Electronic Journals

From
Date
Reply-To
Hola!

Have been following all the comments about pros and cons of electronic
journals and will not waste your time with another "me, too" reply.
However, one pro/con I have not yet seen addressed is the issue of
journal 'accreditation'. Since I work for  one of the major paleo
journals, I have had the pleasure of seeing lots of manuscripts over
the last couple of years -- and it seems to me that there are two main
reasons scientists seek publication of their studies. 

1) Many (and hopefully most) scientists seek publication of their
studies for the "greater good of science". This includes the desire to
spread the news of one's findings, discoveries, etc. to as many fellow
scientists as possible in order to facilitate information
dissemination, recording of one's results,  communication between
different disciplines and potential co-workers, as well as to
facilitate suggestions, comments, criticisms and comparisons from
fellow scientists, etc..         

2) Some studies are submitted for publication simply for the sake of
obtaining a publication.  (*Note I said 'submitted' - NOT published) 
Although most studies undoubtably begin as an intention to explore new
or untested hypotheses, many projects are undertaken because of the
fact that "no-one else has done this before...looked at this in such
and such amanner...etc." While I am in no way whatsoever criticizing
this methodology (since many great projects evolve from these types of
questions), it seems as though the pressure to 'publish or perish'
tends to overload journals with manuscripts which describe mediocre
attempts of these studies. Although many of these studies get 'dinged'
in the review process, they nevertheless increase overall turn-around
time and may get passed along to a less selective format. In addition,
there seems to be a tremendous amount of fractionation of information 
from large-scale studies which is repeated/summarized in other
formats. For example, how many folks out there have submitted results 
of a large-scale study in which several of the "nuggets" have already 
been reported on in Geology, Nature, Science, or possibly described in
J of P? Or...how many studies are published both in journals as well
as in "special publications" such as symposia volumes,etc.? Again, I
am not in any way criticizing this mode of publication, because many
of these outlets offer short turn-around times not available in many
journals. (Maybe this should be a plug for electronic journals?)
However, I am making the observation that there is a lot of
fractionation going on out there (apologies to the isotope folks). 

In general, it seems as if most scientists attempt to publish 1) and
2) above in the "best" journal possible. Although a definition of
"best" is sketchy, it may include factors such as rigor of the review
process, calibre of published manuscripts, reputation, cost,
turn-around time, and lack of 2) above. As has been already commented 
on on Paleonet, this leads to a "natural selection" of journals to 
which authors submit manuscripts. Into the author's decision on where 
and what to publish are factors such as the nature and size of the 
journal's audience. In addition, I suspect that many authors 
(particularly those seeking a job, up for tenure, etc.) strongly 
consider the reputation of the journal. For example, should the Asst. 
Prof. send his ground-breaking study of newt taphonomy to 
"Paleobiology" or to the "University of New Mexico Semi-Quarterly 
Reviews of Newt Studies"? Doesn't the Asst. Prof. consider whether 
his tenure committee, deans, etc. are going to have even heard of 
the latter journal?

Where am I going with all this and how does it relate to
"accreditation"? The question is-- how will universities, industry,
government, and other professional organizations view electronic
scientific journals?  Will they be considered "less selective" or
"grey literature"? Are there any physicists or mathematicians out
there who could comment on how the electronic journals in these fields
are viewed (especially -- how are they viewed by decision-makers such
as deans, bosses, etc.)? Thus, will the "best" articles continue to be
sent to paper journals, not because they are more selective, but
because of their perceived reputations in the eyes of decision-makers?

I imagine that folks submitting manuscripts b/c of 1) above
(especially if tenured) will have little to lose and much to
gain through electronic posting of their manuscripts. However, many 
folks whose heads are on or nearer the chopping block are under 
tremendous pressure to bring in $ to universities and to publish 
(esp. in the 'mainstream' literature). 

Although I don't know the answers to the above diatribe, I hope that
Paleonetters may have suggestions as to how to avoid potential 
problems of journal 'accreditation'.  

I, for one, encourage the proliferation of an accredited electronic
paleo journal. Even though a review process would still be needed (as
well as an acting electronic editor with much spare time), the
turn-around time for publication should far exceed the print journals.
When coupled with the ever-increasing electronic audience, this 
should greatly facilitate 1) above. In addition, it seems to me that
the best format for this may not be Paleonet (via ftp) but rather 
through WWW.

Enough for now,

Whitey Hagadorn
___________________________________________________________________________
Dept. of Earth Sciences
U. of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740
email: hagadorn@usc.edu			...surfing waves and the internet...
___________________________________________________________________________