3 ms·
An answer [1] from a horse's mouth (Floyd Bloom, former editor of Science magazine, originator of the aphorism, "The gain in the brain lies mainly in the stain"
by davi 16y ago
An answer [1] from a horse's mouth (Floyd Bloom, former editor of Science magazine, originator of the aphorism, "The gain in the brain lies mainly in the stain"[2]):
MI: Was it clear to you when you started out at as Editor-in-Chief of Science how important the move to electronic publishing was going to be?
FB: When I got to Science, it was quickly explained to me that the price for paper was going up. The price for postage was going up, and I was asked where in the budget did I want to make the cuts in order that we wouldn't be in a deficit. And so it occurred to me, if I was constantly going to be confronted by changes in paper costs and postal rates, which I couldn't control, I would have to find another way to distribute the magazine. And we decided we had to be online quickly.
MI: So the age of electronic publishing really came to fruition while you were at Science. Were there issues that you faced for which you really had to define limits as to how far electronic publishing could go?
FB: Well, PubMed Central [the initiative put forth by the National Library of Medicine to archive and disseminate biomedical research findings] was one of the last issues that I faced, and I think, faced down. It was wrong-headed in its origins. But the concept that people should have access to the scientific literature is of course a good one. Scientists want to have access to research findings so that they can pursue experiments. And when scientists are confronted by a publisher's wall that says you must be a subscriber to get in here, you'd like to find a way to get around it.
But to me, nothing is free. I am aware of the cost of making a prestigious publication. The cost of rejecting 95 percent of all the papers that are submitted makes the accepted ones so valuable. And there's only twenty-four hours in a day, no matter how intense your efforts to keep up with research reports. If I have time to read, I'm going to read in a place where I know that the information has been thoroughly vetted, and so I limit my reading to places where I can trust the judgment of the editors. If everything were free, and everybody could publish everything they want to, anyplace, I'd have no way to know how to sort things out. I certainly don't have time to read through a lot of very provocative assertions that turn out not to be true.
[1] excerpt from http://molinterv.aspetjournals.org/content/1/4/192.full http://molinterv.aspetjournals.org/content/1/4/192.full
[2] Appel 1996 Ann NY Acad Sci "Classical and Contemporary Histochemical Approaches for Evaluating Central Nervous System Microanatomy"
- billswift 16y ago>I limit my reading to places where I can trust the judgment of the editors. I have read enough papers that I don't trust any editors. I read based on what I have read of the authors and on what has been recommended by reviewers I trust. If neither is available, I generally read abstracts more or less at random until one catches my attention (usually by being more specific to my needs than most). There have been too many times that groupthink or political correctness has captured journals to trust them too far.