Slashdot Mirror

I think we've conflated three distinct issues, and that we'd benefit from separating them:

1. The process by which information is generated and its quality is assessed - peer review, free-for-all, etc.
2. The mechanism and medium by which information is distributed - paper, www, etc.
3. The economic model by which information is distributed - for free, by subscription, per-use, etc.

The three are orthogonal; one can imagine migrating from today's (peer-reviewed, paper, subscription) system to, for instance, a (peer-reviewed, www, subscription) system -- which no doubt the Old Guard would applaud. Stanford's Highwire Press is an interesting effort to deploy a (peer-reviewed, www, hybrid) system which has also met with the approval of many Old Guard journals.

Quality control becomes a problem with all (free-for-all, *, *) systems. (I disagree with (#41) that "it's about time to shake up the peer review system." Peer review is a great way to assure quality, addressing the questions raised eloquently in (#35, 54, etc.). "Non-elites" may clamor for "democratic" publishing, but Usenet illustrates its impact on quality.)

Similarly, publisher resistance may become a problem with all (*, *, free) systems. Archiving is a concern with (*, www, *). And so on.

By treating each of these three issues separately we can draw useful distinctions, e.g., there are at least two, very different Old Guards:

1. for-profit publishers (e.g. Reed Elsevier) who want to preserve (peer-reviewed, paper, subscription) because it's profitable
2. non-profit publishers (e.g. AAAS) who can accept (peer-reviewed, *, *) because they are driven by the professional demands of their members.

BTW, Katz, you spelled Dr. Varmus' name correctly 3 times and misspelled it "Varnus" 8 times. Misspelling is bad enough, but internal inconsistency...? But an interesting article nonetheless. Bring on Buffy.