=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  EDline Vol. 6, no. 44     (4 November 2001)

  Editorial mailing list (digest version)
  Published by the Electric Editors
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  Contents:

         Business matters
  [4fe]  Invoicing 'extra' Internet research
  [4fg]  Tracking systems

  [6]    Just for fun

  [8]    Administration

  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


---[4]  Business matters ----------------------------------------


** [4fe] Invoicing 'extra' Internet research

         Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001
         From: Kim Mahn, kimatcam@mahn.clara.co.uk

Assuming that you've agreed an hourly rate with a maximum fee,
how do other members account for on-line Internet research time
(e.g., resolving incomplete/inaccurate references, government
work, legal/technical material, etc.)? 

One publisher suggested that I might add a separate,
'miscellaneous' sum to each invoice -- but, then, what do other
members suggest would be an appropriate figure? Is this standard
practice, or do other members simply increase the overall fee to
reflect additional costs such as this?


         ---------------------
         Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001
         From: Alex Gray, wordworks@gairloch.co.uk

Surely if you've agreed a maximum fee, then the only correct
thing to do is go back to the client as soon as it is clear that
you need to breach the maximum, and explain what the extra is for
and agree a rate for it. In my experience, as long as the reasons
are explained and are reasonable, clients have no problem with
this.

If they do not wish the extra work done, ask for a written
confirmation that they want you to apply a lower standard of care
than you would normally think proper, and do not do the extra
checking work etc.

Out of interest, do you feel, as implied by the question, that
extra work done online should be treated in some differently than
any other work that is extra to the original scope of the deal? I
don't see why it would be.


         ---------------------
         Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001
         From: David Ibbetson, isserlis@home.com

As so often, it depends on what you've agreed in the contract.
(If the contract isn't in writing the courts will decide what
you've agreed -- That's expensive and tends to make bad blood.)

The contract should specify how such "extras" are to be charged
-- but that's for the future. Any and all the suggested methods
can work and, from what has been said, are in use.

What's been said about fees over the years shows that employers
want a fixed price, while contractors prefer "time plus". However
you account for unexpected extra work, make sure that you don't
undercharge.

Does the NUJ or somebody else recommend a standard contract? If
so, use it.


         ---------------------
         Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001
         From: Miranda Barker, wordwiseed@aol.com

I tend to agree that work done on line is comparable to work done
in a static physical library of your own, or someone else's
compilation. Extra in terms of time taken but not in terms of the
essence of the work. 


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


** [4fg] Tracking systems

         Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001
         From: Jane Moody, JMoody@rcog.org.uk

Can anyone recommend a manuscript tracking/peer review package
that is not about to go bust, just gone bust, or is not
unsupported - and doesn't cost the earth? I have been reviewing
several but only Scholar One seems to be still going strong - and
they look too expensive for us! We looked at two recently, after
which they both went to the wall - was it something I said??



---[6]  Just for fun --------------------------------------------


        Piffling trifles, no. 21 

Facetious and abstemious contain all the vowels in the correct
order, as does arsenious, meaning "containing arsenic."



---[8]  Administration ------------------------------------------


EDline is a discussion list about editorial and business matters
for members of the publishing community. It focuses on issues of
interest to professional editors, proofreaders, typesetters,
writers and those in associated jobs.

To post to the mailing list via Topica, use the following
address:

  EDline@topica.com

For digest subscribers, please post your EDline messages to:

  bywater@ntlworld.com


* Accented characters:

When writing accented characters, please adopt the following
convention to show the accent after the character:

  /    acute
  \    grave
  ^    circumflex
  ~    tilde
  "    umlaut/diaeresis
  ,    cedilla
  %    o slash
  aa   a ring
  sz   German double s
  |    long s
  _    line above letter


* Homepage and back issues:

Visit the Electric Editors at:

  < http://www.electriceditors.net/ >

Archives of the EDline automated discussions can be found at:

  < http://www.topica.com/lists/EDline >

All messages contributed to EDline, whether automated or digest
versions, are archived on the Electric Editors' Website. These
archives can be found at:

  < http://www.electriceditors.net/EDline/ >

  ---------

  ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those
  of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect
  the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. **

  Articles (c) 2001, by individual contributors
  Design (c) 1996, 1997, 2000 Iain Brown
  Compilation (c) 2001, Iain Brown / The Electric Editors

  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  END OF EDline 6.44

  Next digest issue: 11 November 2001
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=