Duranceau, E. & Harnad, S. (1999) Electronic Journal Forum:
Resetting Our Intuition Pumps for the Online-Only Era: A Conversation
With Stevan Harnad. Serials Review 25(1): 109-115
Department of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM
Ellen Finnie Duranceau
Assistant Acquisitions Librarian for Digital Resources
phone: 617 253 7562
fax: 617 253 2464
RESETTING OUR INTUITION PUMPS FOR THE ONLINE-ONLY ERA:
A Conversation with Stevan Harnad
Stevan Harnad, Professor of Cognitive Science at the University of
Southampton, has been--and continues to be--a visionary regarding
digital publication of scholarly journals. In a wide-ranging
discussion, we explored how his ideas about an electronic-only model of
scholarly publication have evolved in the half-decade since he first
elaborated them, including such topics as costs, archiving,
preservation, and the role of commercial publishers. Near the end of
the exchange, Harnad refers to the need for "demonstrations,
evangelism, polemics and subversion" to drive forward the changes he
sees as "the optimal and the inevitable for scholars and
scholarship;" here, he provides some of all four of these. Since
Harnad is the best articulator of his own vision, I will provide his
responses as they appeared in the interview, rather than digest them:
EFD: You've written extensively about how scholarly publication could
be redesigned for the digital world. Can you characterize your model
briefly for readers who may not be familiar with it?
SH: Very simple, though, based on experience, remarkably easily
(1) The model applies only to the refereed journal literature, not to
books, textbooks, magazine articles, best-sellers, films, etc. The
simple test is: Does the author get paid (whether by fee or royalties)
for the text? If the answer is yes, my model does NOT apply.
(2) The authors of the refereed journal literature, not writing for
fee, wish only to maximize the visibility and accessibility of their
(refereed, quality-controlled) work.
(3) Because of the genuine expenses of the paper era, the only way
refereed journal authors could get published at all was by allowing
publishers to recover their sizeable expenses and a fair profit through
Subscription, Site-License or Pay-Per-View (S/SL/PPV). Copyright was
assigned to the publisher to prevent theft of the product.
(4) In the online-ONLY era (note the "only") the costs per page will
shrink to at most 1/3 of what they were for paper publication; those
remaining costs are for peer review and editing (i.e., quality control
for content and form). Printing, Distribution, Fulfillment and
Marketing costs vanish.
(5) Rather than recovering that remaining 1/3 the old way, through
S/SL/PPV, with the access blockage it entails, it should be recovered
as page charges paid by the author (from publication funds provided by
the author's institution, out of -- and for the sake of -- the 3/3
savings from S/SL/PPV).
(6) The result is free online availability for everyone, which is the
optimal outcome, and also inevitable. However, arriving at this will
take too long, and research and researchers will be denied its
benefits, if they wait for publishers to adopt it spontaneously.
(Instead, publishers will try to continue selling both paper and online
editions via S/SL/PPV, in the hope that the online-only era will
continue to be financed in the same way.)
(7) To hasten the optimal and inevitable, authors should -- as of
today! -- publicly archive all their unrefereed preprints and their
refereed reprints on their home servers as well as in a global archive
such as the Los Alamos Physics Eprint Archive
[ http://xxx.lanl.gov ].
(8) Los Alamos already has more than 35,000 users daily and archives at
least 25,000 papers annually. (See
http://xxx.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/todays_stats for Los Alamos user
statistics.) Once this is generalized to the other disciplines, library
subscription cancellations will place pressure on finding an
alternative funding model, publishers will switch to online-only and
page charges, and the windfall savings from S/SL/PPV will become
available to cover those charges.
There will, however, be an unstable interim period during which some
tide-over subsidy will be needed, because online-only and its attendant
savings cannot be switched to overnight, and the user population needs
preparation, both as readers, to become addicted to free online access,
and as authors, to overcome the current stigma of page-charges
(associated with paper publication, where there is no
there is no justification for page charges, and with vanity-press
publication, which is irrelevant, but linked to page charges in
authors' minds at the moment).
EFD: How has your vision for the future of scholarly publication
changed since you originally conceived it? Have things moved more
rapidly or less rapidly than you'd expected?
SH: Originally I had been an advocate of online-only because of the
unique power of the new medium, for speed, access, and especially
interactivity (via commentary; Harnad 1990, 1991, 1992). I disagreed at
the time with those who thought it could be provided for free, because
its advocates tended to be opposed to quality control, and in favor of
either no peer review at all, or an absurd form of peer commentary
which I knew (from 20 years of experience editing a commentary journal)
could be no substitute for peer review, only a supplement to it. (See
the British Medical
Journal's current experiment with open review:
But then I realized that although quality control could not be
cost-free in the online-only medium, its cost would be so much lower
that it would make it possible to do away with the toll-gate and
fire-wall barriers to access posed by S/SL/PPV, simply by redirecting
only a small part of the savings from the cancellation of S/SL/PPV to
author-end page-charges instead of reader-end access tolls.
So I too became an advocate of free access. I think I formulated my
Subversive Proposal (http://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/subvert.html) at
a time when the whole thing was not yet entirely clear in my head: I
advocated authors archiving all their papers on their home servers
mainly just to hasten the online-only era, but it soon became evident
that the free access that that would provide, once available, would
never again be given up, by either users or authors. Then all it took
was arithmetic to realize that if online-only costs would be lower by
2/3, they could be covered by simply redirecting 1/3 of the 3/3 saved
from canceling all S/SL/PPV expenditure by the authors' institutions
(the ones benefiting from their imperishable refereed research
publication and productivity) to author publication funds, leaving the
institutions still with a 2/3 saving -- plus a free refereed journal
literature for everyone, everywhere.
Have things moved more rapidly or less rapidly than I expected? Well,
I haven't really tried to second guess the nature of the horse, just to
lead it to water! The Los Alamos archive has certainly prevailed faster
than anyone expected, and I am certain it will eventually prevail in
Meanwhile, of course, the publishers have quite naturally turned
instead to what I've called the "Trojan Horse" option: hybrid
publication, both paper and online, offering the paper edition for the
usual price, the online edition for a bit lower, and both editions for
a bit higher, and then letting demand shift to online-only whenever its
time comes, but always supported by S/SL/PPV (and its attendant
toll-booths and fire-walls blocking free access).
If that Trojan Horse were to succeed, it would suffice to delay the
optimal and the inevitable for some time (I gave up predicting when it
would all come to pass a long time ago: all I say is that we COULD do
it very quickly if we wanted to), but meanwhile, I and others will
continue along the evangelical path of subversion, by promoting author
The Trojan Horse can be very attractive to librarians-- particularly
when large publishers offer 100% of the online versions of their titles
to libraries that agree to keep subscribing for an extended period to
whatever percentage of them they currently receive in print. Without
the counterweight of public archiving by authors, this strategy would
undoubtedly give S/SL/PPV a reprieve, possibly for some time to come,
for both readers and authors would become accustomed to the added
benefits of online access constrained by the familiar toll-booths of
S/SL/PPV. But simultaneous free public archiving by authors, on the Los
Alamos model, will subvert this, and the market will certainly prefer
the toll-free access mode when faced with the choice.
So even if the Trojan Horse is to some degree dominant in the
marketplace today, this will not count for much once the rival goods
are available to the consumer for comparison shopping.
EFD: You have referred a couple of times now to the physics pre-print
archive run by Paul Ginsparg at the Los Alamos National Laboratory,
which you see as a model for how all disciplines could make their
research known to other scholars. This archive is funded in part by the
National Science Foundation and seems to rely to a great extent on the
dedication and vision of one individual. Is the Ginsparg model
applicable outside physics (or the sciences), and without such a
visionary leader? How is this model sustainable and scalable, so that
it can really offer a long-term solution to publication in other
(especially non-scientific) disciplines?
SH: The Los Alamos archive is funded by both the National Science
Foundation and the Department of Energy. The funds are mostly for
development of new features, because just the upkeep of the archive,
along with its steady linear growth rate, is not expensive at all. It
will generalize to all disciplines, indeed it is already doing so; it
has just recently subsumed computer science, for example. My own
cognitive science archive, CogPrints (http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk), is
being groomed for eventual subsumption by Los Alamos. I am keeping it
separate now just to develop a submission front-end that is more
congenial to other disciplines, and especially users of text-processing
software over and above TeX, such as MS Word.
But as I have said many times before, I am just playing John the
Baptist to Paul Ginsparg's Messiah. All the historical credit shall and
should be given him. It was his vision, his software, his
implementation that set the literature on its inexorable course to the
optimal and the inevitable (though I doubt that even he saw all the
implications explicitly at the beginning either).
EFD: Thomas Krichel, an economist at the University of Surrey, recently
countered your contention that the Los Alamos model is transferable and
scalable with his example from his own field, saying that he
"doubt[s] [this model] does scale well. I see a lot of difficulties with
disciplines where knowledge is more contested, like the social sciences
and the humanities. In my own discipline, economics, the response [to a
preprint archive] has been muted. Today, this archive stores less than
10% of total electronic holdings and its share is falling. [The Los
Alamos archive model] has failed in economics." He points to a
distributed system as an alternative with promise. Would you like to
SH: I don't know the details about economics but I understand that
there is one particular "central" economics archive that has 10% of
the literature, and a network of "distributed" archives that has a
lot more of it: Fine. The distributed ones will be drawn together into
a central one and there's an end of it.
In my own proposal, authors always deposit in both a "distributed"
and a "central" archive: their Home servers plus the Los Alamos
archive, which is mirrored in 15 countries. Central archives are
obviously preferable for searching and access. The idea of "central"
as meaning "sitting on one specific server" is simplistic; there are
many ways of distributing a virtual "center."
EFD: Is the historical model of scholarship shared through learned
societies a valid precedent for the model you describe?
SH: I am not an advocate of the no-refereeing model at all, if that's
what you mean. Yes, public archiving makes it possible to disseminate
pre-refereeing preprints on a scale that was not possible in paper--but
it does the same for post-refereeing reprints too. Peer review is still
needed, and publishers to implement it.
EFD: Would you envision that the quality-controlled, peer-reviewed
results of a preprint archive's article would be officially sanctioned
at the preprint archive itself, or only through traditional
SH: Peer review is medium-independent. Refereed journals are simply
implementers of peer review. They should continue to do that; there is
no alternative I know of. And there should continue to be a
hierarchical spectrum of peer-reviewed journals, varying in their
subject matter as well as their quality and rigor. That should all be
financed out of the page charges. The archive is just the means of
access. Papers in the Archive should be explicitly tagged as UNREFEREED
or REFEREED (and if the latter, tagged also with the brand-name of the
During the subversive phase, authors could simply tag their own papers
in the archive as unrefereed or refereed, specifying the journal in the
latter case. (I am not worried about whether they can be trusted.)
Eventually, though, arrangements will be made between journal
publishers, such as the American Physical Society (APS), and Los
Alamos: APS have already agreed that authors can submit to APS journals
via Los Alamos; later the refereed, accepted APS version's tag could be
officially authenticated by the APS itself.
But frankly, that's just technical detail. In broad strokes, the
picture is clear.
The Archive can also include peer commentary (both unrefereed and
refereed) and authors' responses. But this peer commentary should not
be confused with peer review, for which it is a supplement, not a
EFD: Could you comment in particular on the archiving arrangements that
you would expect to provide satisfactory redundancy and reliability in
the Los Alamos model? In particular, how would the mirror sites you
have mentioned be motivated to provide a backrun of an electronic
journal or a group of preprints indefinitely and for all interested
parties? Or would libraries play a role here? What about the costs of
storing, moving and refreshing files and porting them to new platforms
as needed? Do we have a model for the digital world that offers the
same redundancy and neutral, long-term access that US academic and
research libraries have offered, as a group, in modern history? Do
publishers and authors care about preservation and long- term access
the way libraries do? Can they be expected to take this on?
SH: I have just today come back from the CEDARS Digital Preservation
Town Meeting in London [held 10/7/98], and, as usual, librarians'
hearts are in the right place, but their heads are full of needless and
misplaced worries, motivated, I now believe, by a very simple,
paper-based "intuition pump": They think of the "preservation" problem
as requiring some analogue of paper, some undying object, multiplied
many times all over the world, to fend off a Library of Alexandria
The truth is that once text is digitized, bits are bits, and all that's
needed is a means of turning the bits into a form (be it paper or
screen) that is accessible to the human senses. THAT hybrid bytes-
to-eyes interfacing capability is what needs to be preserved, not
specific objects scattered over the planet (and of course virtual
libraries will be critically important in implementing that).
What needs to be distributed and redundant is the bits (that's the
content, digitized) plus the wherewithal (both hardware and software)
for making them accessible to the human senses. The book is not a good
intuitive model for this. Think instead of digitized texts and images,
stored on various media (redundant and distributed around the world)
along with the hardware and software to convert them to screen- or
paper-viewable form. Those MEANS are what must be upgraded and
preserved in perpetuo-- not any particular object. Today they might be
on tape, or in Word code; tomorrow they may be in some other medium and
code. No object will have endured, just the bits, plus the means to
visualize them. As long as we preserve that bits+means
uninterruptedly, we are preserving the corpus.
Of course the bits have to be mirrored in many places; the codes too
can be distributed, so everything can be reconstructed from parts. But
it is not a matter of enduring, redundant OBJECTS like books. Think of
books as also being a way of preserving bits and the means of viewing
them -- but in a particularly crude, fixed-hardware form. It's no
longer the fixed hardware itself that we need to worry about
And, yes, multiple mirror and backup sites are part of preserving that;
so is centralization, because the more authors' and disciplines'
intellectual goods you have in one collective (but distributed and
redundant) basket, the more collective interest is vested in
continually keeping the bits accessible to the eyes; that is the
continuous upgrading that is these days called "migration."
Thirty-five thousand vigilant pairs of eyes daily see to it that Los
Alamos sustains this capability without interruption from day to day.
(For a hint of the transgalactic squawking that would immediately be
raised by the egg-owners and users the minute their mutual basket
showed any signs of failing them, see Taubes (1993)* about the week Los
Alamos went off-line!)
There are details and technicalities, but the essence of it is that
technology will keep evolving to keep making those bits viewable and
navigable by the senses, and the more eggs are in the same basket, the
more eggs will benefit from the shared fate. There was no such
collective dimension to paper, nor was there the part about the
bytes-to-eye link to be continually upgraded, but those are all soluble
But if you keep thinking of it in terms of the dreaded "orphaned
CD-Rom" that either gets blown off the face of the earth or that no one
can make head or tail of any more some day, you are just pumping the
wrong intuition pump!
The motivation comes from the community that vested its interests in
the continuity and upgrading. Moreover, the expenses go down, per item,
with scale. Imagining any government ready to pull the plug on a
virtual basket containing scholarship's intellectual goods is as
plausible as imagining them pulling the plug on the national electrical
grid, or slaughtering, Moses-like, every last volume on the planet.
Books, like people, could always be destroyed, so let's not look for a
fail-safe preservation means when there never was one! Let's just
settle for one that's at least as safe as the distributed paper one
had been. Internationally mirrored and distributed bits, along with the
proper means, perhaps even with distributed coding schemes, can be made
as safe as distributed paper and more so. (And for any doubting
Thomas, let him spend his time and resources creating a paper backup of
it all too!)
Try this intuition pump instead: The Doomsday scenario in which an ill
wind comes and blows out all the processing devices and storage
peripherals is as plausible as the one that vaporizes all books.
EFD: Much has been said about the reduced costs of publishing
electronically. In your model, if I understand it, authors absorb the
largest portion of the cost of the editorial side of publication
(refereeing and editing) through page charges. Would the additional
costs of running a live archive, mirror sites, and preservation
archiving be funded through grants? Is this a sound foundation?
SH: Page charges are to cover online-only journal publication expenses
(at most 1/3 of what they are now), to be paid by authors instead of
libraries (not out of their pockets, of course, but out of the library
saving, redirected) so that the learned serial literature can be free
As I said, more of the current Los Alamos subsidy is for development
than for maintenance, and a lot of the developmental cost is one-time
only. With economies of scale (I am improvising now), Los Alamos could
probably scale up to include all the annual papers in all fields in the
14,000 refereed journals listed by Ulrich's for only a few times what
it costs to covering just Physics now. And that expense is tiny and
sustainable. Take it out of part of the remaining 2/3 savings from
going from paper to online-only, in your reckoning, but it'll be a lot
less than another third.
The point is that the learned serial literature is already being
subsidized through S/SL/PPV anyway; switching to online and redirecting
the remaining costs will not only make the subsidy much lower, but it
will provide a much more powerful and efficient mode of access, and
provide it for free for one and all -- to the benefit of research
itself, which it makes as much sense to toll- gate as it would to
charge professors by the hour for lecturing to their students!
EFD: Is there any role for commercial publishers in your model? Are
commercial publishers a negative force in terms of achieving your
SH: Anyone prepared to scale down to this new niche -- providing
quality control to authors -- can be a player.
But commercial publishers have other products too, and those do not fit
the refereed-journal model (wide-spectrum monographs, textbooks,
popular magazines, etc.), and I'm not sure how such big enterprises
will mix with cottage-scale ones like what online-only refereed journal
publication will be once it has achieved the optimal and the
It's not just commercial publishers who will want to cling to the
S/SL/PPV status quo for as long as possible; most big publishers will,
including Learned Society and University presses. It's only natural.
They will fail, of course, because they will be fighting against the
optimal and the inevitable for scholars and scholarship, research and
researchers, but it is, I suppose, natural in the Darwinian marketplace
to try to prevail along the old lines as long as possible. The conflict
of interest, however, is a great vulnerability: journal publishers'
constituency, after all, is us, the authors and readers (and
referees!). We acquiesced in the Faustian Bargain of bartering
copyright for publication while there was no alternative, but now that
there is an alternative, we will realize it sooner or later (with the
help of some demonstrations, evangelism, polemics, and subversion).
The critical thing isn't whether the publisher is commercial or
noncommercial; it is the replacement of access-blocking S/SL/PPV by
access-enhancing up-front page charges. I doubt that peer review is
better implemented commercially than noncommercially, but let there be
competition! Whoever can implement it the best and the most cheaply
gets the contract.
Learned Society publishers like the APS, whose Editor, Martin Blume,
was a co-signator of the excellent manifesto in Science last month (for
mandating that funded authors should retain the right to archive their
papers publicly --
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/science.html), are more likely
allies than commercial publishers; so too are University Provosts, like
Steve Koonin, whose kindred proposal was debated in the Chronicle of
Higher Education (http://www.chronicle.com/free/v45/i04/04a02901.htm).
EFD: Right now, commercial publishers own the copyright of most
authors' work. In your model, do individual scholars retain
SH: For refereed journal articles they need only retain the right to
archive their papers for free for all, in perpetuo. We are not talking
about movie rights here! Publishers can have all the rights to sell the
paper version (or their own online version, for that matter) for
S/SL/PPV, as long as the author retains the right to archive it
publicly for free, forever.
EFD: Does this create barriers to innovation and marketing of research
tools and services? Would the indexing and abstracting or fulltext
services that now negotiate with large publishers to provide access to
their material now have to track down individuals?
SH: Utter nonsense. The innovation will all be in the expanded Los
Alamos full-text archive itself, and the navigation resources that
users will design on that rich, fire-wall-free, toll-gate-free corpus:
If primary publishers, especially commercial ones, need to do some
rethinking about their future course, I'd like even less to be a
secondary or tertiary publisher right now: Here's the proof. Just
imagine the subversion being successful and complete. Los Alamos now
contains the 14K refereed journal corpus, suitably tagged. Now, do you
want to pay to use ISI or Medline or some other service, or would you
rather just send off a good old Alta Vista searcher armed with those
all important tags (LOS ALAMOS, REFEREED, APS)?
Who is there to track down? And what for? Authors give it away, as they
always have; Los Alamos houses it; generic engines find and retrieve
That goes for citation searches too. See what the Open Journal
Project** showed could be done with a few journals plus the ISI
database; now imagine doing that on the full-text Los Alamos corpus
directly: all articles have their own reference lists!
EFD: What about the subject terms and thesauri that have been
integrated into the commercial Indexing & Abstracting services? Do we
stand to lose something in giving this up? Or do you see the fulltext
search capabilities evolving to match those of the elaborate syndetic
structures we've become to expect in major databases?
SH: I think they can be improvised from full-texts and keywords, but
whatever cannot, providers can try to sell as add-ons. The add-ons
will have to compete with the home-brews, but if they are really
ingenious, they may sell as browser enhancement tools; but the
literature itself certainly no longer needs to be held hostage to
When publishers speak of the "added-value" strategy, they are
thinking of it as a way to hold onto S/SL/PPV for the primary corpus
itself, whereas I am speaking here of ADD-ONs, independent products for
improving navigation of the full, free corpus. There's a world of
EFD: Recently you devised and coordinated an interactive discussion
forum at the American Scientist web site, offering readers a chance to
debate about the public eprint archive model and other ideas about
scholarly publishing in the digital age. How was this forum
successful? In what ways was it disappointing? Did it advance any line
SH: Opposing views were aired. I think readers will be able to draw
their own conclusions. Numerically, people who knew less or had an
interest in nay-saying prevailed, but rationally, I don't think they
did. You'll need to get other people's verdict on that, however. (See
There was also a lot of naive nonsense, which ought to be filtered out.
But I think the AmSci debate could be distilled down into a useful
Quote/Comment Virtual Symposium, mainly involving the contributions of
Arthur Smith, Mark Doyle, and myself, plus some individual
interventions by a few others.
EFD: What is the greatest barrier to achieving your vision?
SH: Human nature. (See above, about horses, water, and drinking.)
EFD: What, if anything, would you like to say to librarians?
SH: Stop worrying about preservation; support subversion; don't take in
any Trojan Horses.
*Taubes, Gary. E-mail withdrawal prompts spasm. (temporary shut-down
of Los Alamos Laboratory e-print archives succeeds in raising funds)
Science v262, n5131 (Oct 8, 1993):173 (2 pages).
**Hitchcock. S. et al. (1997) "Linking Everything to everything:
journal publishing myth or reality?" ICCC/IFIP Conference on Electronic
Publishing, Canterbury, UK, April.
Bachrach, S., Berry, S.R., Blume, M., von Foerster, T.,
Fowler, A., Ginsparg, P., Heller, S., Kestner, N.,
Odlyzko, A., Okerson, A., Wigington, R., & Moffat, A. (1998)
Intellectual Property: Who Should Own Scientific Papers?
Science 281 (5382): 1459-1460. September 4 1998.
Bloom, F. (1998)
EDITORIAL: The Rightness of Copyright.
Science 281 (5382): 1451. September 4 1998.
Garson L.R. (1997) The economics of scientific publishing.
Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society 214(Pt1) 57-CHED.
Ginsparg, P. (1996) Winners and Losers in the Global research Village.
Invited contribution, UNESCO Conference HQ, Paris, 19-23 Feb 1996.
Ginsparg, P. (1994) First Steps Towards Electronic Research
Communication. Computers in Physics. (August, American Institute of
Physics). 8(4): 390-396.
Harnad, S. (1990) Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum
of Scientific Inquiry. Psychological Science 1: 342 - 343
Harnad, S. (1991) Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the
Means of Production of Knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems Review
2 (1): 39 - 53
Harnad, S. (1992) Interactive Publication: Extending the
American Physical Society's Discipline-Specific Model for Electronic
Publishing. Serials Review, Special Issue on Economics Models for
Electronic Publishing, pp. 58 - 61.
Harnad, S. (1995a) Electronic Scholarly Publication: Quo Vadis?
Serials Review 21(1) 78-80 (Reprinted in Managing Information
2(3) 31-33 1995)
Harnad, S. (1995b) Universal FTP Archives for Esoteric Science and
Scholarship: A Subversive Proposal. In: Ann Okerson & James O'Donnell
(Eds.) Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads; A Subversive Proposal for
Electronic Publishing. Washington, DC., Association of Research
Libraries, June 1995.
Harnad, S. (1995c) Interactive Cognition: Exploring the Potential of
Electronic Quote/Commenting. In: B. Gorayska & J.L. Mey (Eds.) Cognitive
Technology: In Search of a Humane Interface. Elsevier. Pp. 397-414.
Harnad, S. (1996) Implementing Peer Review on the Net:
Scientific Quality Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals. In:
Peek, R. & Newby, G. (Eds.) Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic
Frontier. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Pp. 103-118.
Harnad, S. (1997a) How to Fast-Forward Serials to the Inevitable and
the Optimal for Scholars and Scientists. Serials Librarian 30: 73-81.
Harnad, S. (1997b) The Paper House of Cards (And Why It Is Taking So Long
To Collapse). Ariadne 8: 6-7.
Harnad, S. (1997c) Learned Inquiry and the Net:
The Role of Peer Review, Peer Commentary and Copyright.
Antiquity 71: 1042-1048
Harnad, S. (1998) For Whom the Gate Tolls? Free the On-Line-Only
Harnad, S. & Hemus, M. (1997) All Or None: No Stable Hybrid
or Half-Way Solutions for Launching the Learned Periodical Literature
into the PostGutenberg Galaxy. In Butterworth, I. (Ed.)
The Impact of Electronic Publishing on the Academic Community.
London: Portland Press. Pp 18-27.
Hitchcock, S., Carr, L., Harris, S., Hey, J. M. N., and Hall, W. (1997)
Citation Linking: Improving Access to Online Journals.
Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Conference on
Digital Libraries, edited by Robert B. Allen and Edie Rasmussen
(New York, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), pp. 115-122.
Hitchcock, S., Quek, F., Carr, L., Hall, W., Witbrock, A.,
and Tarr, I. (1997) Linking Everything to Everything: Journal
Publishing Myth or Reality? ICCC/IFIP conference on
Electronic Publishing 97: New Models and Opportunities, Canterbury,UK, April.
Odlyzko, A.M. (1998) The economics of electronic journals. In: Ekman
R. and Quandt, R. (Eds) Technology and Scholarly Communication Univ.
Calif. Press, 1998.
Odlyzko, A.M. (1997) The slow evolution of electronic publishing. In
Electronic Publishing - New Models and Opportunities, A. J. Meadows and
F. Rowland, eds., ICCC Press, 1997.
Odlyzko, A.M. (1995) Tragic loss or good riddance? The impending
demise of traditional scholarly journals, International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies (formerly International Journal of Man-Machine
Studies), 42 (1995), 71-122.
Okerson A. & O'Donnell, J. (Eds.) (1995) Scholarly Journals at the
Crossroads; A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing.
Washington, DC., Association of Research Libraries, June 1995.
Walker, T.J. (1998) Free Internet Access to Traditional Journals.
American Scientist 86(5)