on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 Jim Till <[email protected]> wrote: [snip]
> There were also other posts about the experiments with IEGs. I've written > an article which had its origins in this exchange of messages. > > The article has recently been published in the journal Learned Publishing > [2001; 14(1) 7-13], with the title: 'Predecessors of preprint servers'. > The article is freely available (e.g. as a PDF file), via (see page 7): > http://www.catchword.com/alpsp/09531513/v14n1/contp1-1.htm > Mr. Till's article provides some useful citations. His conclusions regarding the opposition of editors to proposals such as NIH's ebiomed project is closer to name-calling than to scholarship. James E. Till sees science editors as the main barrier to the circulation of free preprints. He should understand that there is a good reason for editors' successful opposition, one that is not as well recognized by the author as by the scientific world. Put as succinctly as possible, the reason is that editors are responsible for the integrity of the scientific record. Many editors feel that they protect the public not only from poor science but also from claims tainted by conflict of interest. Neither the inspectors employed by various sponsors of research - who act only on complaints of fraud, fabrication or plagiarism within the narrow jurisdiction of agency underwriting - nor the university provosts who claim to oversee research integrity cast a shadow on the awesome responsibility of the editors. No one who has not performed the task of assessing and accepting hundreds of manuscripts for publication can comprehend the potential for poorly prepared, poorly presented, careless, biased, and unscientific submissions. An automated preprint server would probably accept and publish articles that would be rejected out of hand by journal editors. Considerable research presented at conferences, for instance, never even rises to the level of journal submission. (Garvey, 1979 p. 136; Weber et al. 1998) Most authors disappear after one or two successful submissions. (Price, 1975 p. 175) More than all the other objections enumerated by Till, the incipient deluge of garbage is the editors' source of apprehension. This prospect is the basis of their rejection of research results that have been released prematurely. This is particularly relevant in the life sciences, where mathematical proofs are irrelevant, where the number of authors is too large to call it a community, where the majority of authors are not employed by and reviewed within government agencies, and where commercial bias is common -often underlying even the distribution of articles reprinted from peer-reviewed journals. We are already swamped in a storm of scientific claims thanks to arcane sponsorship policies that fail to support comprehensive in-depth reviews of the research literature. As William Garvey described the scientists' problem more than 20 years ago, "Even if they had perfect retrieval systems they would be presented with so many items that they could not assimilate and process them." Even the preprint guru Paul Ginsparg admits, "There remains a pressing need for organization of intellectual value-added, which by definition cannot be automated even in principle, and that leaves significant opportunities for any agency willing to listen to what researchers want and need." (1996) The prospect of blind automation overtaking the literature promises to add raw effluent to troubled waters. It is not surprising that administrators perceive science editors as motivated by selfish or commercial interests. As if reading a Rorschach inkblot, they reveal their own miserable outlook. In this regard, Till's irrelevant discussion of the secretive and abusive Star Chamber - which was concerned with political power, not science - would be amusing if so many assaults on the influence of editors and authors did not originate from a smug cabal of powerful bureaucrats. When I say "cabal," I refer more to a shared sub-culture than a conspiracy. By failing to connect library spending with the rising output of research, universities have decimated their own once-excellent collections. This damage has undermined editors and authors, compromised peer review; and set up publishers for complaints about prices forced upward by cancellations and production inflation. Now they aspire to sweep journals away once and for all with a tide of free preprints -- the ultimate in predatory pricing disguised as the government entitlement of university misers. In contrast, science editors ignored financial considerations to make their readers' needs their top priority for more than 300 years. In particular, they have organized the chaotic interchange of letters and other communications that, in many respects of form and function, would be called preprints today. The proposed displacement of journals with preprint servers clearly would be a step backward -- more costly to the research community than presume savings in library spending. References: Garvey, William D. Communication: The Essence of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 1979. Ginsparg, Paul. Winners and losers in the global research village. 1996. [http://arxiv.org/blurb/pg96unesco.html] Price, Derek J. de Solla. Science since Babylon. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1961. enl. Ed. 1975. Weber, Ellen J., Michael L. Callaham, Robert L. Wears, Christopher Barton, Gary Young. Unpublished research from a medical speciality meeting. J A M A 280,3: 257-259. 1998. =0= Best wishes, Albert Henderson Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000 <[email protected]>
