Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bionet!NOTE.NSF.GOV!rrobbins From: rrobbins@NOTE.NSF.GOV ("Robert J. Robbins") Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.bio-matrix Subject: electronic publishing Message-ID: <9008071208.aa22273@Note.NSF.GOV> Date: 7 Aug 90 16:08:48 GMT Sender: daemon@genbank.BIO.NET Lines: 100 A recent posting has raised some issues with regard to electronic publishing and has made particular reference the presentation by Patricia Morgan at the last BioMatrix meeting. The posting recalls two arguments against electronic publishing, half tones and cost to libraries, and notes that less than 5% of computer science journal articles contain photographs. The posting also notes that, 'when I mentioned the second argument to a friend they commented, "who needs libraries anyway?". That is, we could have direct distribution from publishers to readers.' In response to these comments, I offer some observations: - The posting is correct that the use of halftones is discipline dependent. Computer science, mathematics, logic, philosophy, and other abstract fields don't need them. Biology, especially molecular biology, does. Halftones are not the only problem, however. Other graphics make for difficulty, too. The argument, raised at the meeting, that PostScript can be used as the galactic standard for page layout just doesn't hold water. First, the standard isn't as standard as standards ought to be. I have had people send me PostScript reports via e-mail and when I print them out using a PostScript printer at NSF, occasionally a page comes out with a screwed up format. The source claims the file printed fine at home. This leads me to believe that not all PS files print identically on all PS printers. Second, not everyone has access to PS printers. Third, even when folks do have access to PS printers, they often would prefer to receive a printed article in the mail rather than fire up the printer and produce (at, say, 4 cents a page) a 100-page printout that then must be stapled or punched or whatever so that it can be carried around and read conveniently. - The doing-away-with-libraries notion sounds intriguing at first, but appears more naive and silly upon further thought. Libraries do not exist just to provide full employment opportunities for parasitic librarians. They provide real functions, such as allowing researchers access to many more journals than they could possibly afford individually. They also provide an archival function, which is essential in disciplines that are less ephemeral than computer science. Quick, give five computer-science citations that are over fifty years old that can still be read with profit. However, there are many biological manuscripts that are over a hundred years old that are still important and useful. Many of these involve detailed illustrations (engravings, usually) of anatomical studies that have not been redone, since the original 19th century work is considered definitive. Converting these to PostScript format would be costly and tedious, and would greatly reduce the value of the work. The archival problem is perhaps one of the more acute arguments against electronic publishing. Quick, give five examples of material written electronically over forty years ago that can still be read easily with current equipment. For electronic publishing to be considered even as a candidate for archival publishing, there will have to be some possibility that material published electronically will continue to be readable for decades, preferably centuries, without need for periodic copying onto new media in new formats. - The issue of cost is real, as well, and cannot be dismissed by doing away with libraries. Publishers publish to make a buck, not to provide a free service to the world. Serious electronic publishing involves user fees independently of whether the user is a library or an individual. Serious publishing also involves a concern for the rights, economic and otherwise, of the author and publisher. Sure, you can always make 50 xerox copies of the latest issue of Cell and distribute them to your friends, but that will involve a lot of work and expense and you are not likely to do it very often. Therefore, the publisher of Cell can set subscription fees on the assumption that most readers will be looking at a paid-for copy, not a xeroxed rip off. With an electronically delivered journal, say that arrives via email, you can, with a simple forward command, send 50 or 100 or 1000 copies off to many friends almost effortlessly. Therefore, a publisher working in this medium must assume that most of the readers will be using non-paid-for copies and the few fools (libraries?) who obtain their copies legitimately must be expected to carry the full cost for the subscription. I could add a few more observations, but I suspect my position is fairly clear. I believe that the idea that electronic publishing will replace print publishing is about as accurate and astute a prediction as the one made frequently in the fifties that private helicopters would replace private automobiles. Helicopters play many important roles in our society, but providing routine individual transportation is not one of them. Likewise, computers and electronic communication play important roles in our society, but replacing the printed word as the primary medium for scientific communication is not one of them. At the same time, there are certain kinds of scientific publishing that cry out for an electronic medium. Database materials are obviously one of these. How many people prefer to use GenBank in the hard-copy, multi-volume form? I think that those of us who believe that computers have an increasingly important role to play in the practice of biology should take care to avoid making exaggerated claims, either through naivete or excess enthusiasm. Nothing undercuts a good case more than a patently false assertion.