Electronic publishing

[Doug Yanega]

Peter Rauch wrote (outside of our extensive private chat on this topic,
which I've enjoyed):

>> The main benefits of electronic publishing are in FAST publishing,
>> access, and searching of information.
>
>There _must_ be some other big benefits of e-publishing?
>How about more informative pubs (due in part to ease of including more
>information, ease of creating the information [sort of in three dimensions
>instead of two on paper, for example], other...?

Someone earlier said we didn't require more testimonials to the virtue of
an electronic medium - perhaps we can still use a few? All right, I'll
suggest one which to me is a BIG bonus. Feedback and follow-ups. Now, when
a paper comes out, there are several types of feedback which rarely, if
ever, see the light of day, ALL of which could become part and parcel of an
electronic publication: there are people who might point out minor (or
major) technical errors; folks who can contribute additional supporting
evidence for hypotheses in the manuscript, or conversely point out contrary
evidence; people who can  contribute additional *data*; people with
alternative hypotheses not considered, etc. Now, with all this feedback
pouring in, the author(s) might find some of it useful, some of it easily
dismissed, and thus find themselves compelled to rewrite the original and
post a follow-up. Easily done electronically.
        We can *completely* revolutionize the way scientific papers are
written, reviewed, and improved. If someone publishes a key to a taxon with
150 species, and finds out a month later that there is another new species
in the group, how likely are they NOW to rewrite the entire key and publish
an updated version? If a monographer acquires new geographic or
phenological records as more and more material is examined, will they
rewrite a monograph just to add those new date/locality data? That is an
option that will be available to us with electronic publication. All it
really requires is that people are willing to extend the parameters of a
citation, e.g "J.P. Clayborn & K.F. Smith. 2/13/1998. Elect. J. Syst.
manuscript 2133, version 2" - for that matter, even the *feedback* postings
can be cited, with reference to the manuscript they comment on (e.g.
"Elect. J. Syst. ms. 2133, ver. 2, fbk. 23"). Again, we are on the verge of
a whole new way of doing science, where instead of what amounts to
lecturing to a silent audience and then disappearing backstage, the process
can be one of interaction, debate, and stimulation of interest. Is this not
a potential to be embraced, rather than feared? (I guess if you fear peer
review, this would be the *ultimate* nightmare!) I told Peter I think this
kind of thing can breathe new life into the scientific discipline, and I
stand by that.

>> We must do something to speed
>> up research as our planet is now losing more species per year than
>> we can describe new.
>
>Will e-publishing make even a small dent in satisfying that need?
>Suppose all the current systematists could snap their fingers and cause
>all of the final draft manuscripts they have on hand to be published
>instantly.  Now what do they do next? Certainly not snap their fingers
>again --there'd be nothing there to publish. Back to the microscopes.
>Those "132" practicing systematists would take some while before the
>next batch of "new" species at risk (or not) of extinction would be
>ready to disclose to the world.  Nothing short of a massive
>augmentation of newly trained systematists will address the problem of
>the slow rate of discovery and divulgence of the planet's biodiversity.
>
>And, even knowing _what_ is on the planet probably brings not anywhere
>near enough knowledge or wisdom to slow down the rate of environmental
>destruction.  That problem is much bigger than both systematics and
>e-publishing.

Two points here: (1) we are, many of us, under pressure from granting
agencies to demonstrate tangible products of our research. If you've got a
3-year grant, and finish your revision and associated manuscripts in year
3, then have to wait another year or more for them to be published, that
granting agency won't be terribly impressed when the final report has a
list of papers "submitted" rather than already published (and imagine, when
e-pub has become the norm, when scientists from other disciplines have
everything published within three months of completing the
work...systematists may find themselves on the outside looking in). (2)
making the public aware of what we do is ALWAYS a good thing, and with
e-pub we can help boost that awareness - how many folks here have scanned
one of those Web sites which has a "SUCH_N_SUCH OF THE DAY!" feature? A lot
of these are very popular, sort of like the electronic eqivalent of those
little desk calendars with a different saying or cartoon or such every day.
Well, why not have a Web site with "NEW SPECIES OF THE DAY"? Surely there
are more than 365 new species described each year!! And what could more
graphically bring home the message of nature's incredible diversity? Where
better to TEACH people what a mite is, or a lousewort, or a Nepticulid
moth? Witness the recent public interest when a new phylum was discovered!
We could simultaneously educate people on biodiversity, natural history,
geography, even etymology! Ever since the Web originated, I've dreamed of
running such a Web Page, but it can't be a reality until systematists are
given motivation to put species descriptions into electronic form. I don't
think that motivation will exist until electronic-only publication is
considered valid (if I'm paying several hundred dollars in page charges and
waiting a year anyway, why would ANY extra effort and expense be worth
it?).

>None of what I said above should be taken to infer that I suggest
>we not bound full strength into e-pub world. It's just a question
>of _which_ locomotive traveling faster than a speeding bullet we
>should leap onto ;>)

I'd like a dry metaphor. Shaken, not stirred. ;-)
Actually, I'm reminded of the Tarot archetype of The Fool (my personal
favorite, make of it what you will); an individual walking off a cliff with
a smile on his face, a butterfly on his shoulder, and a dog at his heel
trying to drag him back from the precipice. Contrary to expectations, most
interpretations of this are *positive*, in that The Fool represents
ultimate success in the journey despite apparent foolhardiness along the
way. Sometimes one has to take a frightful plunge to make any real
progress.
Sincerely,

Doug Yanega       Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 E. Peabody Dr.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA      phone (217) 244-6817, fax (217) 333-4949
 affiliate, Univ. of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Dept. of Entomology
          http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu:80/~dyanega/my_home.html
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82