Re: Do We Need E-Journals?

From
Date
I'd like to thank to all who have provided feedback to my earlier post, 
particularly Stefan Bengston.  All comments were much appreciated.  I 
would, however, like to address a few of the points that were raised.  
Apologies for the inclusion of statements I made earlier, but I feel 
these are necessary to maintain the integrity of the thread.  My earlier 
comments are preceded by >>, Stefan's by >.

>>The peer review process is, in a very real sense, a form of censorship.

>I think that this objection has already dissipated in a puff of electrons.
>Censorship may have been a backside of peer review earlier (though with
>several independent journals around, it could hardly have been efficient),
>but it cannot be so any more, (much deleted)

The word "censorship" carries with it some pretty negative connotations, 
which, by and large, are well-deserved. In the case of paper publication 
in the sciences, however, some means of weeding out the undesirable 
manuscripts is necessary to maintain the quality and marketability of the 
journals.  Perhaps I should not have laid the censorship charge solely on 
the peer review part of the process, but rather on the combined 
peer-review/editing process.  I agree with Stefan that this process is 
not very efficient as a censor, but I suspect there are plenty of 
rejected manuscripts sitting on shelves and gathering dust.  Perhaps this 
is where they should be, but we must rely on the opinion of a handful of 
reviewers/editors that these manuscripts are not suitable for the 
scientific community.  

>>But why should one bother to go that route when
>>an equally high quality publication can easily be placed on a web page.

>A few scientists may be able to do that. Most of us cannot. I wouldn't
>place a contribution of my own for permanent reference unless it had been
>worked over critically by others. "Equally high quality" is true only if
>the work done by referees and editors is of no value. The latter may or may
>not be the case: opinions seem to vary.

I fully agree with Stefan here and I certainly did not intend to suggest 
electronic publication of scientific contributions without the benefits 
of review and editing.  What I had hoped to convey was that a high 
quality manuscript, in terms of content, could be presented as a highly 
polished electronic publication, whether done independently or through an 
established e-journal.  

I would think that most authors who choose to make substantial and 
completed manuscripts available through independent electronic 
publication would have those manuscripts informally reviewed and edited 
prior to publication.  I would certainly not care to inflict my own 
obtusely-honed writing style upon the entire scientific community without 
the benefit of the review/editing process.  (And no, I did not have this 
post reviewed/edited as I consider it to be more of an editorial than a 
scientific contribution).  Once electronically published, however, the 
publication will then, in effect, be reviewed by the entire scientific 
community and can be modified, if the author so chooses.

>>What's more, web page publications can be frequently modified and updated
>>as research progresses (I can almost hear the groans from the readers of
>>this post).

>That was me groaning, and probably a few hundred more. I can think of no
>more certain way to the degradation of work standards than if there is no
>peril involved in publishing results. Just post your findings as soon as
>you can - you can always change them later, and nobody will know (except
>some poor guys who are inadvertently using your first whim, thinking it was
>well-considered.) Even more important than peer review, I think, is the
>knowledge each scientist has: that "whatever you publish as the results of
>your scientific work, you may have to answer for later".

I pretty much have to disagree with Stefan's comments here.  First of 
all, electronic publishing will allow publication of the raw data along 
with the conclusions and supporting text.  I can think of little that 
would be more perilous to my credibility than to have my name on a 
globally distributed document for which I was solely responsible and in 
which whimsical conclusions are based upon insufficient or contradictory 
data.  

On the other hand, as one's research progresses, one may wish to post 
working hypotheses along with the supporting data.  These hypotheses may 
change, be abandoned, or new ones added as more data becomes available.  
Ultimately, a publication with relatively stable conclusions may be 
reached, but with the added benefit that the author would have shared the 
thought processes that led to those conclusions.  (Incidentally, this 
should be a real boon for those interested in the history and development 
of scientific thought.)  The scientific process is a dynamic process and 
independent electronic publication can directly reflect this through 
updated progress reports.  Although difficult to deal with when viewed 
from the perspective of today's world of punctuated paper publication 
(for Judith; inside joke), frequently updated electronic publications 
much more closely approach the real scientific process.

Responsibility for the use of scientific publications, whether paper or 
electronic, lies with both the writer and the reader.  The writer has the 
responsibility to produce a logical, well-considered argument 
substantiated by the available data.  The reader has the responsibility 
to critically read and evaluate the publication and determine for her- or 
himself that the conclusions are supported by the data.  This will be 
done much more efficiently with electronic publications, either 
independent or e-journal, than it can be with paper publications.  

>>I think that rather than worrying about the intricacies and ramifications
>>of setting up electronic journals, perhaps we should concentrate on
>>setting up standardized distribution points.  As, for example, web pages
>>dedicated to providing pointers to independently published papers.

>I think we should do the former. The latter problem is being solved for us
>with the development of web browsers of ever increasing sophistication.
>They will grow with the web.
 
 I find web browsers to be incredibly powerful tools and perhaps someday 
they will be sophisticated enough to serve as centralized distribution 
points.  However, all that I have used are based on keyword searches so, 
to start off, you must choose the correct keyword(s).  Almost any keyword 
search these days will produce a plethora of hits.  Included among those 
hits are often many peripheral or irrelevant sites.  (How, on a search a 
while back, I managed to get a hit on the site for Milwaukee's Frozen 
Custard flavors of the month is beyond me.)  Also, a keyword search one 
month will probably give me most of the same hits I got on that keyword 
the month before.  If there is a way to get only new and updated sites, I 
don't know it.  In any case, there is work in progress to establish 
secure electronic repositories as discussed at the Universal Resource 
Name site:
 
     http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/InformationServers/Horizon/URN/urn.html

which Stephan posted to this group awhile back.  Perhaps such repositories
will fill the voids left by the web browsers. 
   
We are on the threshold of a period of great opportunity.  We should 
seize this opportunity with both hands and hang on tightly as it has 
the potential to take us places we've only dreamed of.  We must proceed 
cautiously, but not timidly.  If we cling too tightly to tradition and 
methodologies dictated by former times, we may find ourselves as 
antiquated as the subjects of our research.  To paraphrase that already 
overly quoted Shakespearean passage from _The Tempest_ 

         OH BRAVE NEW WORLD THAT HAS SUCH POSSIBILITIES IN IT! 



Curt (cklug@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu)