Brenda Hollinger
IRLS 589 – Dr. Coleman
Final Paper
May 8, 2003
I give permission for my final project to be made available through the LIS Learning Showcase web server.
Information and communication technologies are
re-defining scholarly communication; there is a trend towards
interdisciplinarity, collaboration, and disintermediation and these trends make
evaluation of scholarship difficult.
Abstract:
Disintermediation can affect all levels of scholarly publication: at
the student research level; at the academic publishing level; at the archiving
level. Collaboration and
interdisciplinary scholarship only have the chance to grow if they utilize
their readers and the many fields the readers come from. Disintermediation will
occur if the “middlemen” do not grow with the new technologies and redefine
their role. Collaborating authorship and interdisciplinary research have the
chance to define or loose their value now, at the defining role of electronic
publication. Intermediators, collaborators,
and multidiscipline studies are only able to exist (as a positive or a
negative) if they are perceived useful.
Introduction:
Scholarly communication has been greatly affected by new technologies
and publication techniques. High priced peer-review journals are impacted, as
are scholars’ archiving methods and the review process. A literary review of
the new approaches to scholarly communication offers a comprehensive view and
various opinions. Predictions to the future of publication as well as
comparison to its history are documented widely and verily.
(It is worth remembering a difference between scholarly writing and
commercial writing: in scholarly, the interest of the author and publisher are
opposites. The author wants wide distribution to encourage exposure and
citation references. The publisher retains a restrictive hold on the
publication, charging a hefty expense to the reader/purchaser. In commercial,
the authors and publisher both want wide distribution (usually the market
requires a competitive price) with no unauthorized copying).
Peter Duncan Maccauley surveyed doctoral students and mentors at Deakin
University in Australia. He used his survey results to analyze changes in users
(i.e., researchers, students, peers) habits and confidences in obtaining
information and sharing scholarly papers. Chapter VI of Maccauley’s paper is
titled Information Literacy: Deficiencies, Disintermediation, and Distance.
His findings “related to information literacy within the doctoral research
process.” Maccauley’s survey included identifying the shock of “information
overload”. For his survey, Maccauley defined disintermediation occurring when
an end user obtains information without the assistance of a third party. In
this research, the intermediator is the librarian. The doctoral candidates
described their bibliographic searching and citation studies as “missing out on
something by not talking to a librarian about it,” and that perhaps they spent
too much research time “re-inventing the wheel.” One candidate exclaimed that an “electronic library without
librarians would be a very soulless and lonely place.” The collaboration between patron and library
specialist is defined as sorely needed.
Maccauley has applied the definition of disintermediation at the
library user level. It is very easy to visual and identify the opinion that
“computers cannot go into the little corridors where librarians can take you
and show you where the books are.”
Webopedia defines disintermediation as ‘removing the middleman’.
Traditional methods of retail (in this case, scholarly communication) are
changed: products are available directly to the consumer rather than going
through traditional channels of dispersement. It is explained that by
eliminating the middleman, products are cheaper and faster to obtain. A level
of service is lost, however – and in scholarly literacy, the level lost is
valuable. Disintermediation can result in disempowering users.
Michael Hammer sees disintermediation as the end of distributors,
retailers, and other service providers. He acknowledges that end users do need
help (from intermediators) in buying and using products. He sees the role
of intermediators as adding needed
value, not to buy or sell.
Maccauley introduces the term reintermediation. Reintermediation allows
for a collaborative information literacy process. Re-invention of roles may
occur. Middlemen can be defined as gatekeepers, and in reintermediation,
gatekeepers in scholarly literacy may become the information mediators,
collaborators and organizers.
arXive and RePec
Thomas Krichel and Simeon Warner continue the disintermediation
discussion in the academic level in their paper “Disintermediation of Academic
Publishing through the
Internet: An Intermediate Report from the Front Line.” By exploring
arXiv and RePec, they offer perspectives of future scenarios, including the
archiving of scholarly papers.
arXive is one of the largest self-archiving sites of discipline related
scholarly papers. Attempts to replicate its success have not worked well. Also,
arXive’s attempts to expand from Math and Physics to include Computer Science
has had limited success.
RePec has ambitious plans in registering every author, institution and
document in the economics field. However, no publisher publishes a majority of
the economic material; and other commercial repositories are competing for
RePEc’s authors and audience. As a result, RePec’s content is dominated by
working papers.
Krichel and Warner envision three different scenarios of scholarly
publication. One: documents made available freely on the web by the authors
with no bibliographic organization - no intermediary. A second view suggests a
bibliographic system that may reside on the server where the paper is stored, although
the servers will be decentralized. In scenario three, servers will be
distinguished by subject discipline. Archiving will be centralized by
discipline. They advocate a disciplinary specific gateway catalog, with an
intermediator collecting the contents. The organization will be less formal and
structured than in a library or archive. However, they visualize a variety of
institution based and discipline based archives, with success balanced on the
interoperability.
If publications and archives are divided by disciplines,
interdisciplinary research and collaboration among scholars will be hindered.
Collaboration and discipline sharing can be useful to the expansion of
scholarly literature, offering opportunities of widened exposure and
publication coverage.
In Mark Howard’s paper “Does Disintermediation Make Sense? It’s
Difficult to Say” he describes research publishing scientists as believing that
publishers no longer serve their purpose. Scientist feel that web technology
allows them to publish and distribute results themselves and that publishers
are redundant. The journal New Science reported that author/scientists
have come out in favor of establishing “international online public libraries
of science that contain the complete text of all published scientific articles
in searchable and interlinked formats.” In additional arguments it was pleaded
to end the niche journals that subdivide research. Publishers push libraries to
subscribe to the various expensive specialty journals, thus narrowing the
number of circulation because of the quantity and cost of the journals. Howard
introduces Prof. Michael Rosenzweig’s (Professor, Ecology and
Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona) comments about the increase of
subscription publication prices as library cancel their subscriptions.
Rosenzweig says the community needs to reclaim their own publishing rights by
self publishing. Rosenzweig’s colleague Henry Hagedorn stated commercial
publishers offer “young scholars tenure in exchange for” their copyrights.
Howard
offers three cases where publishers chose to work with the authors to avoid
disintermediation. One case resulted in lower subscription rates to a journal,
one publisher experienced a mass exodus of its editorial board to another
press, where subscription rates were lower, and in the third, a journal turned
to free electronic only publication only.
Although none of these changes may reflect sound business models, Howard
believes that they emphasize the changing scholarly publishing environment.
Howard,
as Macauly, discusses the term re-intermediation. Howard points out that the
intermediator’s role has changed, but can still be defined as vital. Some
publishers have offered free website access to one set of literature while
offering a smaller niche group of subscription based online journals. Some
publishers offer free weekly email journal updates of a specific discipline of
the user’s preference. BioOne has been established by a library
consortia and publisher group as a non-profit collaboration providing
integrated access to a linked information resource of interrelated journals.
One web publisher solicits for submissions, then produces weekly reviews
providing links to full text for subscribers and for fee document delivery
service for others. Intermediator jobs have been redefined and introduced as
re-intermediators.
Journal
of Pancreas
Journal
of Pancreas has introduced a model for “the
dissemination of scientific information and sharing of knowledge in the field
of Pancreatology and Diabetology.” JOP is a specialized journal published
freely in electronic format and attempts to serve for quickly sharing
information. First the journal eliminates delays in publication times.
Authors maintain the intellectual property of their articles with the
discussion that by doing so, the volume of scientific communication and
exchange is increased.
The structure of JOP remains similar to that of a paper journal, with
issues and volume numbers assigned to each edition (the online journal even has
an ISSN assigned). Over 20,000 scientists subscribe to JOP; the subscribers
receive an electronic table of contents bimonthly. The field of study is very
specific and defined. The peer review process is stricter than that of most
traditional journals, the content emphasis is research study. JOP is anticipating depositing a legal copy
of each issue with the Italian National Library. JOP has not been assigned with
an Impact Factor value, a fault that impedes their attraction to some authors.
JOP is tasked with constantly updating its format to respond to the needs of
readers and authors. JOP’s goal is to continue to quickly share scholarly
studies with its readers of the field even as it recognizes financial binds.
The negative exposure for not being defined with an impact factor is a sad one;
some authors refuse to publish with them because of the stigma (or lack of it).
The role of citation analysis and evaluation does play a roll in electronic
journals. Derek Law points out in a debate that the continuity of citation is a
concern. Scholarly communication depends on literature tracing. Law argues that
self-publishing/archiving authors are not reliable as citation counting, as
URLs change/disappear often. He recommends universities as ideal repositories,
as they change very slowly and deliberately. He declares that libraries are
important for the access of scholarly information in an organized way.
Publishers are not, as one publisher may publish several different topics of
scholarly literature. Libraries group the information by one classification or
another, and make all the information accessible. Jan Velterop joined the
debate with the reminder that the value of an article may depend on where the
article is published (which journal). The debate discussion included that a
library, publisher and agent all carry out the function of scholarly
publication, but the publisher is the one with the money for investing and
funding. In this case, collaboration is not defined as between authors, but with
those who handle and maintain the finished product.
Discussion on ownership of an article continues to haunt the
establishment of electronic journals. Paul Harwood describes it as “a scientist
writes a research paper… which he gives away to a publisher… only for that
scientist’s organization to buy it back in the form of an institutional
subscription.” Harwood sees the main
players in evolution/revolution of scholarly publication as: the publishers,
the subscription agents, and the librarians.
Publishers are dealing with new business models, new publishing
techniques (electronically) and competition/mergers. Subscription agents
understand the customer demands and what is required of customer service. And
librarians find electronic journals as a real chance to show their professional
skills. Harwood suggests the “evolution” phase comes in the buying of author’s
works and publishing of it; the “revolution” phase then come in the concept of
the Open Archive Initiatives and the overthrow of the current commercial model
(simply: the objection of Open Archive Initiatives is to support
interoperability standards of e-archived documents).
McKenzie Marketing’s paper “The Internet and Disintermediation of
Channel Partners” suggests that the Internet and technology will “erode” the
need for the quantity of middlemen needed. “The key to their success will be in
their ability to identify and then capitalize on areas in which they can add
significant value.”
Andrew Odlyzko writes that interdisciplinary work will grow as
traditional peer review lessens with the evolution of electronic journals.
Odlyzko claims that once scholarly papers are available online, people outside
the discipline of an article will access it. He says “with lower barriers to
interactions and access to specialized literature, we should see more
interdisciplinary work”. The Internet
will increase information, although some of it will be of low quality. “The
ease of access is likely to promote the natural evolution of scholarly work.
There will be more interdisciplinary research…”
Scholars can create and define the changes that happen in scholarly
communications. Two current transformations include JSTOR and activities in
SPARC. JSTOR is funded by participating libraries to alleviate
preservation/storage concerns. JSTOR digitizes scholarly back journals/files.
SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) works under the
ARL in various ways: to encourage publishers to be cost-conscious in their
pricing of subscriptions; to support non-profit editorial boards; to use
technology to circulate scholarly information; and to encourage the integration
of various types and sources. Encouraging the “change attitude” is Johann van
Reenen of the University of New Mexico. He advocates separation of tenure and
scholarly publication. He notes that “new” researchers without previous
publication experience find it hard to enter the traditional top-tier journals.
He says that top-tiered journals are counted in Citation Index, whereas
second-tiered journals may not be, and that many tenure committees depend on
the CI “count” figure instead of reading and understanding the written work
itself. He also notes the desire of scholarly writers to join together to
create interdisciplinary publishable articles – by electronic publication and
archiving, this goal can be achieved. Van Reenen advocates OpCit (Open Citation
Linking) so that electronic published articles can link to the articles they
cite. Allowing for new online informetric analysis. Overall, van Reenen sees
scholarly institutions as being the ones who can change and create change the
way they want it, including interdisciplinary and collaborated. With electronic
publishing, scholarship will encourage interdisciplinary research.
Jack Meadows article “Can We Really See Where Electronic Journals are
Going?” follows van Reenen’s message perfectly. Meadows describes acceptance of
any new product or idea as an ‘S’ curve- is starts slow (a the bottom of the S)
and moves to a fuller volume of acceptance and use (the middle of the S), and
slowing down as saturation and acceptance is reached (the top of the S). He
believes that electronic publication is at the lower end of the ‘S’, still
identifying and accepting itself. The acceptance must come from authors,
publishers, libraries and the readers themselves. The authors (scholars) aim
for the prestigious journals. The publishers charge more for prestigious
journals. Libraries are locked into subscribing to the prestigious (and
expensive) journals. And readers read them, not necessarily aware that “second
tier” journals contain scholarly information. Actually, the needs of the
readers coincide with the wants of the authors: journals that publish quality
articles and that easily accessible.
Steve Lawrence writes that the ability to find the quality articles
will increase with online publication. The number of times a paper is cited
also increases with online publication. Lawrence’s paper includes metrics
correlating that online articles are cited more. He compares a publication with
both online and off-line articles and notes that the online articles are cited more. He concludes that the
accessibility of the online article creates a market for a higher citation
count.
Does our capitalistic society prevent online/electronic publication?
Michael Seadle thinks it does. He considers a subscription – or access to a
scholarly article – to require ‘payment for good’, as that is part of our
society. Seadle explains that our market economy drives the aspects of
publication, that advertising helps drive the market, and that commercial
publishers are capable of being separate from academics. In the article
“Electronic Journals: myths and realities” the authors argue that scholars
rather read journals at their leisure in a place other than on a computer. They
insist that technology is driving the market, not the wants of readers, authors
or libraries. Other ‘myths’ they discuss are: readers know/care who the
publisher is; readers depend on page integrity;
e-journals will eliminate libraries; libraries will save money with
e-journals; e-journals will save paper and storage is free; that publishers
care about readers; e-journals will eliminate subscription agents; and that
only recent issues are ever required.
Scholars tend to agree that scholarly publication is in for a change.
Many advocate rapid change, applying the technology that is available for it.
Others advocate testing the waters, defining the laws as trials and
tribulations are counted. It is obvious that this is the perfect time to do it
“right” but with results that are flexible to improvement. It must only be fair
that a scholar in a remote location with internet connection have the same
access to research as the scholar who writes it, sitting in the midst of
academia. But the publication industry has never been about being fair for
equal distribution; it has been about reputation and marketability.
Collaboration and interdisciplinary studies will be fostered only if
they are perceived as useful; disintermediation can happen if the
“middle man” fails to adapt to a new role.
Good, Mark W., P.C. McKenzie Company. www.mckenziemarketingservices.com
December 2001.
Hammer, Michael. The Myth of Disintermediation. Information Week Online, July 2000.
Harwood, Paul. “Evolution or Revolution: the future of scholarly publishing.” www.freeprint.com . 2002.
Howard, Mark. RoweCom UK Ltd. http://www.bokis.is/iod2001/papers/Howard_paper.doc
International Conference on Scholarly Communication and Academic Presses, Firenze University Press, 2001.
Kricher, Thomas and Simeon Warner. http://openlib.org/home/krichel/sants.html
Law, Derek and Jan Velterop. “The Future Structure of Scholarly Communication holds no place for Commercial Publishers” debate organized by the University College and Research Group of the Library Association. May 1998.
Lawrence, Steve. “Free Online Availability Substantially Increases a
Paper’s Impact”
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/lawrence.html
Maccauley, Peter Duncan Australia Digital Theses Program: Doctoral Research and Scholarly Communication. Deakin University. 2001.
Meadows, Jack. “Can we really see where electronic journals are going.” Library Management. Vol 18(3). 1997.
Odlyzko, Andrew. “The Rapid Evolution of Scholarly Communication.” Learned Publishing, Vol 15(1). January 2002.
Seadle, Michael. “In Defense of (Some) Commercial Journals. Library Hi Tech, Vol. 19(2). 2001.
Van Reenen, Johann. “Scholarly Publishing and Intellectual
Property in the Electronic Environment.” Chapter 3. Digital Libraries and
Virtual Workplaces: Important Initiatives for Latin America in the Information
Age. Washington, DC: The
Organization of American States. 2002.
Woodward, Hazel, Fytton Rowland, Cliff McKnight, Jack Meadows and Carolyn Pritchett. “Electronic Journals: myths and realities” . Library Hi Tech, Vol. 13(4), 1997.