[Esip-preserve] potential NYT editorial on data

[Robert Downs]

Submitting to EOS seems like a good idea to me.

Thanks,

Bob

Robert R. Downs, PhD
Senior Digital Archivist and Senior Staff Associate Officer of Research
Acting Head of Cyberinfrastructure and Informatics Research and Development
Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN),
The Earth Institute, Columbia University
P.O. Box 1000, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964 USA
Voice: 845-365-8985; fax: 845-365-8922
E-mail: rdowns at ciesin.columbia.edu
Columbia University CIESIN Web site: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu
ORCID: 0000-0002-8595-5134

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Peter Fox via Esip-preserve <
esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:

> As the EOS ESSI editor, a reminder is that AGU has a strict anti-dual
> publication policy, so a "slight variation" is not going
> to be allowed.
> Having said that, if EOS is a route you want to follow, I can facilitate
> that process.
> Regards,
> ---Peter.
>
>
>
> > On 4 May 2017, at 13:45 , Hampapuram Ramapriyan via Esip-preserve <
> esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:
> >
> > Matt,
> > An opinion article in Eos sounds good to me. But since the reason for
> submitting it to NYT was so that a broader audience would read it, I also
> wonder if we should try the Washington Post. Also, sending to both a
> liberal and a conservative paper (may be slightly different versions) might
> be usefful.
> > Rama.
> >
> > From: Esip-preserve [mailto:esip-preserve-bounces at lists.esipfed.org] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Mayernik via Esip-preserve
> > Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 10:38 AM
> > To: esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> > Subject: Re: [Esip-preserve] potential NYT editorial on data
> >
> > Hi all,
> > I have not heard from the NYT, so according to their auto-response we
> can assume they do not want it. Any suggestions for next steps? EOS is an
> obvious possibility, but anybody want to argue for something else?
> > Matt
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Matthew Mayernik <mayernik at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
> > Thanks all. I did submit the article this afternoon. The submitted doc
> is attached for your reference. I added a basic preliminary title, but the
> NYT op-ed guidance says that NYT will choose the title, so that's not
> important. They sent me an auto-response that said that we should know
> within 3 business days, and that if we don't hear by then, we can assume
> they don't want it and submit elsewhere.
> >
> > Thanks again for all of your input,
> > Best,
> > Matt
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Parsons, Mark <parsom3 at rpi.edu> wrote:
> > Well done, sir. You demonstrated exemplary inclusivity, leadership, and
> compelling writing.
> >
> > fingers crossed.
> >
> > -m.
> > On Apr 28, 2017, at 19:34, Matthew Mayernik via Esip-preserve <
> esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> > Thanks for all of your input. I've gone through your comments and edits
> and have a much improved draft. As I mentioned, I think timeliness is more
> important than the exact wording at this point, so I'd like to call it good
> enough, and ready to submit. I'll try to get it in today, not soon enough
> for this weekend, but potentially for next week if they like it.
> >
> > Also, I've had a few side conversations about authorship. I don't know
> NYT policies on authorship, but if they accept, I will work with them to
> find some way to indicate the group authorship, either in the by-line or as
> an added sentence somewhere.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Matthew Mayernik <mayernik at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I've put together a potential submission to the New York Times as a
> follow-on to our data rescue document. Mark Parsons and Ruth Duerr provided
> a very helpful first edit.
> >
> > Given that the chances of being accepted are very slim, and largely
> hinge on the timeliness of the topic, at this point I'd ask that you focus
> any feedback on 1) factual corrections, and/or 2) key calls to action, e.g.
> what would we hopefully want people to do as a result of reading the
> article. If it is accepted, the NYT would have major input in the final
> column, so wordsmithing at this stage isn't necessary. For these reasons, I
> made the doc comment-only.
> >
> > Please do send any objections, however, to the idea of doing a NYT
> editorial in the first place.
> >
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SGJnqaSqOK8UGsTATAicyTH_
> W5rmBW6lSSZ8vLvN4iA/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> > Best,
> > Matt
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Esip-preserve mailing list
> > Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> > http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Spam
> > Not spam
> > Forget previous vote
> > _______________________________________________
> > Esip-preserve mailing list
> > Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> > http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-preserve mailing list
> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/esip-preserve/attachments/20170504/a0923e90/attachment-0001.html>