| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Some comments to Norm's thoughts on money and scientific publishing:
>Now, here's a really radical suggestion. Not only do I think that such and
>outlet for paleontological research can and should be available, I also
>think that no one should need to subscribe or pay any money for it. It
>should be free.
What's so radical about this? The method of hiding costs where they can't
be seen is the oldest trick in the book to make people think they're
getting something for nothing. I repeat from my February 2 posting (which
was delayed somewhere between London and Berkeley): Noise is free.
Information is free only when subsidized.
>I suspect many of the objections we are hearing from our
>colleagues are not based on concerns about editorial or scientific quality
>standards (those are separate issues can be addressed), but rather are
>grounded in the realization that web publishing poses a direct economic
>threat to print journals.
It's not the threat to "print journals" that worries me. If we want the
thing on paper, we'll pay for it on paper (probably to an increasing extent
by various decentralized print-on-demand systems). If we don't want it on
paper, we should instead pay to have it in whichever other way we want. The
thing to worry about is not whether or not it's a "print journal". A
journal is a medium for scientific communication. It doesn't have to be on
paper: what it needs to be is effective, reliable, accessible, and durable.
What worries me is indeed the threat to editorial and scientific quality
standards, and in particular the belief that such standards come without
cost. They don't, and the cost is either subsidized (by voluntary work, by
diverted academic salaries, or by grants to publishing projects) or paid
for by the user in the form of subscriptions, or (usually) both.
Yes, we could make scientific information "free", i.e. put all the costs at
the generating end. This is what we do for most basic research, anyway,
because it cannot bear its immediate costs and the long-term revenues are
immeasurable. It works because basic science has built-in quality tests, as
science evolves by natural selection of ideas. An interesting question,
however, is where this natural selection takes place: Three arenas come to
mind: (1) The informal network of scientists, local or global. (2)
Semi-formal presentations and discussions at scientific conferences.(3)
Formal publications.
Most of us would agree that whereas all are important, the final and most
important part of the natural selection of ideas takes places on the third
arena. Indeed, this third arena is the prerequisite for the built-in
quality control of science. Now correct me if I'm wrong, Norm, but you are
suggesting that whereas we (1) pay the costs of travelling to see other
scientists (to meet the costs of the airline or donkey rental company), buy
the equipment to communicate on the net (to meet the cost of computer
manufacturers, etc.), and (2) pay to attend conferences (to meet the costs
of the organizers), we should not (3) pay for gaining access to formally
published scientific information (to meet the costs of the publishing
procedures).
The most troublesome aspect with your proposal that the receiving end
shouldn't pay for the publication is that the generating end is making
similar noise. The Swedish Natural Science Research Council has recently
decided to abandon direct financial support to primary scientific
publication, reportedly based on the argument that "if it can't bear its
own costs, it's not worth publishing". So the general idea seems to be that
nobody should pay, let it all be free, everybody will be happy, and isn't
this a great new world, this Utopia, or what?
>Why are people suddenly so interested in
>electronic publishing? The fact is that aside from having the technology
>available to produce an attractive electronic publication, the prices of
>print-based scientific journals are out of control. This has to do with the
>economics of print publishing and is not the fault of the societies or
>other non-commercial organizations that publish the journals. Nevertheless,
>the prices hurt all of us, especially those in smaller institutions whose
>libraries cannot afford ever escalating subscription costs and who
>themselves cannot afford personal subscriptions to the technical journals
>in their fields. Electronic publishing is eventually going to dominate
>simply because the economics are so attractive.
The cost of transferring a journal to paper and to distribute that paper is
actually a minor part of the total cost of running a journal today. When I
pay 8 kronor (or whatever) for a newspaper, it's not the paper I'm paying
for, it's the content.
Otherwise I agree, with the addition that the speed and flexibility of the
electronic medium are perhaps even more important attractors than the
costs. After all, it costs to keep a network connection.
>It's high time for
>paleontological societies to begin dealing with the electronic publishing
>question forthrightly and not holding back hoping that someone figures out
>how to maintain print-based profit margins for their printers and their
>journals (most journals are printed by commercial businesses and configured
>to pump money into the host society to support other activities) in the
>coming electronic publishing world.
Those other activities of the host society may or may not be worth
supporting; it's in any case irrelevant to the question of how to proceed
with electronic publishing without wrecking the infrastructure.
It's certainly high time to think seriously about electronic publishing
also in palaeontology. I still nourish a hope that we can reach a system
whereby I can search for the information on the web, browse it, and - if I
decide to download or print it for further use - accept the transfer of 8
kronor (or whatever) from my electronic account to that of the publisher.
What's the difference? Today I walk into a store, scan the rack of
magazines, and if I decide to take one I pay for it. The things that are
given away for free are usually junk, and I'd hate to see the forum of
scientific publishing approach the noise level of Usenet (just log into any
- ANY - Usenet group and see what goes on there) or even - excuse me, Norm
- that of Paleonet. Well, for the noise on the latter I too bear
responsibility. At least, no-one has had to pay for it. Or?
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
Partial index: