Publishing in the digital age

From
Date
[The following comment in the Web-manuscript discussion was posted to the
Berkely server on February 2nd but has not yet appeared in my Paleonet
inbox. As more recent comments are now starting to appear, I repost this
one before it gets hopelessly outdated. Apologies if anyone receives it
twice.]


Whew!

Richard Cowen's publishing of his Valentine Festschrift manuscript followed
by my cautionary words really set off an avalanche of comments - most of
them constructive and imaginative. We are certainly not in Kansas anymore
(neither is Allen Press or Roger Kaesler, except in the non-digital sense
of actually being there).

I'm not a Luddite. The digital revolution - and in particular the promises
of Internet - is to me the most exciting and promising thing that has
happened in scientific communication. I couldn't agree more with Norm and
others: Let's embrace it and use it to grow and get better. It's here to
stay, and we're just seeing the beginning of it.

Speaking for my pets, Lethaia and Fossils & Strata, I believe there are no
publications in paleontology currently more digitalized. Fossils & Strata
has been produced from electronic text since 1987, and as of 1993 all the
production (text, illustrations, and all) of Lethaia and F&S, except the
final transfer to print, takes place in the editorial computer. Authors are
encouraged to submit as much material as possible in a digital form, and
more and more of the manuscript files drop in through the Internet.

Thus complete electronic versions of the the two publications exist since
1993 and we are currently modifying the procedures so as to be able to
produce SGML (HTML:s bigger brother; see
http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/SGML/) code that can be used for parallel
on-line and on-paper editions.

So what's keeping us? Why aren't Lethaia and F&S already on-line? And why
did I object to Richard's Web-publishing of his manuscript for the
Valentine Festschrift? Because we should have an evolution, however
punctuated, not a revolution that starts by breaking things that will be
needed later. The "things" that should not be broken are our tools for
quality control and documentation: peer review, editing, distribution, and
archiving. Contrary to several of the commentators in this discussion, I
fear that these tools, and, consequently, the reliability of our scientific
information channels, are very much threatened by the casual attitudes to
copyright that we are witnessing.

Jere Lipps (Paleonet, Jan 31) wrote a scary caveat about copyright on the
Internet and potential legal problems. His warnings are well taken, though
I don't think we should let ourselves be harassed into not daring to use
Internet for fear of that kind of repercussions. But the question of
copyright isn't moot. Copyright is there to protect investments: The author
is protected by copyright to protect mental, financial, time, moral, etc.
investments, and when the author signs over the copyright of a work to a
publisher, this is in order to protect the publisher's similar investments.
It makes sense.

L. Gertsch (Paleonet, Jan 31) wrote, in response to my question why a
publisher would be interested in republishing already published material:

>Why?  Because serious researchers *want* the confidence-inspiring rigor of
>peer-reviewed, edited information.  They *will* look at it, and pay for it.

Will they? We already know from Richard Cowen's own words, backed up by the
editor, that his manuscript has been peer-reviewed and is accepted for
publication. For any serious researcher, that's confidence-inspiring
enough. Why then pay later for almost the same thing just to compensate
those who have gone through the trouble and have had the expense of
reviewing, editing and publishing it (or even as a courtesy to Jim
Valentine)? If we reduce the role of the publishing industry from that of
an information channel to that of a provider of expensive retroactive
endorsement for what has already been fully and effectively published on
the Web, the publishing industry will not be there when we need it. And we
will need it.

The way out of the dilemma, as I see it, is not to break the publishing
industry's back by violating copyright (it *will* have legal repercussions,
make no mistake) but by forcing it to embrace the best available technology
to disseminate scientific results efficiently and quickly. This also
implies accepting that access to the information has to cost, though by all
means we as users should favor the best and most cost-effective channels.
(Here is a major minefield, however, for scientific publishing is so full
of hidden subsidies that price comparisons become well-nigh impossible. I
know this, for I subsidize Lethaia and F&S through massive unpaid labor,
and my employer subsidizes them by letting me do some of that work during
office hours. Reviewers are likewise unpaid. The same situation exists for
most scientific journals, but there is immense variation depending on the
setup. If we look only at the pricetag of an access or a download, we may
in effect be punishing the publishers that have to bear their own costs and
favor those that are subsidized by academic institutions and voluntary
work.)

Noise is free. Information is free only when subsidized.

Stefan Bengtson

Editor, Fossils and Strata
Production Editor, Lethaia

[the above viewpoints may or may not be shared by the Lethaia Foundation
and Scandinavian University Press]

Stefan Bengtson                      _/        _/ _/_/_/    _/        _/
Department of Palaeozoology         _/_/      _/ _/    _/  _/_/    _/_/
Swedish Museum of Natural History  _/  _/    _/ _/    _/  _/  _/ _/ _/
Box 50007                         _/    _/  _/ _/_/_/    _/    _/  _/
S-104 05 Stockholm               _/      _/_/ _/   _/   _/        _/
Sweden                          _/        _/ _/     _/ _/        _/

tel. +46-8 666 42 20
     +46-18 54 99 06 (home)
fax  +46-8 666 41 84
e-mail Stefan.Bengtson@nrm.se