinions from our membership
and discuss this via e-mail in the next few months.
From: "Melvin Johnson" <majohns@...>
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:25:11 PM US/Central
Subject: Fw: Small Section AnthroSource Discussion Group
Hi Lloyd, here are the minutes from our small section discussion group.
P.S. if possible we need to send them each a copy of our latest issue.
---------- Forwarded Message -----------
From: John Baker <JohnBaker@...>
To: majohns@..., Kideckel@..., chaiken@...,
borrek@..., hopgood@..., johnbaker@...
Sent: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:44:09 -0800
Subject: Small Section AnthroSource Discussion Group
I wanted to thank you all once again for finding the time in your busy
AAA schedule to meet for lunch and begin our discussion of how to best
ensure that our small sections and AnthroSource can get along and also
to consider how we as small sections should and can work to ensure that
we have a voice in the AAA and in any discussions of restructuring.
As you will recall, we covered a lot of issues, and not always in a
very complete manner. Just so that we can remember, here are a few of
the things we discussed (in no particular order):
1) the idea of a small section "journal" published on AnthroSource with
"working papers" and other contributions from more than one section
2) the question of who earns what from ads that might appear in our
3) whether hard copies of journals would still be desirable (we only
very briefly touched on this)
4) the constraints that UC Press places on us vis-a-vis content and
5) we also agreed to send one another copies of our various
publications. Since we passed out cards to one another, I won't repeat
the addresses here (nor will I remind you of who was present), but
write me if you need an address.
6) the desire for small sections to be represented on the
reorganization committee (or whatever it is called) by at least one
small section representative to the Section Assembly
Please help to keep this discussion going, and feel free to pass this
on to your journal editors, treasurers, other small section
representatives, etc. In view of the current sentiment for change, we
need to make sure that our combined voices are heard!
Thanks again, and if I don't see you at the meetings again, have a safe
and pleasant journey home!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]