The Deconstructed Journal
John W T Smith, The Templeman Library, University of Kent at Canterbury. UK.
Copyright - J W T Smith
Published in Electronic Publishing '97 - New
Models and Opportunities - Proceedings of the ICCC/IFIP Conference on Electronic
Publishing, 14-16 April 1997, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK, Edited by:
Fytton Rowland and Jack Meadows
ICCC Press 1997, ISBN 1-891365-00-2.
Pages 73-84
Many of the ideas expressed in this paper are not new. I described the original version of the model that forms the basis of the Deconstructed Journal (DJ)[1] at a meeting held at the Royal Society in 1993[2]. That simple model seemed so obviously a candidate for a new net-based academic publishing model that I expected it to be proposed any moment in the academic literature of Library and Information Science. However, although a great deal has been written over the past four years about the Electronic Journal, both on the net and in paper form, and often it seemed the author must stumble into my proposed new model if only by accident, I have not seen a model proposed for academic publishing on the net that is quite like the Deconstructed Journal.
For examples of the variety of models proposed for academic e-publishing see Harnad (1990, 1996), McKnight (1993), Odlyzko (1995), Piternick (1991), Rowland (1994), and Swinnerton-Dyer (1992).
Swinnerton-Dyer (1992) proposed a publishing model heavily influenced by the paper model in operation and with a centralised server. Odlyzko (1995) includes an outline model based on the interactive and less formal possibilities of net based publishing. Harnad (1990) is concerned mainly with the pre-formal communication stage between researchers, but Harnad (1996) elaborates the earlier model to include a mechanism for peer-review.
For a survey of other attempts to replace the Scientific Journal see Line (1992) and Piternick (1989).
I find I have needed to describe my proposed new model (in Part 3 below) from many angles. This is because I am using words (e.g., journal, publishing, article) which have one meaning in the old model and another in the new. This problem of words/concepts changing their meaning when moving from one model to another is typical of a 'paradigm shift' as described by Thomas Kuhn in 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn (1970). Many authors writing in the area of new publishing models have described their work as incorporating a 'paradigm shift' but in many cases their new models are not new paradigms - they are simple (or complex) extrapolations or re-workings of the current model. This changing in the meaning of words/concepts during a paradigm shift is not complete proof of such an event - but it is highly indicative.
Three 'realisations' led me to question the status quo with regard to scientific[3] journals (paper and net-based) and to formulate the DJ model.
It follows from the second conclusion of item 3 in the previous section that before designing a new network based vehicle for scientific information dissemination we need a detailed breakdown of the roles played by the Scientific Journal. It is also clear that this analysis must include not just the public or obvious roles but also the hidden roles which may be as important or even more important.
These are the roles most users (and librarians,[4] etc.) would say are played by the Scientific Journal.
In addition to the obvious roles played by the journal it also plays hidden or non-obvious roles which are nevertheless important to the academic research community.
Another analogy for the Scientific Journal is to see it as a 'filter' (in the optical sense). Looking through this notional filter at the corpus of scientific knowledge one can only see that set of information items relevant to a specific subject. If this analogy is not clear think of viewing a picture of red, green and blue objects on a dark background through a red filter - only the red objects would be visible. I will return briefly to the implications of this analogy in Part 3.
Reviewing these roles without any commitment to the status quo in academic publishing (in fact with a positive desire to escape the constrains of the current paper-based model) it becomes clear that there is no necessary reason why all these roles should be carried out by, or co-ordinated by, the same organisation, i.e., the publisher. From this realisation one can ask the next question:
"Is there a publication model that fulfils the roles of the scientific journal but better matches the functionality of the net?".
The following section is a description of one such model. It would appear that this is only one of a family of related models each of which could be a positive answer to the above question. The term 'Deconstructed Journal' is, in effect, the name of this particular set of possible new publishing models.
What follows is one way of reassembling the elements 'pulled apart' in Part 2, or viewed another way it is a way of fulfilling the roles of the Scientific Journal using a new assemblage of actors and activities.
As one might expect, at the core of this new model is a Web[5] site/service[6] similar in structure to a current Subject Gateway[7]. This service contains links to relevant items of interest to its readers (subscribers). The New Scientific Journal (NSJ) is the visible replacement for the current Scientific Journal. Some of the important differences between this and the current paper-based and e-journals are:
A basic version of the NSJ would be created (or come into existence) in the following way:
It is easy to confuse the New Scientific Journal (which replaces the actual Journal in the current model) and the Deconstructed Journal which is the overall model within which the NSJ works. One reason for this confusion is that in the current model we do not clearly distinguish between the system that gives rise to a Journal and the Journal itself but within the DJ model these differences are deliberately made clear.
A possibly easier way to see how the DJ model works is to list the various roles that need to be played by this replacement for the current SJ model (as defined by the analysis of the roles of the traditional journal in Part 2 above) and indicate how, and/or by whom, the role is to be carried out within the new model.
This analogy was mentioned briefly in 'The New Scientific Journal - an Overview' above and in Part 2. This view of the traditional Scientific Journal was one of the steps that led me to formulate the current model of the NSJ. This is the major role of the NSJ where it is explicit rather than implicit as it is in the traditional journal model.
The filter role could easily be extended so that in addition to providing links to items submitted the NSJ could have a team (like an extension to the Editorial Board) that actively scans the network for interesting and relevant items. This 'one-stop-shop' pointer service for all information on the net of value in a specific subject might be the major selling point for the NSJ and the primary reason why a subscription is taken out. An extension of this idea might be that instead of an author submitting an item to an NSJ he or she might post a reference to it in some common area concerned with the appropriate subject or subjects, knowing that 'talent spotters' from the NSJs look there for new material.
Another way of illustrating the overall model of the Deconstructed Journal is to consider how it might operate. Here is one possible sequence that would fit within the model:
There are many permutations that could fit within this basic approach within the model, examples are:
In the first example the author places the article on the University's server and notifies a Learned Society that offers an evaluation service - interacts with the Evaluators until the 'Seal of Approval' is given, then notifies the relevant NSJ (or NSJs) and the link is added if the article is considered relevant.
In the second example the author starts with the same action (place article on University server) but then notifies the NSJ editor. The NSJ editor, if interested in the item, notifies an Evaluator organisation which interacts with the author until the 'Seal of Approval' is given, then the author or Evaluator organisation notifies the NSJ. In this case the NSJ arranges for the final item to be placed on a commercial archive/server. This second permutation more closely mimics the current paper model[11].
A possible use scenario may be:
Assuming a functionality at least equivalent to the current Web client/server environment the user will then be able to view items on screen and/or request copies.
As one would expect there are many implications and possibilities that follow from this new model and only a few can be covered in this short article. Many more are covered in a longer article in preparation[12].
The 'scatter' problem is when information pertinent to a specific area of research is spread across a number of journals. This is particularly common with emerging research areas as there may not be a specific journal or journals dedicated to the subject. It can also occur with work that straddles current research area boundaries. The NSJ model completely eliminates the 'scatter' problem. To be exact the 'scatter' problem need not exist in the model as no published item is owned by any particular NSJ - so any NSJ can point to any item that the editor feels would be of interest to his/her subscribers.
Any new NSJ that comes into existence can start by pointing to existing items that are relevant to the subject area in question. This again follows from the fact that no item is owned by any specific NSJ.
A well known problem of the refereeing in the current model is that authors with new ideas (especially those involving new theories or paradigms) find it difficult to get published, Schauder (1994). The new model, because it has many, independent, evaluators and the possibility of grading rather than the simple pass/fail (publish/don't publish[13]) approach of the current model could allow unknown authors with a radical new idea to get published (more correctly 'acknowledged' or 'made visible') more easily.
A quite recent major report on publishing in the scientific, technical and medical areas, Royal Society (1993), recommended that there needed to be a role for smaller Learned Societies. Production of an NSJ is ideal here as it requires very little outlay to start and the most important element is expertise.
Under the definitions of the current paper-based model the NSJ is more like a 'secondary' publication rather than a 'primary' publication, since it points to, but does not contain, the actual information item. However it is the first point of contact, and link, between the subscriber and the information sought. In this it resembles the both the primary journal and a secondary bibliographic service.
The major obstacle to the adoption of the proposed new model is acceptance by the user community - as a earlier writer on this topic pointed out "the introduction of a single innovation in technology cannot be successful until it is accompanied by an appropriate set of social, behavioural, organizational, and institutional innovations.", Goldhar (1977). Such acceptance will only come about when the professional and funding bodies accept publishing in this model as equal to paper-based or network based publishing using the traditional model. There is some indication that research funding bodies in the UK will recognise network published items as long as they have passed the usual quality control tests (i.e., selection and refereeing), so one assumes they would accept the new model as long as the quality control was as good.
The second most important obstacle is finding a operational economic model that would fund activities within the new model. Although a detailed consideration is not possible here the basic funding model assumes:
There are various technical problems. The following are just two of the more important ones.
It is proposed that the suggested Deconstructed Journal model, or one of the family that can be formed within its definitions, should replace the current 'paper influenced' electronic publishing model. There are four main reasons why this is suggested:
[1] I call my model the 'Deconstructed Journal' for two reasons. Mainly because it is just that - it is the roles and attributes of the Scientific Journal taken apart and distributed across many 'actors'. Also, it is the process by which one moves from the current model to the new model, by 'pulling apart' or 'deconstructing' the current model.
[2] 'E-Journals - Exchange of Experience Meeting', 26 February 1993, The Royal Society, London (organised by the British Library Research and Development Department). I also described variations of this model to attendees at an invited talk to the staff of the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau - International (CAB-I) on 5 November 1993, and at a Workshop at the National Centre for Software Technology in Bombay, India, on 6 December 1994.
[3] I am using 'scientific' here, and often elsewhere in this article, as shorthand for 'scientific, technical and medical (STM)'.
[4] An analysis by Maurice Line, Line (1992), although done for a different purpose agrees with mine in many areas.
[5] I use 'Web' here as it is the currently available technology - there is nothing implicit in the Deconstructed Journal model that links it to the Web model - any net-based service with a similar functionality could play the role.
[6] It must be remembered, there is no necessary connection between a single site and a single service. A 'site' may contain several 'services', and a service may spread across many sites, e.g. The World Wide Web Virtual Library, so any NSJ could be single- or multi-site.
[7] There is, as yet, no consistent terminology in this area - I am using Subject Gateway to mean a site dedicated to listing links relevant to a particular subject area (e.g. SOSIG for Social Sciences. A Gateway may also contain Primary information.
[8] Of course, 'Issue' is an anachronism here - first appearance or manifestation my be a better word - but this is a new complex entity and we do not yet have the correct words for its parts, or even have a completely clear description of its parts.
[9] I use the phrase 'author/producer' to indicate the items on the net are not, and will not, necessarily be in the currently accepted form of the article or book or similar written entity. However, the phase is awkward so for the rest of this article I will use 'author' even though it is understood the more general phrase is intended.
[10] Selective Dissemination of Information.
[11] This ability for the new model to see the old as a 'special case' is another indicator that this is really a 'paradigm shift'.
[12] This is currently entitled 'A new model for the Scientific Journal' and in addition to covering the implications for all the actors in the information delivery chain (including libraries) in much greater detail it also covers such areas as the history of the SJ and discusses why the current paper-based model evolved as it did.
[13] The current referring model does allow for a promising author to have a paper returned with comments for re-writing but the changes required may be such that the originality is lost because the re-write has to be within a format dictated by the referees.
[14] Bath Information and Data Services. A centralised service based at the University of Bath in the UK which provides access for UK academics to a range of bibliographic databases for a fixed per annum fee irrespective of usage. For further information see http://www.bids.ac.uk/infomenu.html
[15] The insurance model involves each institution paying a small sum each year, the pension model is described in Part 3/The hidden Roles/Archiving, the co-operative model is the formation of a large consortium, probably all Universities in a country to provide the service for a membership fee.
Harnad, S (1990) Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum of Scientific Inquiry. Psychological Science Vol 1, pp 342 - 343. Also available in e-form at http://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad90.skywriting.html
Harnad, S (1996) Implementing Peer Review on the Net: Scientific Quality Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals. In: Peek, R. & Newby, G. (Eds.) Scholarly Publication: The Electronic Frontier: MIT Press 1996. Also available in e-form at http://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad96.peer.review.html
Kuhn, Thomas S (1970) - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition, University of Chicago Press 1970
Line, M B (1992) - The Publication and Availability of Scientific and Technical Papers: An Analysis of Requirements and the Suitability of Different Means of Achieving Them, Journal of Documentation, Vol 48, No 2, June 1992, pp 201-219
McKnight, C (1993) - Electronic Journals - past, present ... and future?, Aslib Proceedings Vol 45, No 1, January 1993, pp7-10
Odlyzko, A M (1995) - Tragic loss or good riddance? The impending demise of traditional scholarly journals, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol 42, No 1, January 1995, pp 71-122
Piternick, A B (1989) - Attempts to find Alternatives to the Scientific Journal: A Brief Review, Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol 15, No 5, 1989, pp260-266
Piternick, A B (1991) - Electronic Serials: Realistic or Unrealistic Solution to the Journal "Crisis?", Serials librarian, Vol 21, No 2/3, 1991, pp15-31
Rowland, F (1994) - Electronic Journals, Information UK Outlooks, Issue No 8, June 1994. ISSN 1351 4113
Royal Society (1993) - The Scientific, Technical and Medical Information System in the UK, Report published by the Royal Society, The British Library, and the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, 1993. BLR&DD Report 6123, ISBN 0-85403-477-3
Schauder, D (1994) - Electronic Publishing of Professional Articles: Attitudes of Academics and Implications for the Scholarly Communication Industry, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol 45, No 2, March 1994, pp 73-100
Swinnerton-Dyer, Peter (1992) - A system of electronic journals for the United Kingdom, Serials, Vol 5, No 3, November 1992, pp33-5