Over the past few years I've often returned to the topic of evolving the scholarly communication processes. In so doing I've referenced Michael Clarke's brilliant post about why scientific communication hasn't yet been disrupted. Here's the thumbnail version (you should read Clarke's piece for the full argument): the advent of electronic communication has not replaced all the functions of a peer-reviewed journal. Yes, it is much easier to publish than it once was, and to note the existence of an article in an electronic database. This solves the dissemination and registration functions of the scholarly communications chain.
But we still have validation, filtration, and designation to contend with. Validation is peer review; filtration slots the article within a recognizable, branded journal that scholars know to read; designation is the space on the CV where a scholar lists all their publications in high impact factor journals. The impact factor may be highly dubious, but it is still highly used. These latter three functions are less amenable to electronic solutions, which is why the scholarly communications system remains conservative.
These five functions are bundled together within every single journal, so any proposed change to one part of the chain must simultaneously account for all of the other functions to have an impact. We have a systems problem on our hands.
Along come Jason Priem and Bradley M. Hemminger, with an innovative proposal to "decouple" the traditional functions of a scholarly journal as a means of solving this systems problem. There is no reason that every single journal must continue to facilitate all of these functions, it is just the way it has always been done. Priem and Hemminger note that our current template for scholarly communication dates to 1665, when scholars who had previously mailed letters to each other agreed to mail the letters to a central location so they could be bound together into the print journal. That was very innovative then, less so now.
Priem and Hemminger: "We should not expect a fully decoupled metajournal to emerge in the next year or even decade. However, neither should we expect the current system, based as it is on the paradigm of the 17th century, to continue with only small, evolutionary changes. There will be a revolution in scholarly communication, as the fundamental potential of the Web compared with traditional models puts increasing torsion on our system."
How do we embrace and harness this torsion? By "decoupling" the functions now maintained journal-by-journal, using the Web to manage publication processes instead. It would be very easy to post an article online, get initial feedback, and revise it before final "certification" by a qualified body. In this scenario there are three services--hosting the article; peer review; final certification. But here they are managed in a "Web-like environment of loosely joined pieces," rather than in a vertically integrated publication process.
Separating the pieces of the scholarly communication system apart makes it possible to fix/improve/modify one element without disrupting everything. The market can work its magic, as scholars pick and choose among registration services rather than simply submitting to the same old journals. The unit of discourse becomes whatever the scholar wishes to share, rather than only the article.
There is a lot of interesting work for librarians in this vision, to manage a scholarly communications chain that facilitates the ebb and flow of discourse rather than only presenting polished final products. One can quibble with the details Prier and Hemminger present. But their logic of separating out the functions of the system, to provide space for innovation, is unassailable. This is much easier said than done, but first someone has to say it.
Recent Comments