AFRO-NETS> Future e-access to the primary literature

[Dieter Neuvians MD <neuvians@mweb.co.zw>]

Future e-access to the primary literature
-----------------------------------------

Nature Magazine opened a forum about the impact of the Web on pub-
lishing of the results of original research and about free access to 
scientific information. You can find the online debate at:

http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/


--
Introduction 
by
Declan Butler 
European correspondent
Nature 
mailto:d.butler@nature.com

Philip Campbell 
Editor-in-Chief, Nature


The topic of this Nature forum -- the impact of the Web on the pub-
lishing of the results of original research -- has, since the emer-
gence of the Internet, filled volumes in the reports of conference 
proceedings and reams of individual articles. Many of the often ar-
cane and complex socio-economic and technical issues involved are 
well-trodden paths for a narrow circle of specialists, and excellent 
in-depth coverage of the issue is regularly provided by specialists 
outlets such as the D-Lib Forum <http://www.dlib.org/> and the Jour-
nal of Electronic Publishing <http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/>. The 
main aim of this forum is to bring some of the substance of this 
Brownian motion of Internet issues to a broader grassroots audience 
and debate the implications for the future dissemination of scien-
tific information. 

Beyond the academic debate, there is constant cross-fertilization. 
Science feeds the development of online initiatives with bold pro-
jects like Internet2 <http://www.internet2.edu/> and computer "Grids" 
<http://www.gridforum.org/> and the commercial Internet provides new 
challenges and opportunities for scientists with the professionaliza-
tion of technologies such as peer-to-peer computing <http://openp2p.com/>. 
Then there is the plethora of joint initiatives <http://www.oasis-
open.org/> in Extensible Mark-up Language (XML) and other standards 
and technologies. The list of potential Internet opportunities for 
science is endless.

The issue is, to say the least, multifactorial. At one level, there 
is the economics. It is hardly a state secret that some commercial 
publishers have charged high prices for low-circulation journals, and 
enjoyed very high profit margins while contributing to the so-called 
serials crisis. Few if any libraries can afford subscriptions to even 
a significant fraction of the literature (see Nature 397, 195-200; 
1999). 

The most recent and prominent manifestation of the debates surround-
ing this topic is an initiative by researchers -- "The Public Library 
of Science". (PLS) <http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org/> who, by 
threatening a boycott, are trying to force publishers to release ar-
chive reports of original research into centralized, (as opposed to 
dispersed) databases that are freely available and to which there is 
unrestricted access. 

Is this the optimal solution?

The question is an open one. While this is a solution that has super-
ficial appeal and is noble in its aspirations it does, on closer ex-
amination, raise many questions. PLS argues that its scheme poses few 
financial risks for publishers, but this is far from established. 
What about "responsible publishers" such as the non-profit learned 
societies, the revenues of whose journals often fund their core ac-
tivities? Ann Okerson, Associate University Librarian at Yale Univer-
sity, warns that we must be careful not to thoughtlessly abolish a 
journal system which, for all its failings, works and replace it with 
a model that, while attractive, is still lacking in terms of detailed 
economics and how it would provide the quality controls that exist in 
the established system. The PMC option is also, in practice, domi-
nated by the United States and this in itself raises serious issues. 

That these topics are now being addressed in earnest is good news, 
but anyone who believes that they have a monopoly on the solution 
should be mistrusted; the socio-economic and other implications of 
the Web in science do not lend themselves to dogmatic solutions. 
While pressure for change can only be welcomed, the reality is that 
all of us involved in scientific information and exchange are in a 
phase of experimentation, the outcome of which remains uncertain. The 
challenge is to preserve the best of the current journals system, 
while seizing the opportunities of alternatives. 

If we just look at the economics of scientific publishing, the land-
scape has completely changed over the past few years. The way in 
which electronic journals are bundled and sold (as opposed to the way 
print is distributed), means that powerful consortia of libraries and 
indeed whole countries can now use their collective weight to negoti-
ate stiff deals with publishers and, in a market economy, this is a 
healthy development. Could it be that spreading the reduced but in-
evitable costs of quality electronic publication over a wider market 
might ultimately be a better solution than free access? This is also 
perhaps an open question.

The PLS initiative has drawn attention to the reasons for rethinking 
the traditional model and also promotes the idea of centralized data-
bases. In stark contrast, most of those involved in the Internet 
business see a future in distributed computing, and consensus stan-
dards. Indeed, a valid question for all scientists is how Medline, 
PubMed and similar public services, for all their much vaunted quali-
ties, measure up to current mainstream content management standards 
in industry. PubMed Central has now dissented from the central PLS 
proposal and decided that, while it requires participating publishers 
to deposit material with PMC for indexing, publishers can choose to 
allow viewing of full text via links to their own sites.

Change in the models for scholarly publishing is inevitable, and is 
badly needed. But perhaps functionality and people's needs are more 
important than the issue of cost. What do scientists consider most 
lacking in the current system, and what is at the top of their wish 
lists? In what way could scientific information be better handled so 
that they can work more easily and efficiently? Do use the forum to 
let us know 
<http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/feedback.html>.

We believe it is time to explore the many dimensions of these issues 
and debate them fully. The way we have chosen to do this is to invite 
leading representatives of the main groups of stakeholders and ob-
servers -- including libraries, promoters of free access, non-profit 
and for-profit publishers, database publishers, digital libraries, 
online-repositories, economists and people at the forefront of tech-
nological advance -- to express their views in 1,000-word articles. 
While we don't expect to reach any firm conclusions about where sci-
entific publishing on the Internet is heading -- something we can all 
only guess at -- we do aim, in this comprehensive suite of articles, 
to examine some of the key factors that may determine the future.

We also strongly encourage readers to contribute their thoughts and 
opinions and proffer useful facts, and will consider publishing these 
contributions in the forum. The forum will be moderated by Declan 
Butler and Tony Delamothe, web editor of the British Medical Journal, 
<http://www.bmj.com/> which is making its content freely available on 
the Web on publication, both on its own site and on PubMed Central. 
In short, we hope to help identify some of the best opportunities of-
fered by the Internet, and see what the best public and private 
strategies might be, in economic and other terms, to ensure that sci-
ence reaps the most benefits. 

--
Send mail for the `AFRO-NETS' conference to `<afro-nets@usa.healthnet.org>'.
Mail administrative requests to `<majordomo@usa.healthnet.org>'.
For additional assistance, send mail to:  `<owner-afro-nets@usa.healthnet.org>'.