| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
WARNING: RADICAL THOUGHTS EXPRESSED BELOW!!! As others have pointed out, whether we like it or not, electronic publication is here. We are at the beginning of what I expect will be a brief and necessarily revolutionary transition period. There are many problems to be addressed as have been lucidly pointed out by others in this group. One point not previously mentioned is how to handle independently published works. This problem, if it is a problem, exists in the world of paper publishing as well, but there are few occurrences due to the prohibitive costs. Such is not the case with electronic publication. I believe we will very shortly have to completely overhaul the means by which we communicate scientific imformation. Individuals may now place very high quality publications on their web pages without ever going through the peer review process. Peer review and editing have served to separate the wheat from the chaff and produce polished products for publication. Both are necessary to produce marketable and sustainable products such as specialized journals. But, marketability may be of no concern when it comes to individual electronic publication. The peer review process is, in a very real sense, a form of censorship. Ideally, it serves the scientific community by skimming off the cream and rejecting the dregs. But even the dregs may have some merit. A paper that is 90 percent garbage could conceivably still include 10 percent valid and innovative ideas. Such a paper would probably never see the light of day through the traditional publication process, but could be widely accessible via electronic publication. As has been pointed out, at least some journals strive to present only articles perceived to be on the cutting edge. But there is often a very fine line separating the cutting edge from the lunatic fringe. That which is beyond the fringe (not behind the fridge) today may be the cutting edge of tomorrow, and vice versa. Presently, peer review means that a handful of colleagues, hopefully well-versed in the topic at hand, dedicate what time they can to carefully examine the manuscript, make suggestions for changes or recommend rejection. Should an author's paper be rejected by the traditional publication channels, he or she could just place it onto his or her web page. It then becomes, at least from a legal standpoint, a valid, copywrited publication. Can the scientific community then turn a blind eye to such a publication. Is the author to be shunned like an Amish sinner? Maybe I'll find out after I post this! Peer-reviewed publications have served as a gauge of sorts by which, in part, review committees decide whether or not to hire, grant tenure, and promote. However, there are very many of us who are highly trained in our fields, but are under-, formerly, or never have been employed as paleontologists and who never will be. We continue our research, usually funded out of pocket, because we love the science. Review committees play no part in our lives, and they provide no incentive to pay the page charges, reprint costs, postage, etc. associated with paper publication. Will there be more incentive to publish through electronic journals? That remains to be seen. But why should one bother to go that route when an equally high quality publication can easily be placed on a web page. 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). But aren't most scientific papers really just progress reports? The difference seems to be that, with electronic publication, progress need not be artificially terminated when, for example, the grant period ends, but can be continued indefinitely. This kind of frequent updating will, of course, be a nightmare to deal with in terms of our present means of citation. It is a problem that will need to be dealt with very soon. 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 independantly published papers. This should be very inexpensive and, I believe, can be largely automated so that no one person need devote a large amount of time to it. Archiving of frequently updated as well as entirely new publications may be a much greater problem. There is yet at least one more effect of rampant, independent publication that tugs at the cornerstone of paleontology and the other sciences as they are carried out today. That is the effect on professional meetings. If it becomes the norm to independently publish and frequently update research, as I think cannot be avoided, there will be little reason to attend meetings to hear papers that, by that time, may already be outdated. The one-on-one discussions or even group discussions, currently an important aspect of such meetings, will provide little justification for attending a meeting as even these can be dealt with via e-mail. Perhaps professional meetings will degenerate (flourish?) into not much more than field trips. We cannot ignore independent electronic publications. To do so would be to risk publication of identical or similar conclusions as our own and possibly face charges of copyright infringement. We cannot ignore them and hope that they will go away; they will not. We cannot ignore them and pretend they have no scientific validity; they do. Rather, I think we should strive to develop means by which such publications can be accepted by the scientific community. Independent electronic publication may be a royal headache when viewed from the perspective of todays standards and procedures, but if we can adapt, it will become a means of discourse that represents the evolution of thought in the scientific community better than it has ever been represented before. Curt the Heretic (cklug@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu)
Partial index: