amsler@FLASH.BELLCORE.COM (Robert A Amsler) (08/08/90)
Robert J. Robbins (rrobins@note.nsf.gov) makes an excellent case for print media not being displaced by electronic publishing, but leaves unmentioned that there is no reason to force this into an either/or situation. The better strategy is for the dissemination of electronic copies IN ADDITION TO using the standard publishing process. This could mean, for example, that recipients could find that articles were relevant to their interests by running software over the electronic text versions and then obtain photocopies or FAX copies of the print medium with its half-tones, line art, etc. Full-text databases are still rather rare and while most articles are prepared using word processing, access to the electronic text after publication is left to the prior business arrangements of the publisher. There often are no arrangements for full-text access, in which case the electronic text is lost to all those who could use it unless at some enlightened and well-funded time in the future we commit funds to the OCR or re-keyboarding of printed materials. The utility of electronic text and whatever accomodations can be made to the electronic reproduction of figures, illustrations and photographs is that they can be reprocessed and searched. Keeping only the print output has been likened to the master chefs of the world only saving a plate of their food and throwing away the recipes. Coupled with electronic mail, the distribution of even portions of the material of published articles in electronic form can provide new bases for discovery and end the paradox of a electronic society waiting for a 19th century distribution system to cut down trees and chemically and mechanically process them into squashed cellulose with ink on it intended solely for manual reading. Remember, we USED to program computers by cutting holes in cardboard. What I would suggest is that authors make arrangement with their publishers for permission to distribute the electronic version of their published papers much the way they can distribute reprints. It should NOT be a copyright-prohibited activity (especially given the sizeable differences in the paper publication and electronic representation capabilities that still exist). These electronic reprints could then be distributed by the authors and collected by whomever asks for them to form personal electronic archives. Some might only want the bibliographic information, others might use the full-text and the data it contains, still others only the citation linkages. How and what the recipient will do with the electronic copy should no more be a concern than what they currently can do with the print copy. The publishers should also be encouraged to offer electronic `supplements' to their print products, in which they could send diskettes of issues or articles to subscribers at cost. They could offer a consistent format and at minimal cost enrich the electronic product with linkages and other media as they become available. The personal relationship that publishers have with their readers today has no electronic counterpart since they hand their published data to database vendors. A wise dictum of business has always been, ``eliminate the middleman'' and publishers should seek to regain the contact with their subscribers in the new electronic one-on-one manner made possible today. All of these can and should co-exist with the large central databases. They serve different functions and won't seriously interfere with each others marketability any more than the other `competitors' such as videotape, television, motion pictures and radio have ended their predecessors roles.