Here are my thoughts as we reach the end of the September Forum: Online scholarly publishing is young and growing. It has two characteristics that ensure that it will substantially replace print journals. Most importantly, it is a richer medium for conveying information. Secondly, it is less costly than printing and mailing, and the cost gap is getting larger.
There are some disadvantages to online publishing. Perhaps the most important is the lack of means for long-term archiving. Also, it is less convenient by far to read from a screen than from a page, especially when what is on the screen is the image of a printed page. The second disadvantage will become less important as display technology improves and the display no longer mimics a printed page. Scientists can be conservative in their habits, and very many are reluctant to give up the familiar printed page. As online publications make more use of their advanced abilities to convey information, scientists will rely less on printed journals. In my view, the transition from print-dominance to online-dominance will take five to ten years. Those on this Forum who have advocated steps to force a more rapid transition have not, in my opinion, made a compelling case for haste. The initial question for this Forum was "who will pay"? No consensus has emerged, and I don't think there need be. The experiments with various pricing modes will give the answer. The defect with this Forum was that the most important players in scholarly publishing weren't well represented. I mean the authors and readers, not the editors, publishers, and librarians. Marvin Margoshes
