 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Info Glut
|
||
|
John W. Moore
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706-1396 |
||
|
|
||
|
Note: |
This issue is out of print. |
|
|
|
||
|
Have you ever signed off from a bulletin board, list server, or news group because the volume of electronic mail it generated was just too great? I have, and I am pretty certain that lots of others have as well. There are wonderful technologies for shuttling information around--so wonderful that we are inundated with messages we may not need and do not have time to digest. It is important that we as a community of chemical educators develop effective means for handling the info glut that networked computers and other media make possible. The tremendous volume of information argues strongly that this must be a community effort, not the work of a single individual. As an example consider MacMolecule (1), which Ludy Mayer used to develop Solid-State Structures, one of the items in this issue. MacMolecule's authors have made it available to anyone who wants to use it, and it provides an excellent medium for displaying computerized images of the structures that can be built with the ICE Solid-State Model Kit (2). As I understand it, an important rationale for development and free dissemination of MacMolecule is that it provides a focal point for collecting, visualizing, and hence understanding more thoroughly structure data generated by many different research groups. One of the requirements for distributing MacMolecule freely is that all structure data files received with the program must accompany it whenever it is transmitted to anyone else. A tool like MacMolecule makes it possible for a community of researchers to share information in visual form. The program enhances the collective ability of a large group of people to handle what would otherwise be rather arcane data. (Tables of numbers representing positions of atoms in large molecules are not my idea of a good read!) It is also an excellent tool for students who need to learn about molecular structures. The kinds of things that can be learned and the ease with which some of them can be understood are greatly expanded. I certainly encourage all readers of this journal to add to the collection of data files provided with MacMolecule. The larger and more diverse that collection, the better it will be as an educational tool. We need many more tools like MacMolecule to help us find, organize, obtain, and make use of the tremendous volumes of information that currently are available through our personal computers and networks. But we need more than that. We also need checks on the information itself, to make certain that it is correct and complete. There is no point in using a tool like MacMolecule to create an excellent visualization of data that are incorrect or incomplete. Such a visualization may be worse than nothing, because it creates a powerful, memorable impression that is wrong, thereby generating long-term misconceptions that viewers will have difficulty overcoming. Careful evaluation and selection of information is crucial, regardless of the medium by which the information is delivered. Otherwise each of us is left to evaluate and select for ourselves from an ever growing stream of information--a process that most find so onerous and time consuming as to be impossible. In the past, peer review and editorial decision making have been the most common ways to achieve such evaluation and selection, but these are more likely to be bypassed when electronic dissemination of information is used. Indeed, some researchers are currently questioning the need for peer review, and many are exchanging preliminary results and interpretations rapidly by fax or Internet. In my view a great deal of value is added to information, whether it be research results or instructional materials, by careful reviewing and editing. Reviewing is of necessity an activity that brings little public recognition, but it is nevertheless of vital importance as part of the collective responsibility of scientists and science educators. It can be boring, frustrating, and disappointing, especially when the materials to be reviewed are of low quality or little value. But a reviewer who politely, firmly, and clearly defines both strong and weak points of a submission does a service to the community and often to the author of the material. Without a clear indication of why a submission is unacceptable, an author has no way of improving either that submission or any future work. Without careful selection of the very best materials for publication, subscribers to a journal can be overwhelmed by unnecessary information. JCE: Software was designed to provide peer review and editorial functions with regard to materials that will be delivered by electronic media. We have an Editorial Board and a large number of reviewers as well as an editorial staff that evaluates every submission. Many authors make extensive changes before a submission is published, and the editorial staff contributes a great deal of expertise toward providing thorough and clear documentation that tells teachers and students how to use published software. All of this takes time and increases the cost of what is ultimately sent to our subscribers, but we believe the final product is well worth the effort. Your evaluation of how well this is being done, and/or your interest in volunteering to help do it are welcome at any time. Literature Cited |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last Updated: April 26, 2001 Created: December 3, 1996 |
Created by: J. L. Holmes Comments to: jceonline@chem.wisc.edu |
|
|
|
| © 1997 Division of Chemical Education, Inc., American Chemical Society. All rights reserved. | |