Re: Separating Quality-Control Service-Providing from Document-Providing

From: J.W.T.Smith <J.W.T.Smith_at_UKC.AC.UK>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 20:11:46 +0000


On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Donald King wrote:

> I'm enthusiastic about what you, Andrew Odlyzko and others are doing.
> There are two aspects of your recent writing that are particularly
> appealing - (1) the notion of authors/institutions paying for the
> article QC/C service and (2) making a distinction between the "article
> QC/C service" and the "product" of the document. I believe that having
> authors/institutions pay for the article QC/C service is sound and may
> well be the "magic bullet" that would undo the damages caused by
> current pricing practices.

Then why not do away with the the concept of the 'journal' altogether - as
I do with my proposed D-Journal model?

In this there is a complete and clear separation between the "QC/C
service" and the "product". There is also the possibility of more than one
"QC/C service" in a given subject area thus bringing competition to bear
which might reduce costs. The author can make the certified article
available via any server service he/she wishes (multiple if required)
since it is not the server service (journal) but the attached
'certificate' that warrants the quality of the article. More competing
services (Subject Focal Points in my terminology) can then arise to
'alert/notify' possible readers within a specific research area. Since
they too have no 'ownership' of the article they can only increase its
visibility on the net. Compare this with the Journal which seeks to 'own',
and restrict reader access to, the articles it publishes.

I'm not claiming this very open approach (with more than one option at
each major stage (certification, making available, marketing) would be
applicable to all subject areas but it might fit some very well.

It was agreed at a recent 'Workshop on Publishing Models' organised by
Utrecht University and Delft University of Technology

that there would probably be a need for a range of e-publishing models to
suit the differing requirements of the various academic subject areas in
the future.

Academic e-publishing may not be a 'one size fits all' situation.


John Smith,
University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Received on Wed Feb 10 1999 - 19:17:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:45:39 GMT