|
Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads:
|
I.Overture: The Subversive Proposal
II.The Discussion
Begins
The first response to Harnad's proposal was swift, practical: an offer by a
systems administrator to house a comprehensive scientific electronic publishing
system. A brief exchange about level of support took place. For the reader,
the discussion here emphasizes that the problems with enacting such a
large-scale vision are not technical but social.
III.Who is
Responsible?
Does the responsibility for scientific and scholarly findings lie at the
grass roots with individual scholars or should there be institutionalization
and centralization -- or both? Nobel Prize Winner Joshua Lederberg, looking to
the practical uses of more and better information that the scientist can use,
introduces the idea of institutional rather than discipline-based archives.
From the library community, encouragement to recover some control over the
economic fate of faculty products; then discussion of the place of the large
learned societies in the publishing landscape ensues.
IV.What Does
Electronic Publishing Cost?
Discourse by a leader from the American Chemical Society, one of today's
largest and most electronically seasoned publishers, takes the discussion to a
new level and adds specific detail of costs and economics to the conversation.
Whether electronic publishing will be cheaper or more expensive than print on
paper, at least in the near term, is an important underlying question.
V.Suggestions and
Strategies
Several scientists contribute. One is a long-time editor of a substantive
electronic newsletter for computer scientists and shares his economic
perspectives. Another volunteers to promote the Harnad proposal. Another, a
creator of the World Wide Web, comments and offers encouragement for the
future. Yet another sees a role for the European Community. Striking is the
consensus of the proposal's proponents that practical actions can take
precedence for the time being over broader considerations.
VI.Reprise
Ginsparg and Harnad return to speculation about the practical elements of
the proposal. The first of a series of responses from the library community
follows.
VII.E-Journal
Publishing; Infrastructure Investments
The American Chemical Society's Lorrin Garson returns to the discussion with
detailed comments about the significant planning and investment course the
Society has already taken in moving into non-print publication. He makes the
case that scaling up and sustaining production require considerable thought and
infrastructure support. More numbers are introduced; Harnad differentiates
esoteric publication from other sectors of the information market.
VIII.A Researcher's
Perspective
Andrew Odlyzko of AT&T Bell Labs, himself a proponent of similar
enterprises, joins the discussion as a third strong voice after Harnad and
Ginsparg and presents an essay about staging the transition to electronic
scholarly journals.
IX.A Librarian
Speaks
One of the proponents insists that moving to electronic journals is a more
simple process than other discussants believe to be the case. Richard Entlich,
a librarian at Cornell, with substantial hands-on experience in implementing
online journals for university researchers, shares his experience and points to
the complexity of the publishing landscape and the interrelated nature of the
various parts.
X.Reprise --
Prima Facie Worries
For several years, Harnad has spoken out about objections to electronic
publishing that he sees as ill-founded. Here he takes the opportunity of a
contribution to this discussion to review those worrisome issues.
XI.A Librarian's
View from Europe
Bernard Naylor is the University Librarian at the University of
Southhampton. He initially joined the discussion through a paper
coincidentally written at about the moment the "subversive" discussion was
beginning. This section begins his various contributions to the subversive
proposal.
XII.Graffiti,
Esoterica or Scholarship?
A return to a question of distinguishing "publishing" from other forms of
network-public discourse. What seemed fairly simple in the world of print (for
example, knowing the difference between a publication and a private letter)
begins to be more complicated in a medium where formal discourse and chit-chat
flow in the same pipeline. Does "esoteric" do justice to the significance of
scholarly publishing?
XIII.E-Journal
Costs and Editorial Costs
The question of costs returns to the fore, arising from a proposal for a
specific project. The question is taken up of what and whether editors should
be paid. A university press journals manager contributes some current,
real-world information to the discourse on editors and editorial offices. One
of the undoubted inefficiencies of the present journal system is the delay and
redundancy introduced by a distributed and publication-linked practice of
peer-review, re submission, and limited acceptances.
XIV.Journal
Publishing Systems and Models
Bernard Naylor, who entered the correspondence with a paper he wrote for
another forum, now offers extended remarks that take up the issues of the
whole series. His new contribution views the journals publishing system
holistically and takes up issues such as prestige, pressure to publish,
conservatism of authors and publishers, and the prognosis for acceptance of
electronic publications by all the players in the current academic information
chain.
XV.Brief
Discussions -- Format, Economics, Submissions
Several messages pick up various topical threads that arose earlier in the
discussion.
XVI.The Collapse of
Traditional Journals
Frank Quinn, a mathematician at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University and a member of various American Mathematical Society
decision-making committees, adds a further voice foreseeing radical change to
the discussion.
XVII.Systemic and
Structural Costs -- Networks & Connectivity
A wider context for costs is invoked. How cheap will the infrastructure be?
How expensive is a good network? Will universities and scholars have to pay
more? How much?
XVIII.Citations and
Citation Frequency
The measure of use that is most easily quantified on a national or
international basis is "citation frequency." This group of messages began
during the net-wide subversive proposal discussion and then some of the
discussants picked up the topic about two months after the main body of the
conversation ended, for further probing. Not every message in the sequence
went to the public lists directly; there was more discussion among individuals,
with some of those postings occasionally being referred to the wider audience.
In this regard, a rudimentary kind of editing and peer review is already taking
place.
XIX.More on Costs
-- of Digitization
Some new evidence is presented suggesting that the costs of digitization, or
at least compression, may be shrinking. In order to prepare this book for
publication, the editors artificially cut off a discussion that still continues
at the time of final proofs (May 1995) and shows no likelihood of ending for a
long time.
Return to Office of Scholarly Communication
© Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC
Last Modified: April 9, 1998