> I think that I would be very critical of a paper that came to me for > review that had too many citations to email and not enough indication of a > deeper analysis. It really depends on the subject of the paper. Doesn't it? A paper surveying current opinions on a subject could legitimately use email and newsgroups as a major source. A paper analysing the development of thought in a subject would be doubtful if email was the major source. But as a former tutor said to me "if you use it cite it" (I can't remember his/her name, pers. com., 1982) of course if it was a chat in the pub with the Professor of Archaeology you dress it up as a 'personal communication'! -- Trevor Reynolds