A couple of days ago I had a nice conversation with Mitch Waldrop who suggested that I check out a book by Jean-Claude Guedon entitled In Oldenburg's Long Shadow: Librarians, Research Scientists, Publishers, and the Control of Scientific Publishing.
This analysis of the history and future of scientific publishing has some very interesting factoids in it. I've only gone 1/5th through the book, but from the bit that I've read I can tell you that Guedon does not like the publishing industry and their aristocratic precedents. Also I find that the view of scientists is a little skewed, here is an example:
... scientists also monitor five to ten "essential" titles they deem fundamental for their specialty. In this manner, they check the progress of colleagues and potential competitors. Of course, they also monitor other news of a more professional nature (conferences, new research centers, new programs, etc.), but this activity has little to do with the direct transmission of scientific knowledge.
(emphasis mine) Really???
There are some passages that the open access folk would like, here's an example:
With the advent of digital technologies, equilibrium points that have proved essential for the management of copyright issues have been deeply disturbed. Technology no longer works in sync with the law, and no one knows for sure whether the disturbances are still reversible. The possibility of radical discontinuities increases. We have clearly entered a revolutionary phase in the proper sense of revolutionary; real changes in power structures and social relations are in the offing. Thinking no more than ten seconds about the Napster phenomenon, actually a minor epiphenomenon already deserted by all but mesmerized lawyers and a few bedazzled journalists, is enough to begin understanding what "radical" can mean in this context. Stripped of some of its technological props, intellectual property appears much more difficult to protect in practice.
Guedon also advances the idea that prestigious journals have a "branding" aspect. Thus, to publish in a prestigious journal is akin to owning branded merchandise. The question that I have is that although "brands" are human constructions, they can serve as a stand ins for a measure of quality. We are not experts in every subfield of biology or even in the genetics-molecular biology-biochemistry-cell biology spectrum. Journal rankings have help scientists to arbitrate the value of their peers work in fields that are unfamiliar to them. In addition, top journals have higher "standards" whether it is quality of the work or the relevance to the "general audience of the journal". Can humans live without this type of "branding"? One alternative attempted by some publishers, such as PLoS and Nature Precedings, is voting. But can this be trusted?
In some sense I agree, but not completely with the "branding" view of journals. I see the prestigious journals as a meeting place were the most important ideas are unveiled. Now some work needs to be published, but it may be of little interest to the larger scientific community, and there needs to be a place for that as well (i.e. smaller journals). Of course there are many problems with the current set up of most of the big journals, such as open access and the problems of peer review (including the influence that certain members of the scientific establishment may have over what gets published). But competition between journals have been good. In the mid nineties there was some dissatisfaction with the Journal of Cell Biology, and within a couple of years Nature Cell Biology appeared and gave JCB a run for its money. In the end all the journals responded to complaints of the authors and readers. Now would a free-for-all would be better?
Just some thoughts ...
- Log in to post comments