Saturday, June 06, 2009

Will dead tree journals follow newspapers over the cliff?

Take one of these:

The curious thing about the various plans hatched in the ’90s is that they were, at base, all the same plan: “Here’s how we’re going to preserve the old forms of organization in a world of cheap perfect copies!” The details differed, but the core assumption behind all imagined outcomes (save the unthinkable one) was that the organizational form of the newspaper, as a general-purpose vehicle for publishing a variety of news and opinion, was basically sound, and only needed a digital facelift. As a result, the conversation has degenerated into the enthusiastic grasping at straws, pursued by skeptical responses.
mash it up with this:

Now here’s another thing:

Everything is open.

It just is, and there’s nothing that anyone can do about it. Everything that becomes available as a PDF is quickly passed around the community, and in most cases posted on the author’s web-site (whatever the journal’s Arbitrary And Exploitative Copyright Transfer Form said). So from a purely pragmatic perspective, you could say that in choosing a journal we can also ignore the criterion of whether or not the journal considers itself open access (because it really is anyway)

then consider: is the titular question unthinkable? Printing presses are expensive. Paper is heavy. PDFs have excellent survival potential, and are not going away.

In this new enlightened age, I have disabled comment moderation to facilitate interaction. (Also, I'm curious about this "natural male enhancement".)

Bring it.

Labels: ,

4 Comments:

Anonymous Nick Gardner said...

"In this new enlightened age, I have disabled comment moderation to facilitate interaction. "

As all blogs should. Comment moderation is frustratingly obstructive to conversation.

I've never moderated comments on my blogs, even at the expense of being trolled. :-)

8:02 AM  
Blogger TheBrummell said...

Bring it.

One comment in 4 days, and that not about the topic at hand, but the final pointlet about the rules of discussion.

Sorry.

On-topic: so, if all scientific publishing becomes open, what happens to peer-review? Without an editor to hand out submissions to referees, how does one get subjected to rigorous peer-review? There are advantages to the annonymity of the current (or recent-past) system, will these be outweighed in the new, utterly transparent future?

9:11 PM  
Anonymous ลงประกาศฟรี said...

ลงประกาศฟรี,ลงโฆษณาฟรี,ภาพเคลื่อนไหว,ภาพพื้นหลัง

4:51 AM  
Anonymous ลงประกาศฟรี said...

ลงประกาศฟรี,ลงโฆษณาฟรี,ภาพเคลื่อนไหว,ภาพพื้นหลัง

4:52 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home