The more things change, the more they stay the same...”: Why digital journals differ so little from paper
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•447 views
While the fundamental needs of researchers and functions of scholarly journals have remained largely unchanged, the form of digital journals differs little from paper journals. At a macro level, journals continue to serve the needs of author mode (registration, certification, dissemination) and reader mode (identification, selection, consumption). However, at a micro level, increased formalization and rhetorical mechanisms in digital journals reflect growth in researcher populations. The conservative evolution of journals is driven by the relatively constant human and philosophical requirements for knowledge generation, occupied information ecological niches, and emphasis on efficiency over novelty in tools. Future changes may come from sustainability pressures, groupthink, or disruptive technologies, but core functions are expected to persist due to their alignment with fundamental needs.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to The more things change, the more they stay the same...”: Why digital journals differ so little from paper
Similar to The more things change, the more they stay the same...”: Why digital journals differ so little from paper (20)
More from Pratt_Symposium
More from Pratt_Symposium (9)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The more things change, the more they stay the same...”: Why digital journals differ so little from paper
- 1. “The more things change, the more they stay the same...”: Why digital journals differ so little from paper Michael A Mabe CEO, STM & Visiting Professor, Information Science, University College, London
- 2. Prof. Sir D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson On Growth and Form First Published 1917
- 3. Some things stay much the same...
- 4. From this... ...to this
- 5. Other things change a lot...
- 6. From this... ...to this... No article structure Highly structured
- 7. Fundamental needs of researchers (I) AUTHOR MODE • To be seen to report an idea first • To feel secure in communicating that idea • [For empirical disciplines] To persuade readers that their results are general and arise from enactment of the scientific method • To have their claim accepted by peers • To report their idea to the right audience • To get recognition for their idea • To have a permanent public record of their work
- 8. Fundamental Needs of Researchers (II) READER MODE • To identify relevant content • To select based on trust and authority • To locate and consume it • To cite it • To be sure it is final and permanent
- 9. 9 Functions of the journal à la Oldenburg • Date stamping or priority via registration • Quality stamping through peer-review • Recording the final, definitive, authorised versions of papers and archiving them • Dissemination to targeted scholarly audience • [Added later] For readers, search and navigation – Achieved via creation and then management of the “journal brand” • (journal title and its associated attributes for researchers)
- 10. • [We must be] very careful of registring as well the person and time of any new matter.., as the matter itselfe; whereby the honor of ye invention will be inviolably preserved to all posterity. [Oldenburg, 24 November 1664] • all Ingenious men will be thereby incouraged to impart their knowledge and discoveryes [Oldenburg, 3 December 1664] • [I should not] neglect the opportunity of having some of my Memoirs preserv’d, by being incorporated into a Collection, that is like to be as lasting as usefull [Boyle, 1665] • “[Phil. Trans. should be] licensed under the charter by the Council of the Society, being first reviewed by some of the members of the same.” [R.Soc. Order in Council 1/3/1665] Inventing the Journal: Oldenburg’s Letters
- 11. Evidence of researcher needs Data from 36,188 Authors; 0= unimportant 10= very important 2= 1 6 5 7 8 4 2= QUALITY & SPEED Source: Elsevier Author Feedback Programme CERTIFICATION REGISTRATION
- 12. Motivations for Publishing 57% 20% 13% 8% 2% 18% 27% 40% 15% 3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Disseminate results Further my career Future funding Recognition Establish precedence 1993. B. R. Coles: “STM Information System in the UK”. Royal Society/ ALPSP/ British Lib. 1st most important motivation (93) 2nd most important motivation (93)
- 13. Motivations for Publishing 57% 20% 13% 8% 2% 18% 27% 40% 15% 3% 73% 13% 5% 5% 4% 11% 26% 25% 20% 16% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Disseminate results Further my career Future funding Recognition Establish precedence 1993. B. R. Coles: “STM Information System in the UK”. Royal Society/ ALPSP/ British Lib. 2005. Elsevier/NOP study What would you say are the two most important motivations for publishing? Base: (6344) 1st most important motivation (93) 2nd most important motivation (93) 1st most important motivation (05) 2nd most important motivation (05)
- 14. Motivational change over 10 years -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Disseminate results Further my career Future funding Recognition Establish precedence First most important motivation 93/05 diff Second most important motivation 93/05 diff
- 15. Similarities • Form follows function... ... and function follows need • At a macro/fundamental level – researcher human needs change little over time... ... so functions remain constant ... and gross form remains stable
- 16. Example from 10 May 2009
- 17. Example from 14 November 1985
- 18. Example from 19 February 1672
- 19. Form follows function: macro level • Relatively short articles • Author names prominent • Dates of submission, acceptance, publication present • Registration, certification, dissemination and archive achieved simultaneously via the act of formal publication • Branded by journal title
- 20. Differences • Form follows function... ... and function follows need • At a micro/detailed level, as researcher populations increase – Need for independent trust and authority grows ... rhetorical mechanisms are more important ...increased formalisation of structure ...exemplars of scientific method
- 21. Form & Function: Micro Level Registration Registration & Certification Navigation Navigation & rhetoric Article level rhetoric Whole article: archive
- 22. Journal level v article level effects • Journal – Brand (title) • Certification • Dissemination (channel and scoping) – Citation (article referent) • Navigation and Dissemination • Certification • Article (with journal branding and referent) – Act of publication • Registration • Macro Rhetoric: Evaluated public formal affadavit – Internal structure • Micro Rhetoric: argument and language
- 24. Philosophical status Results/observations Knowledge pro tempore Act of formal publication
- 25. ACCEPTANCE AS FACTACCEPTANCE AS FACT CRITICAL EVALUATION COMMUNICATION OBSERVATIONOBSERVATION Private Co-workers Invisible college Speciality Discipline Public research Peer reviewed paper in a journal Pre-print monograph historytextbook reference work Review paper prizes Science journalism Draft for comment 1st draft Seminar/workshop/conference Draft mss Create Discuss & revisit Criticism Formal public evaluation Formal confirmation Acceptance & integration Macro Rhetoric and Articles
- 26. Micro Rhetoric of Articles • Publication is not just communication • Articles are written to persuade readers that – a singular observation made by one observer is generally true for all observers at all times – the research reported is an enactment of the idealised scientific method
- 27. Micro Rhetoric of Articles • The structure and language of an article reflect these intentions – standardised impersonal sections • methods, results, discussion etc. – passive voice, generalised language • E.g., “A reaction was observed...” NOT “I saw...” – embedding the article in network of other articles through reference and citation – using others results to support the conclusions • See: A G Gross Rhetoric of Science
- 28. Scholarly Communication & Information Ecology • Communication Dimensionality – Mode • 1:1, 1:many, many:many – Directionality • unidirectional, interactive – Delivery regime • oral, written – Temporality • Live or recorded – Register: • private, public, informal, formal – Enhancement: • local, at a distance
- 29. • Case of an oral lecture (like this!) – Mode: one-to-many – Directionality: unidirectional (except for Q&A) – Delivery regime: oral – Temporality: live – Register: public, formal – Enhancement: in the lecture hall none • but technology allows development to “at a distance” – broadcast, but reduced directionality – webcast, no reduced directionality Scholarly Communication & Information Ecology: An Example
- 30. Delivery regime Mode Old New Instances Directionality Instances Directionality Oral One-to-one in person conversation verbal question instant messaging audiovisual verbal question telephone conversation verbal question Voip telephony verbal question One-to-many lecture/conference talk verbal question instant messaging audiovisual verbal question television broadcast n/a web video email Written One-to-one letters letter reply email email One-to-many printed publication counter publication Written correspondence web based publication blogs rapid response commentaries Many-to- many n/a n/a wikis in-built e whiteboards in-built
- 31. Future Change • Formal scholarly publishing system has evolved to satisfy – Human needs of researchers – Philosophical requirements of knowledge generation ...and to occupy its – Information ecological niches • Needs and niches are relatively constant over time • Conservatism of form reflects this constancy • Technology enables greater efficiency – New tools, but new tools for old purposes
- 32. Future Change II • New dimensions to “natural selection” pressures? – Sustainability of business models – Group wish think – Mythical “killer app”? • Post “asteroid” mass extinction?
- 33. Independent evolution of the eye
Editor's Notes
- The most comprehensive study of the motivations for publishing in the ‘paper’ age was conducted in 1993 by B.R.Coles in the “STM Information System in the UK”, our study re-visits those questions. What the researcher was asked was what was their most important motivation for publishing, and then also their second most important motivation. Those bars coloured in dark blue are the first most important motivation for publishing and those in light blue the second most important motivation. Clearly, dissemination is the most significant factor, with 57% indicating it is the most important reason. Examining motivations can be a difficult matter. Individuals are not always as forthright as they might be. You can overcome this by thinking of the first order motivations as the overt motivations, and the second order motivations, as the covert and possibly most important motivations. Once you view dissemination in this context you can see that Furthering my career and securing future funding are key differentiators.
- We’ll now look at the results from 2005. Those bars coloured in red and orange are from the 2005 study. When comparing the two studies it is worth noting that the 1993 study was conducted in the UK, in contrast our survey was global, so any conclusions are indicative rather than definitive. However, that said, we did examine the UK data from the 2005 study and saw little difference comparative to the global data In the 10 year period between the studies, an era in which internet usage has increased in both in terms of quantity and the maturity of use, motivations remain largely consistent Dissemination is still most significant factor, with 73% indicating it is the most important motivation, and furthering my career and securing future funding are still the key second order differentiators.s If we examine the differences more closely we see….
- ….over the 10 year period that there has been a shift towards recognition and establishing precedence. In the internet age it is tempting to interpret this movement, as researchers seeking to establish themselves in an environment where there is an ever increasing volumes of material available
- Research begins as an essentially private process, during which observations are made and initial theories created. As these theories are developed in discussions with colleagues, an initial draft talk or manuscript is prepared. As the draft moves outward for comment, a wider audience is involved, leading to informal discussions at conferences, and (in some fields) the posting of the article on a pre-print server. The next major point is the publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal. This lies at the core of the science process since it is only after peer-review and the formal, public announcement of the results in a journal that further formal criticism and research by others occurs. From research to initial publication by a first observer may take about 18 months to two years. If the results are very contentious the formal article will spur other researchers to make contributions in response, both supportive and critical. Eventually a consensus will build, usually after many papers and over ten to fifteen years. From there, the key articles in the scientific debate may be discussed in review articles. Later, as the scientific consensus further solidifies, the information may be published in books, monographs or textbooks, and may also receive recognition through prizes, such as the Nobel Prize.