<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Could we please bury access-denial, actually, before we bury journals,<div>notionally? </div><div><br></div><div>Access-denial continues, for decades now, since the Web made it possible </div><div>to put an end to it, once and for all, yet there seems to be no end of speculative </div><div>future-casting in its stead, while research access and impact just continue</div><div>to be lost, needlessly, year in and year out...</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad<br><div><br><div><div>On 2012-11-09, at 8:06 AM, Jan Velterop <<a href="mailto:velterop@gmail.com">velterop@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Very few journals are indeed 'journals' (in the sense of presenting 'daily'</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">updates on the state of knowledge), except perhaps the likes of PLOS</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">One and arXiv. So what we traditionally think of as journals have had</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">their heyday. They functioned as an organising mechanism in the time</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">that that was useful and necessary. That function has been taken over,</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "> and become far more sophisticated, by computer and web technology.</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">That doesn't mean journals, as an organising concept, will disappear</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">anytime soon. I give them a few decades at least. To be sure, their</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">print-on-paper manifestations are likely to go much earlier, but that's</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">not a conceptual, but just a practical thing.<div><br></div><div>'Journals' are already for the largest part virtual — just concepts, like </div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>/papers'. Skeuologues from a bygone era. Perhaps the likes of PLOS</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>One and arXiv should be called 'courant' and 'papers' should be referred</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>to as 'articles'.</div><div><br></div><div>By the way, I see articles also change in the way they are being used</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>and perceived. They will more and more be 'the record' and less and</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>less a means of communication. That, by the way, establishing and</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>curating the permanent record, is no sinecure. I used to call the scientific</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>literature "the minutes of science" (<a href="http://opendepot.org/1291">http://opendepot.org/1291</a>). They</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>need to be taken, but after they've been approved, most minutes are</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>only ever read in case of doubt or problems. One reason is of course</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>the 'overwhelm' of literature (see e.g. Fraser & Dunstan, On the impossibility</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div> of being expert, BMJ 2010, <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6815">http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6815</a>).</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>'Reading' in order to 'ingest' knowledge will be replaced by large-scale</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>machine-assisted analysis of, and reasoning with, data and assertions</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div> found in the literature. Organisation of the literature in the current prolific</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>number of journals — and the concomitant fragmentation it entails — will</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>be more of a hindrance than a help.</div><div><br></div><div>Initiatives such as nanopublications (<a href="http://nanopub.org/">http://nanopub.org</a>) and, in the field</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>of pharmacology, OpenPHACTS (<a href="http://www.openphacts.org/">http://www.openphacts.org</a>), are the harbingers of change.</div><div><br></div><div>Jan Velterop</div><div><div><br></div><div> <br><div><div>On 9 Nov 2012, at 12:03, Ross Mounce wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 9 November 2012 11:09, Steve Hitchcock <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sh94r@ecs.soton.ac.uk" target="_blank">sh94r@ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Ross, In your view, but in this case what would be the point of any journal?<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Steve, you've got it in one here: what <i>is</i> the point of journals? ...</div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>