On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Juan Miguel Campanario wrote: jc>> I am sending comments on EBIOMED. The EBIOMED idea is very similar to jc>> an idea I have published before. I am sending an elaborated version jc>> of my idea with references to THE SCIENTIST, the journal in which I jc>> published it. > sh>Unfortunately, I cannot agree with your ideas about peer review. > sh>Please see: sh>http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/nature2.html sh>plus my critique of E-biomed: sh>http://www.nih.gov/welcome/director/ebiomed/com0509.htm#harn45 > > Dear Prof. Harnad: > > Thank you for your answer. I know your opinions concerning E-biomed > and concerning peer review. > > My main interest in E-biomed is that I propossed a very similar > publishing outlet some time ago. The main diference between E-biomed and > my idea is that, while in E-biomed authors are entitled to choose the journal > to which referes are afiliated, in my proposal (a central database or > metajournal) authors would submit an abstract or a full manuscript to the > central facility or metajournal. Journal editorial boards would routinely > scan the metajournal to locate potentially innovative manuscripts and/or > papers of interest. Editors would then contact authors about publishing the > article. If more than one offer is made, the author would choose the > journal in which to publish. The task of shopping around could be > eliminated and left totally in the hands of interested journals. The new > system would inspire a new role in science: the journal scout or journal > agent who would seek out manuscripts for journals.Journal scouts should be > real experts in their fields and should be able to convice editors that > candidate papers are worthy of publication. I strongly believe that when > electronic publishing evolves, the > publishing system will be similar to the above I dreamed. Now, I am interested > in stating that a precedent to the idea of E-biomed was published by me some > time ago. > > The Scientist, > 1997, Vol 11, Iss 10, May 12, pag 9 (Internet: > http://165.123.33.33/yr1997/may/let1_970512.html > > Juan Miguel Campanario > GRUPO DE INVESTIGACION SOBRE EL APRENDIZAJE DE LAS CIENCIAS > Departamento de Fisica http://www.uah.es/otrosweb/giac > Universidad de Alcala [email protected] > 28871 Alcala de Henares TEL 34-91-8854926 Fax 34-91-8854942 > Madrid (ESPANA-SPAIN) > ---------------------------------------------
Dear Prof Campanario, The idea is interesting but has some problems. (1) Peer-review is a "seller's" market and not a "buyer's" market (if the "market" metaphor is applicable at all -- and I rather doubt it). This means authors are trying to reach the acceptance threshold of the highest quality journal they can reach. Quality-control is a FILTER, not a MAGNET. (2) There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the current quality and specialty hierarchy and network of journals -- except that access to it is blocked (by the access-constraints of paper and the toll-barriers of proprietary paper and online access) instead of being free. (3) E-biomed's real mission (once the confusion about being, competing with or collaborating with journals is resolved in favour of what the archive should real be: none of these) is to provide a reliable, permanent facility for authors to self-archive both their refereed reprints and their unrefereed preprints, thereby freeing the journal literature for one and all. (4) Megajournals and peer-review reform having nothing whatsoever to do with it. E-biomed will only come into focus when it dissociates itself from such interesting but irrelevant and potentially derailing issues. Sincerely, Stevan Harnad [email protected] Professor of Cognitive Science [email protected] Department of Electronics and phone: +44 2380 592-582 Computer Science fax: +44 2380 592-865 University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/ Highfield, Southampton http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/ SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/
