From: Jim Kroger <>
Subject: 2nd RFD: sci.research.eeg
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.research, news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,,
Followup-To: news.groups.proposals
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:37:05 -0600

                      REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
                   unmoderated group sci.research.eeg

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
unmoderated Usenet newsgroup, sci.research.eeg.

NEWSGROUPS LINE: sci.research.eeg

sci.research.eeg	Science, technology, and methodology of EEG research.

RATIONALE: sci.research.eeg

Many scientists, clinicians, and engineers around the world conduct
electroencephalograph (commonly referred to as EEG) research, but
have no common forum in which to discuss the science, technology,
and methodology of conducting EEG research.

Electroencephalographs are records of electrical field perturbations
coincident to interactions among neurons in the brain. For decades,
varieties of research fields have employed EEG to better understand
various aspects of neurological, psychological, and pathological
function. Recent advances in EEG (all appearing since 1990), including
high-density digital EEG approaches and the study of synchrony have opened
technically advanced but very new methodological domains that call for a
forum in which researchers may provide mutual assistance.

The prevalence of such research is evident in the number of
professional, peer-reviewed publications appearing in professional
journals such as J. of Cognitive Neuroscience, J. of Neuroscience,
J. of Clinical Neuropsychology, J. of Topographic Mapping, Neuroimage,
and so on. The only online places for them to interact are the
EEGLAB mailing list, restricted to questions about the EEGLAB
software, various vendor- or product-specific groups set up on
Yahoo, restricted to users of those products, and the usenet
newsgroups, sci.psychology.research, and posts in assorted
usenet groups on Matlab, physics, and so on. The proliferation of
non-EEG related posts in these groups makes them too unfocused on
EEG to be useful to those seeking to communicate about the science
of EEG, and though numerous posts have appeared there, the frequency
is small relative to the volume of the groups. Yet, on the existing
newsgroups and forums, there are several posts asking about places
to interact and get technical help. A usenet newsgroup is an excellent
solution to meet these needs.


An RFD was posted to establish a newsgroup "sci.eeg," which after discussion,
was changed to sci.research.eeg.  Below are several comments that were made
in the ensuing 29 messages:

1.  Start the newsgroup under bionet. I didn't know if that was a better
solution than sci.research.eeg. The intention is to be used by researchers,
and I hope others agree that the location is logical for that.

2.  Remove technical explanations about the recent surge of EEG research.  
All but the two primary events that have caused this surge were deleted.  
These were retained to help in justification of the newsgroup, to help 
demonstrate that there are a lot of people who would benefit.

3.  It was suggested that the description of all the journals that publish 
EEG studies be omitted, and in general, the rationale be abbreviated.  This 
has been done.

4.  There was considerable discussion about the newsgroup name, sci.eeg. 
It seems pretty clear from the comments that a second level group creation 
is not justified. One person suggested sci.research.eeg, and this was 
adopted.  The change to sci.research.eeg solved this hierarchy problem, 
while also making the path a better description of what the group is about 
(thanks).  Sci.techniques.eeg was also suggested, but the group will likely 
have focii on theory and psychological aspects as well, so that may not be 
broad enough.  sci.neuro.eeg was also suggested and I equivocate about 
whether this is better than sci.research.eeg.  To be honest, I'm not sure 
it isn't.  But, "research" may keep out non-researchers better...don't 
really know on this, so am just leaving as is.  Also, it was mentioned 
this would be an "orphan."  It was asked whether the scheme fits with:


and actually it does, since the first three are other methods used to view 
brain function. However, as I mentioned, this would decrease theoretical, 
even philosophical, and psychologica discussions, I fear.

5.  It was explained how the search done for current/previous posting 
activity was pretty wrong.  It was also pointed out that work would have 
to be done to attract users to the group.  Agreed on both counts, and the 
stats were removed.  The commenters own search finding hundreds, rather 
than thousands of hits was no doubt much more accurate.  I wish I had the 
time to read every eeg result on a google search, but I've barely had time 
to pay attention to the basic newsgroup establishing process (I'm trying 
to get tenure). I did do a search for posts since August and got 1500 or 
so hits (see 8 below).  I'd say about 1/5 were relevant, after scanning 
the first 30 pages of hits.  I hope voters understand that I travel to 
conferences where thousands of eeg researchers visit, and I will promote 
the group online as well.  I participate in a couple online mailing lists 
for specific products that are widespread (a post on eeglablist will reach
several thousand eeg researchers, too bad the list is for eeglab 
discussions only).  I will be a hard working advocate for the group.  I 
can't guarantee it will fly, but I think it will.

6.  Suggestions about the charter were made to "just ban commercial posts.
Don't say "in violation of the purpose", but "off topic" or "banned" if you
want it to be enforceable."  This has been done.

7.  Another suggestion was "Why not encourage the posting of abstracts, 
though?  I don't see why you wouldn't want an author to announce that he 
got published.  That is a big deal in someone's academic life."  On 
reflection this is very true and this change has been made.  Thanks for 
suggesting that.

8.  The question was asked, "where are people posting about eeg now?. I've
scanned google results for this semester (since August). I used [(eeg OR
electroencephalograph)].  There are relevant posts, however, in, bionet.neuroscience, sci.lang,,
sof.sys.matlab, alt.philosophy,, sci.cognitive,
it.scienza.biologia. There were many more posts in various disease support
groups, new-agey groups, and such, which I don't include. There were also
many posts in European scientific groups, but not in English.


sci.research.eeg is a non-commercial usenet newsgroup for the purpose of
discussing the science, technology, and methodology of conducting EEG
research.  The focus is on the techniques, mathematical and statistical
approaches, engineering issues, and research methodology encountered
in EEG research, with the aim of providing peer-to-peer assistance in
this field.  Commercial posts, such as product or service promotions,
are banned.  Simple announcements of available products or services
from EEG-related organizations or enterprises are welcome, as long as
they are posted one time only.  Announcements of research-related job
announcements, books, and conferences are welcome, as are posting of
announcements of relevant publications.  Posting of binaries is not
permitted, with the exception of small digital signatures such as PGP.


For more information on the newsgroup creation process, please see:

Those who wish to influence the development of this RFD and its final
resolution should subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the
relevant threads in that newsgroup.  This is both a courtesy to groups in
which discussion of creating a new group is off-topic as well as the best
method of making sure that one's comments or criticisms are heard.

All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.proposals.
To this end, the 'Followup-To' header of this RFD has been set to this group.

If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the discussion
may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken to ensure
that all discussion appears in news.groups.proposals as well.

We urge those who would like to read or post in the proposed newsgroup
to make a comment to that effect in this thread; we ask proponents to
keep a list of such positive posts with the relevant message ID
(e.g., Barney Fife, <>).
Such lists of positive feedback for the proposal may constitute good
evidence that the group will be well-used if it is created.


This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:


The proponent will also post pointers to:



Jim Kroger <>


2006-09-01     1st RFD
2006-12-14     2nd RFD