Why would an electronic archive be harder to maintain than a paper journal?
The main reason is that paper lasts for several centuries before it must be copied. Electronic media last for a few years or a few decades -- we don't really know how long tapes, disks and even CDs will retain their information perfectly.
Equally important is that (almost) every person has the software needed to interpret printed material built into his body. But electronic archives require a layer of software between the media and the person. The software changes every few years. The format of the data on the media changes every few years. The hardware required to run the software required to read the media changes every few years.
You may say, "No -- just keep the old hardware and the old software for several decades, don't bother to update;" but that position doesn't work very well in practice. How many institutions can afford to keep 20-year-old computers and OSes and software running? And who would make the NEW literature available on the OLD media?
It's a real mess. I believe that paper is still the best way -- by far -- to archive scientific journals for the long term.
In the various subfields of Physics, this idea of a public "preprint server" has been implemented for some time: check out the Los Alamos Physics Preprint server.
I've been active in research (astronomy) for the past ten years or so, and I've had many conversations with other researchers on the future of scientific publication. Some of the main points are:
1. Review/moderation is necessary. There are a _lot_ of people who have crackpot theories about the universe, and some of them aren't shy. Without refereeing of some sort, the number of scientifically worthless -- see definition below -- papers will grow to the point that they may swamp the worthwhile papers. At that point, many users will stop using the archive.
Note on "scientifically worthless": science is an enterprise which depends on its workers to adhere to a set of rules, such as understanding basic physical principles, checking the existing literature, creating falsifiable hypotheses, verifying new results, repeating experiments, etc. Papers describing ideas which aren't developed along these rules are, by definition, scientifically worthless.
2. Scientists depend on their publication records to land good jobs, and to advance in those jobs. At the moment, in astronomy, at least, the existing electronic archives are NOT viewed as "real publications". There's a little bit of a chicken-and-egg problem: until the electronic archives are taken seriously, many people won't publish in them exclusively. But if everyone publishes elsewhere, why take electronic archives seriously?
3. Many people, myself included, worry a great deal about the use of electronic archives 10 or 20 years hence. I have paged through bound journals dating back more than 100 years, and used them occasionally in my research. I can interpret the information easily. But I don't think it will be an easy matter to keep electronic media up-to- date over a century. The librarians to whom I've talked are _very_ worried about this.
Yes, I know that it may not be difficult in THEORY to copy old materials to new formats and new media every N years; but in practice, it's a royal pain. In an era of shrinking library budgets, it may become fiscally impossible.
On the other hand, I do very much support the idea of "Open Source" publications. It will enable many more scientists to publish their ideas. In my field, for example, the authors have to pay the journals about $125 PER PAGE for the papers they publish. My last paper cost over $2000, and I had to pay for some of it myself (since I work at a small university that doesn't have a lot of money to support research).
The tricky thing will be to find a mechanism which keeps the good points of the current scientific journal system, while avoid the pitfalls (some of which I've mentioned above).
Slashdot Mirror
Why would an electronic archive be harder to maintain than a paper journal?
The main reason is that paper lasts for several centuries before it must be copied. Electronic media last for a few years or a few decades -- we don't really know how long tapes, disks and even CDs will retain their information perfectly.
Equally important is that (almost) every person has the software needed to interpret printed material built into his body. But electronic archives require a layer of software between the media and the person. The software changes every few years. The format of the data on the media changes every few years. The hardware required to run the software required to read the media changes every few years.
You may say, "No -- just keep the old hardware and the old software for several decades, don't bother to update;" but that position doesn't work very well in practice. How many institutions can afford to keep 20-year-old computers and OSes and software running? And who would make the NEW literature available on the OLD media?
It's a real mess. I believe that paper is still the best way -- by far -- to archive scientific journals for the long term.
In the various subfields of Physics, this idea
of a public "preprint server" has been implemented
for some time: check out the Los Alamos
Physics Preprint server.
I've been active in research (astronomy) for
the past ten years or so, and I've had many
conversations with other researchers on the
future of scientific publication. Some of the
main points are:
1. Review/moderation is necessary. There are
a _lot_ of people who have crackpot theories
about the universe, and some of them aren't
shy. Without refereeing of some sort,
the number of scientifically worthless --
see definition below -- papers will grow to
the point that they may swamp the worthwhile
papers. At that point, many users will stop
using the archive.
Note on "scientifically worthless": science
is an enterprise which depends on its
workers to adhere to a set of rules, such
as understanding basic physical principles,
checking the existing literature, creating
falsifiable hypotheses, verifying new
results, repeating experiments, etc. Papers
describing ideas which aren't developed
along these rules are, by definition,
scientifically worthless.
2. Scientists depend on their publication
records to land good jobs, and to advance
in those jobs. At the moment, in astronomy,
at least, the existing
electronic archives are NOT viewed as
"real publications". There's a little bit
of a chicken-and-egg problem: until the
electronic archives are taken seriously,
many people won't publish in them
exclusively. But if everyone publishes
elsewhere, why take electronic archives
seriously?
3. Many people, myself included, worry a great
deal about the use of electronic archives
10 or 20 years hence. I have paged through
bound journals dating back more than 100
years, and used them occasionally in my
research. I can interpret the information
easily. But I don't think it will be an
easy matter to keep electronic media up-to-
date over a century. The librarians to whom
I've talked are _very_ worried about this.
Yes, I know that it may not be difficult
in THEORY to copy old materials to new
formats and new media every N years;
but in practice, it's a royal pain. In an
era of shrinking library budgets, it may
become fiscally impossible.
On the other hand, I do very much support the
idea of "Open Source" publications. It will
enable many more scientists to publish their
ideas. In my field, for example, the authors
have to pay the journals about $125 PER PAGE
for the papers they publish. My last paper cost
over $2000, and I had to pay for some of it
myself (since I work at a small university that
doesn't have a lot of money to support research).
The tricky thing will be to find a mechanism
which keeps the good points of the current
scientific journal system, while avoid the
pitfalls (some of which I've mentioned above).