Is electronic publishing being used in the best interests of science?

R. Stephen BerryThe University of Chicago

What are “best interests”?What science?

Second question first: DistinguishScience supported by public (& not-for

profit) funds, andScience supported by private, for-profit

funds

We concentrate on the first; the second is much easier.

Why use public funds to support scientific research?

Because the results of that research yield public goods.

Public goods are those whose value does not diminish with use. Scientific results are special (but not necessarily unique):

Their value increases with their use.

How are those public goods captured?

Only by distribution and use of the results of the research.

Implications: the wider the distribution, the greater the value is likely to be.

Inhibition of the distribution of the results acts against the interests and intent of the agency and government that supported the research.

What, now, are the “best interests of science”?

Whatever A) sustains the scientific enterprise by

justifying its support externally, andB) maintains and fosters the internal

characteristics of the best science: creativity, flexibility, self-criticality, sustainability, perspective.

What does the first imply?

The results of research must be available to other researchers, the more widely distributed, the better.

If, by adding value without inhibiting the distribution of the information, private publishers can perform this distribution, so be it.

What motivates publishers?

Distinguish commercial publishers from professional societies.

The latter have (or should have) the furtherance of the members’ science as their primary motivation, and profit as a secondary motive, for achieving their main goal.

The commercial publishers have these reversed, quite properly.

What’s new? The process of adapting to e-publishing!

But also, adapting to the now-chronic pinch on funds available for research and the distribution of its results.

E-publishing offers a low-cost, efficient alternative to p-publishing, especially if we give up conventional reviewing and editing.

So what are we to do?

Keep the principal journals in whatever combination of print and electronic forms best satisfies each particular audience. If the commercial publishers can continue to produce journals competitive with professional societies’ publications, fine, they should do so.

But keep in mind the two different motivations!

Professional societies must keep the journals functioning to keep their science alive.

Commercial publishers want to keep science alive in order to keep their journals functioning and profitable.

But if the profits vanish, commercial publishers have no further stake; the professional societies still do.

And so...

There is no natural right for commercial publishers to make profit from scientific publishing. If there is a profitable market available, then they should be in it, but if the natural market is not suitable, then they should get out! This is fast becoming (& may now be) the case with small-circulation, specialized journals.

What happens to those small scientific communities?

The small-circulation, specialized journal, serving a community of people known to one another, is the ideal niche for the electronic journal with minimal editorial and reviewing services. C.f. the virtual journals being created by the A.P.S.

What about those main-line journals?

Different styles for different communities;

A period of adjustment, experiment and adaptation, perhaps a decade or more;

TRY ALL THE POSSIBILITIES THAT LOOK PROMISING! Let them compete.

Implying for the environment,...

Any legislation or regulation applying to distribution of scientific information must be permissive and not prohibitory.

The former will be in the best interests of science and the communities it serves, but the latter, very much in opposition to those interests.

Expand on that: An example

Removal of fair use for e-print journals should represent the maximum protection afforded by law, so any journal that wants to allow fair use of its publications may do so.

Then let those permitting fair use compete with those prohibiting it, and see who survives in a fair, competitive market!

We should experiment:With open refereeing,With wider use of e-print archives,With various channels of paying

publication costs,With trying to understand the

differences among scientific fields regarding publication

And, of course, we must evaluate the results of the experiments!

And, by the way, who pays?

For government-supported research, the ultimate responsibility lies with the funder, and it frequently comes to that.

But it may take many forms, from payment of page charges to overhead to support library subscriptions.

Author charges have a problem, especially in U.S.

Some nations prohibit payment of page or submission charges;

Because of the high proportion of non-U.S. authors publishing in U.S. journals, author charges don’t work.

Could international agreements to make these payments possible? What can the U.S. offer in return? Or threaten?

And, in summary, 5 ‘rules’:

1. Stay flexible;2. Stay adaptable;3. Experiment, push the envelope of

possibilities;4. Don’t let others lock us in;5. As in Rabelais’ Abbey of Thélemé,

“Do as thou wilt!”