Research Articles in Scholarly Electronic

Research Articles in Scholarly Electronic Communication Rob Kling & Ewa Callahan Center for Social Informatics SLIS Indiana University – Bloomington Bloomington, IN 47405

For: Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), –(volume 37) Blaise Cronin and Debora Shaw (Eds.) 01/17/2002 (Draft 4.08d)

I. Introduction We are currently in a period of substantial debate about the character of scholarly publishing systems. Some of the issues -- such as the costs of journals, speed of publication, and fairness of blindly refereed reviewing practices -- predate public access to the Internet. There has been an economic crisis in scholarly publishing since the late 1980’s due to the costs of scientific journals rising much faster than both inflation and the growth of library budgets ((Miller, 2000; Kirkpatrick, 2000). During the 1990s, some academic research libraries have reduced the number of their journals subscriptions – across many disciplines -- by thousands of journals. Many analysts believe that the costs of electronic publishing would be substantially lower than the costs of publishing paper journals. Further, some have argued that electronic publishing would enable not-for-profit organizations, such as universities, to assume the responsibilities of publishing a substantial fraction of the corpus of scholarly journals at relatively lower costs than "for profit" (trade) publishers. There have also been concerns about the integrity of article review processes in traditional scholarly publishing. Some analysts hope that new electronic journals (ejournals) would enable review processes to be fairer or clearer. In addition, some analysts see electronic publishing as offering opportunities for more rapid communication, broader access to scholarly literature, new documentary forms (hypertext), and richer modes of scholarly communication (e.g., the addition of extensive appendices of data, executable algorithms, photographs, audio/video clips). These debates are fueled by a combination of problems with some aspects of the existing publication regimes and the beliefs (by some) that various forms of electronic communication may significantly resolve these problems. Many working scholars in a wide variety of fields, as well as some librarians and others concerned with scholarly publishing, have articulated potential solutions to these problems (and others) in which electronic publishing (and easy access to the Internet and

the WWW) is now a central element. It is worth keeping in mind that less than 10 years ago, leading experiments with e-journals used other media (such as CDs) and interfaces (e.g., X-Windows for Unix) that were much less common than today's Web browsers. To address these issues, the scholarly communities have undertaken numerous and varied efforts to use the Internet to improve communication of research articles through the use of online repositories of research articles and e-journals in a variety of formats. In this chapter we focus on the role of the Internet in supporting the communication of research articles. Scholarly communication can take place via a number of documentary genres (as well as conversational genres) including. letters, memos, conference papers technical reports, dissertations, primary articles, review essays, monographs, and edited books. However, the primary scholarly literature is composed of articles (usually published journals or disseminated at conferences) and books. The vast majority of practical projects to use the Internet in enhancing the communication of this primary literature have focused on articles. In addition, most of the research about scholar's behavior with electronic media has also emphasized articles. Consequently, we will also emphasize the role of the Internet in supporting documentary communication via articles. While this topic may appear rather banal, it has been the subject of substantial controversy among scholars, librarians, publishers, and research sponsors. At the extremes, some analysts have argued that scholars should "free the literature" for broad access by publishing their articles on their own web sites and make them free to readers (Harnad *01995), while others have argued for electronic extensions of publisher-controlled versions of peer-reviewed journals that are sold by subscription to readers. Between these extreme positions have been many proposals and a few studies of these new electronic formats. Peer-review seems to be one pivotal criterion that many scientists employ in evaluating the legitimacy of publication venues (Kling and Covi, 1995; Weller, 2001). We have divided this chapter into a section that carefully examines the character of (perreviewed) scholarly e-journals and a section that examine the electronic distribution of articles that have not been peer reviewed, such as self-published manuscripts, or articles in working paper series and technical report series. We will discuss the opportunities and challenges of these publication strategies and examine how they are shaped by sociotechnical relationships. In this chapter we will emphasize the contributions of the social and sociotechnical research literatures. However, other types of publications will be included as well because they provide important context for the research questions and research studies. Space limitations have limited our ability to examine some important issues such as the economics of publishing and the legal issues of electronic publishing, such as intellectual property. Most of the reviewed studies concentrate on North- American approaches. We identified literature for this chapter by starting with the studies on scholarly electronic publishing that we knew from our earlier research. We also conducted searches in online bibliographies such as the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography compiled by Bailey (http://info.lib.uh.edu/sepb/sepb.html), Collection Management and Scholarly Electronic Publishing Resource by C.J. Amstrong (http://www.i-al.co.uk/CM_SEP1.htm) Electronic Journals: A Selected Guide posted on-line by

‘Harrassowitz.’ We also examined the bibliographies of monographs such as Toward Electronic Journals by Tenopir and King (2000), Communicating Research by Meadows , and the bibliographic essay by Chad Buckley et al (1999). Other sources were brought to our attention by our colleagues and reviewers of this chapter. Several previous ARIST chapters discussed different aspects of scholarly electronic communication. Peek and Pomerantz (1998) presented an excellent review of history of e-journals, and examined and compared various models, scenarios, experiments and projects. They also discussed acceptance of e-journals in scholarly community. However, they focused primarily upon the nature of specific publishing formats and venues. In contrast, we will emphasize what we can learn from systematic empirical research about the behavior of people with the distribution of research articles by electronic means, especially via Internet forums. King and Tenopir (1999) reviewed studies of scholars' use and perception of ejournals. Dalton (1995) examined early discussions of peer review in electronic publishing. In the most recent ARIST chapter on this topic, Borgman and Furner (2001) examined citing and linking practices in electronic publications. Social Informatics of digital libraries was the subject of a chapter by Bishop and Star (1996). Our chapter will concentrate on social aspects of electronic publications, thus some of the issues discussed in previous chapters will be included in context. Before we examine the behavior of readers, authors and others with electronic publication, we want to clarify some key conceptual issues, including the authors and audiences for key literatures about these topics, the relationships between publishing and communication, and some key concepts, including electronic journals and preprints. II. Literatures about Scholarly Electronic Communication Scholarly Electronic Communication (SEC) refers to the distribution of scholarly articles, papers, and messages by electronic means as opposed to their distribution by paper media. The literature on the subject SEC is vast, and ranges from research studies to popular writing. In existing bibliographies, research papers, professional articles and popular works are indiscriminately mixed. Further, only a small fraction of the articles report research. In the most comprehensive SEC bibliography, compiled by Charles W. Bailey, only 58 articles of over 1200 appear to be research articles. The existing literature presents often different and contradictory views on both the current state and the likely future of electronic scholarly publishing. Such discrepancies point to the need for systematic research on electronic scholarly communication. There are distinctive literatures about the subject of Scholarly Electronic Communication: Social and socio-technical research literature, which includes journals such as JASIS&T, research monographs (e.g., Tenopir & King, 2000), and specialized research conferences. Technological research literature, which includes analytical examinations of technological standards and design strategies. It is co-extensive with the technological research literature about digital libraries.

Developer literature, which provides technical details of the structure of various electronic forums. Practitioner literature (professional writing), whose primary audiences include publishers, librarians, academic administrators, and faculty who may publish in emedia, organize electronic collections, or evaluate such electronic publications. It includes an Enthusiast literature, that advocates and/or predicts an inevitable switch to electronic publishing as the most efficient means of scholarly communication. (85%?) It also includes a Literature of possibilities, that is less partisan than the enthusiast literature, and which acknowledges both the advantages and difficulties associated with electronic publishing. Popular accounts of Scholarly Electronic Communication Forums written for the public (in newspapers). Marketing descriptions of Scholarly Electronic Communication Forums provided by their organizers to prospective authors. In this chapter, we will emphasize social and socio-technical research literature; but we will draw upon other accounts to help provide citations to specific projects and for contextual information. Scholars have many kinds of forums and media for communication about their research. They can participate in face-to-face seminars and meet at conferences. They can use paper mail to send articles to their colleagues. They can publish their articles in journals, books, and conference proceedings. The mix of these forums varies from field to field. For example, conference proceedings are much more important in computer science than in information science. Journals tend to be more important as a medium for communicating original research than in the humanities. In some fields, such as economics, every major research institute seems to have a working paper series, while such series are rarely organized by research institutes that study humanities topics. The use of electronic media expands these traditional kinds of opportunities. Scholars can send e-mail or post their articles to scholarly listservs and mailing lists asking for comments and suggestions, post their articles in an online series of research articles, publish in (electronic) journals, or publish monographic works, some of which may appear in online collections and repositories. The academic community also produces many supporting materials such as conference announcements, websites, and bibliographies that facilitate scholarly communication, but that are not forums. The roles and opportunities presented by the various electronic forums are discussed often in the scholarly literatures, professional writing, specialized on-line forums, and in news stories for academics (as in the Chronicle of Higher Education). But there is little systematic empirically grounded research about the development and use of most of these communication forums. Only scholarly e-journals and collections research articles that have not yet been peer-reviewed have attracted substantial attention of empirically-oriented social and behavioral researchers. For this reason these two kinds of forums will be our major foci.

We will discuss e-journals before we discuss the publication and use of unrefereed articles because e-journals have been the subject of substantially more systematic research. However, we believe that the widespread availability of articles on special WWW sites prior to their acceptance by journals will probably do more to improve scholarly communication than will the development of numerous new e-journals. However, before we discuss research about these topics in detail, we must clarify a few basic concepts. III. Conceptualizing Publication, Research Articles, and Electronic Journals The literatures of SEC rest on some key terms that various authors use with subtle but important differences in their meanings. These terms include: publication (which can range from one-day posting on a web site to appearing in print in a large circulation prestigious scientific journal, in different accounts) preprint (which can range from any article that a scholar circulates for comment to an article that has been submitted to a journal, accepted for publication, and that has not yet been formally published, in different accounts). e-print, an electronic version of a manuscript, and used as an equivalent to an electronic preprint, in many accounts. Unfortunately, these differing conceptions of publication and preprints in all of the literatures that we listed in Section II seem to sow considerable confusions and ambiguity about the questions raised, issues addressed, claims made, and answers provided. Scholarly publishing and scholarly communication are terms that have not been a defined in standard way. They are often used interchangeably, as their meanings are similar, but there are also some distinguishing differences. Formal publication is often based on the assumption that an article will be read, but it is possible that it will not attract attention and that communication process will cease. Formal journal policies that usually prohibit submissions of articles that have been previously published, assume that an author’s entire intended audience has read them. In practice, many scholarly articles are read by only a small fraction of their potential audiences and publishing may be primarily a one-way process. Publishing is a formal part of scholarly communication, and serves as a basis for scholarly evaluation. Scholars and programs are reviewed, in part, based on the quality and quantity of their research as measured by the acceptance of the research by prestigious journals and publishers, and journal impact factors, measured by citation analyses. Scholarly communication can be described informally as a two-way process characterized by its communicators and its content. Communicators can take on roles such as authors and readers or speakers and listeners. Content may vary from pure scholarly content (research, teaching) to supporting activities like conference organizing,

journal editing, etc., although the content must be related to academic activities. Authors, readers, editors, publishers, academic associates are all participants in the process. Often, when scholarly communication is discussed, the scholarly community is often mistakenly treated as a homogenous unit, without consideration of the differences in the practices among different fields. These differences are, however, readily visible in the traditional model of scholarly communication and are reported and emphasized in some of the research that we will review. Kling and McKim (1999) developed an analytical publishing framework which is based on the idea that publication is a multidimensional continuum. They observe that when a scholarly document is effectively published within a scholarly community, it seems to satisfy three criteria: publicity, trustworthiness, and accessibility. They described their three criteria as follows: Publicity – the document has to be announced to scholars so that they may learn about its existence. Publicity can be represented by a continuum of activities like subscriptions, reports lists, abstract databases, and citation. Trustworthiness – the document has been subject to a social process that assures readers that the content of the document satisfies the norms of quality accepted by the community. Trustworthiness is typically marked by peer review process, social status of the journal, and publishing house quality, but less formally may also be based on the author's reputation and institutional affiliation. Accessibility – readers must able to access the document in a stable manner over time. Libraries, publishers and clearinghouses typically assure accessibility, by distributing and storing the documents. This framework analyzes the publishing process from a social perspective, and emphasizes its communicative role. Kling and McKim developed their framework to help answer questions about whether any article that is posted on an internet site should be considered to have been published. They analyzed different types of postings, such as articles that are posted on the author’s personal web site and articles that are posted in the technical report series of well known academic departments, and show how they differ in their publicity, trustworthiness and accessibility – near the time of posting as well as five years after their original posting. They also examine a number of paper publishing Practices. They show that from a behavioral perspective, publishing is a continuum rather than a binary (yes/no) and that the relationship between electronic publishing and paper publishing is relatively complex. We will use the Kling-McKim publishing framework throughout this chapter. Kling and McKim's articulation of publishing as a continuum influenced a recent proposal to define the ends of the continuum. In 1999-2000 an International Working Group (*02000) was invited by the International Association of STM Publishers to clarify some of the confusions about nomenclature that is confounding the discussions of electronic publishing. This International Working Group proposed a distinction between the "first publication" of a work, and a (possibly subsequent) 'definitive publication." They write:

"The crucial fixed point, in our view, remains the final published version of an article after peer review (or any future equivalent). We have called this the Definitive publication and believe that it should be clearly identified as such. In the electronic environment, certain other characteristics are also required in addition to peer review: It must be publicly available. The relevant community must be made aware of its existence. A system for long-term access and retrieval must be in place (e.g. Handle). · It must not be changed (technical protection and/or certification are desirable). It must not be removed (unless legally unavoidable). It must be unambiguously identified (e.g. by a SICI or DOI). It must have a bibliographic record (metadata) containing certain minimal information. Archiving and long-term preservation must be provided for. This is the version to which citations, secondary services and so forth should ideally point. However, we recognize (sic) that earlier versions of an author's work may be made available, and that in some disciplines these are already being cited by other authors. Such early versions might be all that is available to an author for citation at the time of submission of the author's work. However, versions which are not durably recorded in some form, or which do not have a mechanism for continuing location and access, or which are altered over time (without due provision for version control, as outlined below), should not be regarded as 'publications' in the sense that publication has been defined here, even if cited by an author." If an author refers to a definitive publication as 'a publication," what label(s) should be used to characterize a first publication? We will examine this nomenclature in the next section. Even in the paper world publishing was a continuum. The famous Garvey-Griffith (*01979) publishing model, based on careful empirical studies of research communications in the field of psychology, treats the appearance of an article in printed conference proceedings or in a journal as the only forms of communication that warrant the label "publication." Although they were not explicit, they used the term "publication" to refer to the International Working Group's conception of a definitive publication. In many fields, scholars circulate "first publications" -- informally to colleagues, or more formally as publications in a series of working papers, technical reports, occassional papers, or research memoranda.

While many scholars believe that the trajectory of publication described by Garvey and Griffith fits many fields, there are important variations in sequence and nomenclature across disciplines. For example, MIT's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Lab started its series of research articles, called "AI Memos" in the late 1950s. Some of these AI Memos became conference papers and/or journal articles and/or book chapters. However, some AI Memos remained research manuscripts without subsequent publication in other forums. In the 1960s, the first research-oriented computer science departments often organized paper technical reports series of articles that might subsequently appear in printed conference proceedings and/or in journals. However, some of the manuscripts in this series, such as dissertations, were not expected to be published elsewhere in the form that they appear in the series. When the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory was established in 1962, its first director, W. Panofsky, requested that the library staff collect unpublished research reports in high energy physics (Kreitz, *0199x; Till, *02001). In the field of economics, several academic departments developed working paper series in the 1970s. These collections were heterogeneous in their contents. Many of these articles would be subsequently published in printed conference proceedings, journals or book chapters. Those articles which were variously labeled (research) manuscripts, technical reports, working papers, were also at some stage arguably preprints if their subsequent publication did not entail substantial revisions. However, some would not be subsequently published in any other form, and consequently should not be called preprints at all. What would they be preprints of if they were not subsequently published? Further, if a research memo or technical report was substantially revised during editorial review, the original version should not be called a preprint either. In 1969 The American Physical Society Division of Particles and Fields and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission sponsored a community-wide distribution of a weekly list of new research manuscripts received by the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC). This listing, was named "Preprints in Particles and Fields. (PPF)." Hundreds of physicists paid an annual subscription fee to receive PPF weekly by airmail. (Addis, *01994; Till *02001). (PPF continued hardcopy publication until the Fall 1993.) Not all of the manuscripts that are listed in PPF are subsequently published. This leaves open the question exactly what are these subsequently unpublished research manuscripts to be considered as preprints of? These differences in the nomenclature for research articles ie., preprints by high energy physicists and manuscripts, technical reports (or working papers) by others continues today. Unfortunately, some of this terminological diversity clouds the discussions of alternative ways to organize Internet forums to support scholarly communication. It is amplified by the terms used by some advocates of more open exchanges of research articles via Internet forums, such as Stevan Harnad (*01998), who often refers to "unrefereed preprints." In the Garvey-Griffith publishing model, preprints are distributed when an article has been submitted to a journal, and also has been accepted for publication. The preprint precedes a formally published printed version. Before an article is accepted for publication in a specific venue, it is not a preprint. It may be referred to as a manuscript, a research memorandum (or research memo), a working paper, a technical report, or an

occasional paper. We believe that this linguistic usage should be retained, even though the term preprint is often casually used to refer to articles in any of these categories. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a preprint as "something printed in advance; a portion of a work printed and issued before the publication of the whole." High-energy physicists gave their research manuscripts a status boost by referring to them as preprints before they were submitted for and accepted for publication. For example, according to its official description, "Recently, fewer than 40% of submitted papers have been finally accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters (PRL)." It should not surprise us if many of the research manuscripts that are listed on PPF and that were originally submitted to PRL were not accepted for publication in PRL. Perhaps many of these manuscripts rejected by PRL would be accepted elsewhere, but few of the manuscripts listed on PPF are actually guaranteed to be preprints of any specific publication when they are first listed. Unfortunately, physicists have casually used the term preprint to refer to research manuscripts whose publication status is similar to articles that are called research manuscripts, working papers and technical reports in other fields. For example, the PREPRINT Network at Oak Ridge National Laboratories defines "preprints, or 'e-prints,' are manuscripts that have not yet been published, but may have been reviewed and accepted; submitted for publication; or intended for publication and being circulated for comment." The Preprint network is a valuable service in the physical sciences; but its definition of preprint is so elastic that it can refer to any memo (or manuscript), even one that is only posted on an author's personal web site, and not subsequently published anywhere else. In this chapter, we will try to use terminology to describe research documents that can work across many disciplines. We believe that the term preprint should be used in a strict sense to refer to articles that have been accepted for a specific venue. Manuscript is the primary candidate for labeling articles that authors circulate prior to their acceptance for publication. The term manuscript is still widely used by journal editors to refer to articles that are to be submitted and/or are under review. It is strangely anachronistic, since between the 16th and mid-20th centuries, it referred to documents that were handwritten and "not printed" (*0199x OED). In the 20th century, the "manuscript" handscript) was replaced by the term typescript to refer to typed documents. In today's parlance, the term for electronic documents might by electro-scripts or e-scripts, although we have not found that usage in the context of scholarly communication. The term eprint, which some scientists use to refer to electronic manuscripts plays off of its resonance with preprints, and we believe that e-reprints should refer to electronic versions of pre-prints. We will use the term manuscript or e-script to refer to articles that have not yet been accepted for publication in a specific venue. We will use the terms preprint and eprint conservatively -- to refer to manuscripts in the form in which they are likely to appear in a conference proceedings, journal or book (whether in printed form, electronic form, or both). We will use the terms manuscript and e-script to refer to articles that have been published in an institutionally sponsored venue, such as a working paper series or an online server for research articles, such as arXiv.org. We view Harnad's discussion "unrefereed preprints" as generally misleading; if he changed his nomenclature to "unrefereed research reports,""unrefereed technical reports,"

or "unrefereed research manuscripts," and similar terms, his enthusiastic arguments for enabling scholars share these documents to would be much more lucid. Even the common term "article" can implicitly refer to a publication venue. The Oxford English Dictionary defines an article as "a literary composition forming materially part of a journal, magazine, encyclopedia, or other collection, but treating a specific topic distinctly and independently." We will use the term article in a broader way to refer to any document that fits the OED’s definition, or that is in a form that could fit the OED’s definition if it were published. We are using the term manuscript to refer to a version of an article that is in a form that has not (yet) been accepted for publication in a specific venue. Electronic versions may be called e-scripts. Preprint refers to a relationship between two documents, rather than a feature of a document in isolation. Consider the unusual case in which a scholar writes and article, submits it to a journal, and has it both accepted for publication and finally published with no changes (including copyediting and updating references). A copy of the article in the scholar's file starts out as a research memorandum (or working paper or technical report) on the day that she submits it to the journal for publication. When it is accepted for publication, with no changes, it's status changed to that of a preprint (ie., a preprint of a forthcoming definitive publication). That is, it spawned a copy of itself that would appear as a definitive publication in the journal. When the journal issue that included the article was published, it became a reprint of that definitive publication. It is more common for the authors of articles submitted to journals to be asked to make some changes by peer reviewers, or to initiate some changes on their own. In the social sciences, where many of the most prestigious journals accept less than 20% of the articles that are submitted for review, many authors will submit their rejected articles to other journals. This practice is not uncommon in the natural sciences as well. Of course, some articles are never accepted for publication. These articles do not merit the label preprint in any stage before their is a clear relationship to the article that will be accepted for definitive publication in a conference proceedings, journal or book. As an article travels through a peer review process, value is added to it by a combination of the editorial work that can lead to major or minor changes, as well as by the "peer-reviewed" status that is bestowed upon it by the conference or journal. The International Working Group was carefully avoiding calling preprints, as used by high energy physicists, a "definitive publication." In short, many of today's "preprint networks" and "preprint servers" should be called "memo networks," "memo servers." These services may include some preprints and even definitive publications in their corpuses. However, their defining characteristic is to make available research manuscripts rapidly and usually inexpensively to readers. Unfortunately, most discussions of e-journals conflate a number of different formats into one overarching, and sometimes misleading, category --electronic journals (e-journals). For example, Okerson (*02000) reviews the history of journals and discusses a few electronic journals of the early 1990s. She also provides a timeline from 1991 to 1999 and indicates the number of electronic journal titles that are listed in two directories. The number of titles grew from 27 in 1991, through 3634 in 1997 and then to 8000 titles in 1999. She briefly discusses the move by major STM publishers to provide WWW-based access to their journals in the period of 1996-2000.

Much of the enthusiasm for e-journals in the early 1990s was based on specific assumptions: they would be electronic only, they could be peer reviewed, and there would be no charges to their authors and readers. Similarly, concerns about the long term archiving of e-journals and their academic legitimacy hinged on similar assumptions (Kling and Covi, 1995). Today, the major STM publishers who offer electronic versions of their paper journals rely upon a subscription model in which they allow electronic access to individual subscribers or to members of organizations who purchase more expensive institutional (library) subscriptions. These questions about the early "pure" e-journals take on a different character for journals with an established reputation and readership as a paper-based journal that also provides a similar electronic version. The distinction between an e-journal without any paper version and a paper journal with an electronic version matter in trying to make sense of questions about such issues as the legitimacy of e-journals or their costs. For example, we know of no evidence that prestigious paper journals, such as Science, have lost legitimacy after they established online versions in addition to their printed copies. The question of legitimacy seems to affect only the journals that are completely or primarily distributed in electronic form. Similarly, questions of costs will hinge on the number of printed copies a journal produces as well as the character of its electronic form. Last, questions about a journal's accessibility and readership can also hinge on the extent to which it allows readers free access to electronic versions. Following Kling and McKim (1997) we find it useful to distinguish at least three kinds of e-journals: Pure e-journals - the text of the pure e-journal is completely in digital form, and the article is also primarily distributed in digital form. Examples include, the Electronic Journal of Communication, the Journal of Digital information, the Internet Journal of Archaeology, and the Journal of Electronic Publishing. E-p journals – journals is primarily distributed electronically, but may have limited distribution in paper form. Examples include the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research and the Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence. P-e journals – journals that are primarily distributed in paper form, but which are also distributed in electronic form. Examples include Science, Physical Review, and thousands of other scientific journals. There are many published discussions of the possible benefits of pure e-journals and their advantages over traditional paper journals. However, those discussions often ignore three ideas: First, although beneficial changes may be possible from a technical point of view, the social structure of online publishing does not change as rapidly as the technical structure. Second, possible changes are discussed without distinguishing which type of ejournal they apply to. Third, possible advantages are often analyzed separately, without taking into account how one advantage may tradeoff with another (for example, cost versus the variety of features offered).

IV. Models of Electronic Documents and Scholarly Communication Forums The literatures about scholarly electronic publishing are primarily informed by three different conceptual models. One model, which Kling, McKim and King (2001) refer to as the "Standard Model," emphasizes the conventional information processing properties of different media, such as paper and digital. Tn alternative kind of model, a Socio-technical Network Model, characterizes the complex interplay between the information processing features of artifacts and social behavior at many levels of analysis, including its operations/production. According to the Standard Model, an e-journal has certain properties when compared with a paper journal: its articles can be more rapidly reviewed, it can be more rapidly distributed, it is much easier to update or be kept timely, it is arbitrarily expandable, it can be more easily searched, it can include articles that are much richer in their representations (e.g., more pictures and sound recordings), it should be much less expensive for readers, and it should be more readily available to a wider readership (for example Amiran, Orr, & Unsworth, 1991). Some analysts also identify systematic disadvantages of electronic media, such as perishability and the ease of plagiarism (Wells, 1999). Kling, McKim and King (2001) refer to a Socio-technical Network Model that represents media in use as collections of social groups and artifacts that are brought together in intricate and interpenetrating social and technological relationships. The Socio-technical Network Models treat electronic media "in use" as a socio-technical network that brings together participants with different roles, rights, responsibilities, resources flows, legitimacies, and taboo behaviors. In these models, differently structured electronic forums inscribe some of these relationships and behaviors into parts of the medium. In this view, a peer-reviewed e-journal is not just a set of documents on-line. If subscription is limited, unauthorized readers can be excluded by methods such as requiring passwords or access from specific Internet domains. Different parts of the electronic spaces that represent the journal may be structured in different ways. For example, articles are normally write-protected in ways that prevent readers from arbitrarily editing their texts. Other parts of the journal’s electronic space may be structured so that editors may privately comment about articles that are under review and allow readers to comment on articles that have been accepted for publication. This last example illustrates how different sets of "roles, rights, and responsibilities" could be inscribed in software, hardware and data files. The Socio-technical Network Models do not just characterize the internal structures and relationships of an electronic forum, but also their relationships with other groups, technologies, and other forums. For example, a specific e-journal may gain a level of legitimacy from the status of the organization that publishes it, from its editorial board, and from the quality of articles that they have attracted in the recent past. Authors and readers of a specific e-journal may also try to publish in or read other competing journals, and also to the search systems that they use to locate journal articles. The Socio-technical Network Models are ecological in that they locate a forum in relationship to an extended network of participants, resources, and competing activities. Later in this chapter we will examine scholarly journals and working papers as Socio-technical Network Models, in comparison with their Standard Models, and analyze how they

change our understanding of SEC process. Because Socio-technical Network Models view the social and technical aspects of communication forums separately rather than viewing them as conjoined, they were excluded from our study. Table 1. Models of Forums and Their Collectivities

Analytical Focus

Standard Model E-Forum & Users' Interaction

Actors

Users

Conceptions of Actors

Individuals

Treatment of IT

Cheap & easy & "standardized" Taken for granted (TFG)

IT Infrastructure Social Behavior

Can be easily reformed to take advantage of new conveniences, efficiencies and values.

Resource Flows & Business Models E-Forum Legitimacies

TFG

TFG

Socio-Technical (ST) Networks Ecological: E-Forum, Participation, Participants' Interactions in the E-Forums & with other ST-networks & settings Individual participants + diverse groups & organizations that influence behavior in the E-Forum Interactors (participating in multiple overlapping social & ST networks & perhaps in different social settings Configurational – socially & by tech inscription Variable, sometimes can be problematic Influenced strongly by interactions outside the E-Forums as well as within + E-Forum resources relative to other opportunities elsewhere Examined (includes $ flows, regulatory regimes) Mobilization of support treated as an accomplishment

V. Journals Henry Oldenburg produced the first issue of a scientific journal, the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, in 1665 (Schaffner,1994). In 2001, Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory listed over 160,000 periodicals and serials published in the United States and throughout the world. However, this list includes the proceedings of annual conferences and annual reviews, as well as journals. Nonetheless, the number of journals published worldwide is usually estimated to be well over 100,000 and the number of journals has grown steadily and rapidly during the second half of the 20th century. On the other hand, information scientists, such as Eugene Garfield, who have used citation data to examine the likely use and impact of journals, have found that only a

small fraction of the journals in any field are widely cited, and that the majority of journals are rarely cited, if at all. The journal’s form developed over several centuries. For example, abstracts of articles became widespread only in the 20th century. Some analysts argue that innovations in scientific publishing will depend on the development of e-journals (King & Tenopir, 2000: p. ??). However, there certainly have been some innovations that have not required the development of pure e-journals or e-p journals. These include article abstracting and indexing databases, the translation of the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index to an electronic form, and journal notification services (via e-mail). It is also arguable that e-memo repositories may in the future play a greater role in scholarly communication than would the p-e journals. Much of the debate on the future of electronic publishing concentrates on opportunities for the readers, writers and publishers. The accessibility of scholarly ejournals, their surpassingly lower production costs, the possibility of multimedia publications and reference linking are treated as compelling features of the medium that will enable them to thrive. The success of e-journals depends on their socio-technical architectures as well as their information processing features. Socio-technical architectures include strategies for structuring the medium (e.g., page appearance and technologies to support it) as well as the social networks of editorial board members and sponsors, access controls (registration, password, fee or free), and so on. Kling (2000) examined the sociotechnical architectures of two "peer-reviewed" pure e-journals – the successful Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (ETAI) and the failing (and now defunct) Electronic Journal of Cognitive and Brain Sciences (EJCBS). Since both journals offer similar internet access, the differences in their success must be due to factors other than their use of the Internet to enable authors publish without charge and readers to obtain articles freely. Enthusiasts for e-journals, such as Okerson (2000) and Odlyzko (*01995) often portray the transition of journals from paper to electronic media as a relatively easy process. The Internet is seen as a medium that will be able to solve many of the difficulties associated with traditional publishing. Such views are based on the Standard Model of scholarly communication, and often do not take into account that social changes need to be considered in this process and that they operate on different sets of rules than IT changes do. Connecting the two can be a challenge, but it is essential to the success of the transition of scholarly communication. The issues involved in publishing scholarly e-journals have been summarized and briefly discussed by Buckley et al. (1999) and Wells (1999) among others. Buckley et. al. briefly examine six major issues from the point of view of librarians: access, cataloging and indexing, pricing, archiving, and licensing. Wells lists a set of eight potential advantages and six potential disadvantages of e-journals and provides citations for specific claims abut them. In the next sections we will analyze the most commonly discussed issues from the perspectives of the Standard and Socio-technical Models. 1. Speed of publication There is a common belief that switching from paper to electronic distribution will improve the speed of publication. This would be especially beneficial in fields where the

publication process takes years rather than a few months. According to King & Tenopir (2000) it can range from XX to YY, and in some disciplines like economics it can take as long as 3 years (Trivedi, 1993). Time may be saved in the peer review process, in the production process, and in the process of journal distribution. After an author submits an article, it goes through a review process, which could be comparably long for p-journals and e-journals. Some [e.g. Harnad, Nadasdy] advocate alternative forms of review, but we have not found scientific studies that show how much those forms actually improve the speed of publication. We will analyze article review processes later in this chapter. An accepted paper goes through an electronic type setting process. This process can take longer for p-e journals since each version has to be formatted separately. The time needed for type setting pure e-journals depends upon the complexity of the text formatting; an ASCII file can be formatted quickly while SGML coding requires much more work. This process also varies from discipline to discipline: those in which articles are rather text oriented such as many humanities disciplines require less time than in those disciplines were articles are contain graphs or color photography, such as the natural sciences. Other reason for publication delay of printed journals is so called "backlog effect". Paper journals are budgeted to publish a certain number of pages per year. If the manuscripts accepted for publication in a given year exceed this number, they will be published in the next year, thus extending the queue of the articles to be published. Ejournals need not experience this type of delay. An accepted manuscript can rapidly be posted on an e-journals web site (after minimal typesetting). Thus a pure e-journal could significantly decrease its publication time, if the publisher decides to post each article separately. The actual practices of posting on the Web vary from journal to journal. For example, the Astrophysical Journal posts the titles and authors of articles as soon as they are accepted for publication. P-e journals published by European publishers and societies tend to distribute both paper and electronic versions almost simultaneously. The American Chemical Society posts individual articles on their website as soon as they finish the review and editing, a format which ACS calls " As Soon As Publishable (ASAP)." This can lead to electronic access being 11 weeks’ faster than than the print publication (Wilkinson, 1998). Articles available at PubMedCentral may appear two months after their initial print publication. The publishers of pure e-journals can publish their articles on their web site as soon as they are delivered to their editor, especially since many of them request that the author properly format their articles. But editors may wait until they receive more articles to bundle them together as an issue, and thus some potential publishing speed is lost. (For example, the pure e-journal, the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, publishes quarterly, while the pure e-journal, the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, publishes articles when they are accepted for publication.) The claim that electronic publishing substantially decreases publication time is based on the Standard Model of electronic publishing, with the belief that it is possible to publish an article immediately after it is accepted. However, if we analyze the publishing process from the perspective of the Socio-Technical Network Model, we can observe that the process is influenced down by practices that are media-independent forces such as editorial review times, author revision times, and the timing of posting articles.

2. Cost Variations in how e-journals are designed and maintained will cause the production costs to vary from journal to journal. Harnad (1995) claims that electronic publishing may be 70%-90% less costly, since pure electronic publishing his only the costs incurred by the peer review process and copy editing. However, the cost of an ejournal may depend on the type of coding used. Formatting manuscripts in ASCII or HTML is relatively inexpensive, while the translation to PDF is more costly; SGML tagging can be the most expensive (Holoviak & Seitter, 1997). Many e-journals distribute their articles in multiple formats to ensure that all viewers have access to a format that their computers can support or that they prefer. Some costs may be shifted from editors to authors by requesting them to provide their articles in specific formats. The inclusion of additional features like multimedia presentations or lengthy data sets will also increase a journals’ cost. Whisler and Rosenblatt (1997) estimate that electronic versions of a journal may be about 20% less costly because of lower distribution costs, but that those savings will be overridden by the costs of new features. For p-e journals and e-p journals, the costs will be even greater as some costs of printed and electronic versions must be added, even if one version is based on the other. The administrative costs of e-journals may depend on whether they are free to all readers or available only by subscription. One of largest costs (for fee based journals) is the cost of installing and maintaining authentication software and subscriber data. The subscribers to printed journals are responsible for storing and archiving their journal issues, while the e-journal publishers assumes responsibility for organizing, storing and maintaining electronic archives. Estimating the costs of the technology needed to create and maintain a journal in the future is problematic. As Walt Crawford (1998) noted: "Yes, a $2500 PC purchased today is some 75 times as powerful as the $2500 PC of 1988 – but that doesn't mean you can buy a useful PC for $33! Technology doesn't work that way: increased performance for a price doesn't mean that prices keep going down for acceptable performance." Bot et al.(2000) calculated the costs of the pure e-journal Electronic Journal of Comparative Law (EJCL) and compared these estimated costs to those of printed law journals, basing their calculation on the prices minus a hypothetical 30 percent profit margin. They estimated that the cost of the e-journal is considerably less; but because their findings are based on estimates and not on actual data, it is difficult to compare them with other studies. Different conclusions were reached by Fisher (1997), who calculated the cost of the MIT Press publishing Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science (CJTCS), as a pure e-journal. She compared these costs with those of publishing the print journal Neural Computation (NC). Fisher reports that the production costs were considerably lower for the e-journal (with a difference of 291%). However, when the overhead costs were calculated, they were 1240% higher for CJTCS. The overhead costs consisted of staff labor costs and the costs of hardware and software. The journals’ relative overhead costs were strongly influenced by the much smaller number of articles published in CJTCS. While reaching different conclusions, the authors of these two different cost analyses agree that estimating the costs of pure e-journals is difficult at this time since the

relative costs per article or per page depend on the submission rates, which are often rather low. Cost analyses that are based upon the Standard Model assume that printed and online journals have the same features. A direct comparison based on those features suggests that e-journals are considerably cheaper because of the reductions in printing and mailing costs (*citation*). But maintaining an e-journal may require the use of other features, such as subscriber identification software, which increases production costs. The addition of features such as internal links to other e-journal articles and various kinds of subscriber notification services can add substantial value while increasing costs as well. Thus cost of producing a journal is not based only on its basic production costs, but also upon a the set of features the publisher’s chooses to include. The inclusion of additional features and the choice of coding types will probably be based on a compromise between readers’ preferences and the available resources. The marketing of the journal may also be conducted through various means, such as mailing journal announcements to prospective readers, offering free access to the site for a limited time, or providing one free online issue. Each of these options carries a different cost. Thus, the cost-consuming activities of an e-journal’s production and promotion are not eliminated; rather they are reconfigured. 3. Price of E-Journals The price of journals is closely related to their production costs. However, some of the criticisms of the pricing of expensive scientific journals emphasize the ways that some publishers seem to add substantial profit to the cost of their journals when they set their subscription prices. In the case of printed journals, the subscriber pays for a copy of an issue, receives it, and can store it, lend it, and read the articles for an unlimited period of time. In the case of e-journals, subscribers are paying for access, and after their subscriptions expires their access to the original articles is lost, unless they print copies of articles or download them to store them. Libraries may not be able to print and/or store the articles from pure e-journals, depending on their license agreements. Rather may simply facilitate access to the journals for their patrons through services such as Catchword. Publishers may only allow access to e-journals through a limited numbers of computers, or limit the number of library patrons simultaneously accessing the site. Each type of licensing agreement may be priced differently. Additionally, publishers of the p-e journals may offer the electronic version only to those who are subscribed to the printed version, offer a special price or combined price for both versions, or price each of them separately. Publishers may also apply different pricing polices to different groups of subscribers. One interesting case is Internet Archaeology. This journal had been free since 1996, and was sponsored by ‘eLib programme.’ After the funding was discontinued, the publishers offered their journal only through subscription. 4. Access and searching capabilities Readers’ easy accessibility to articles is perceived to be one of the major advantages of e-journals (Tomney & Burton, 1998). Many scholars work in their university offices where high-speed Internet connections enable the rapid transmission of e-journals. Those working from home or from universities that do not have high-speed

Internet connections may have more difficulty accessing an e-journal, especially if it is heavily loaded with graphics or stored in huge PDF files. This disparity of network access may actually widen "the digital divide", rather than bridging it as some enthusiasts have postulated. The electronic versions of p-e journals may be especially attractive for individual subscribers in countries where the cost of air delivery is high, but these will not help many scholars in countries where networks are slow and access is limited. Even in the more developed countries, access to US sites is best only during the hours in which most Americans are asleep. For an article to be read it first has to be found. The availability and ease of use of various search engines on the web may give the impression that searching for articles on the Internet is easy. While it may be true that articles in free e-journals may be found by search engines, a reader must be willing to spend time distinguishing research articles from other Internet documents. However, many of the e-journals try to limit access through registration or subscription and do not allow search engines to access the sites or index documents. Further, searching using common Internet search engines does not guarantee that a desired article will be found. In their studies Cronin et al. (1998) compared various search engines and their abilities to find articles written by distinguished scholars from the field of Library and Information Science. The differences among search engines were dramatic: from 1 to 73 articles and from 4 to 136 conference proceedings were retrieved, depending on the engine. Ford and Harter (1998) examined the ease of locating pure e-journals through online directories and catalogs. They examined four online directories and two online union catalogs in terms of their coverage, accuracy, currency and agreement of entries for 36 pure e-journals. The study shown noticeable differences in those databases. The ARL directory listed the highest number of the titles (33). RLIN and OCLC listed 31 and 32 journals respectively, and included URLs to mirror sites for many journals. The CIC directory included 26 titles, the University of Houston’s Ejournal databases returned 21 pure e-journals. The numbers of functioning and current URLs revealed that it is difficult to maintain the accuracy of these databases. The highest percentage of working URLs were listed at the University of Houston site (95.2%), followed by the CIC Index (71.7%), and Ejournal (61.5%); other databases fell below 60%. The least accurate databases also listed gopher and ftp URLs that had expired. The total percentage of unique http URLs that were functioning and current was 66.7 %, compared to 50% current and functioning URLs overall. The number of different URLs per journal is also interesting. Psycoloquy and Postmodern Culture had 16 and nine different URLs respectively. Further, the researchers found an additional 17 (sic!) URLs to Psycoloquy through online searches and correspondence – including multiple spellings of the journal's name at an ftp site. Potential journal readers may be frustrated when they use expired links. Librarians face the difficulties of deciding which WWW page should be considered a home page, and the variety of pages can make it difficult to determine which page is most current and which one should be cited. The question remains – why aren't most pure e-journals indexed by publicly available databases? Since pure e-journals and electronic databases are based on the same medium, the transition from one to the other may seem to be automatic. However,

networks of social and technical dimensions do not reconfigure themselves instantaneously. First, e-journals do not make their way into directories automatically; their citations have to be placed there. Second, the decisions of which journals to include may be based on the preferences of a database’s maintainers and a journal’s perceived reputation. Third, the medium which is presumed to facilitate access to journals may actually impair access to some information if some of the links do not work or multiple URLs complicate locating the most recent versions. Existing databases of articles (print or electronic) allow users to search authors, titles, abstracts and, sometimes, full text. However, the relevance of retrieved results depends on three things: the search engine, database construction, and search strategy employed. Various databases provide different search mechanisms which allow different search options (simple search, advanced, with thesaurus extension) to facilitate the search. Most journals and publishers implement much simpler e-searching (by keyword) than do aggregators such as Dialog, Lexis, and Academic Search Elite (Smith, 2000). Having different search options is a feature of the medium, but implementing them does not necessarily mean that an article will be retrieved. Changing from a print to an electronic medium requires researchers to apply new search strategies. Since searching mechanisms vary from journal to journal, so they require different searching methods, which necessitates some learning time on the part of readers. 5. Citations Another potential advantage of e-journals over p-journals is their ability to include active hyperlinks to bibliographical citations. The actual value of this function is still hypothetical since the Web environment is quite unstable and the location of files can be changed. In addition, pure e-journals, as well as the electronic editions of printed journals may disappear. For example, out of 35 publicly accessible pure e-journals studied by Harter (Harter, 1996), five did not appear in the locations provided in his article when we checked in the summer of 2001. In addition, a more recent study (Zhang, 1998) found that authors who publish in pure e-journals are more willing to use cite articles from other pure e-journals than are the authors who publish in pure p-journals. This may result in internal hyperlinking, with the articles in the same pure e-journal hyperlinked to each other. The publication of p-e journals and e-p journals raise a question about which version of an article should be cited? Some journals try to avoid this confusion by suggesting how their articles should be cited. One definite advantage of e-journals over pure p-journals is the ability to download citations into citation management programs, such as EndNote. 6. Interactivity One form of interactivity is to allow readers to comment on articles that appear in a jorurnal. P-journals vary in the extent to which they include "letters to the editor." Traditional p-journals may print comments about an article in the next issue. In practice it generally takes longer for an article to be read and responses to be written. In pure ejournals and e-p journals, comments can be submitted and posted more rapidly after the article is published and attached directly to the online version of the article, and/or can appear in discussion lists made available by the publisher. However, adding comments to

the electronic versions of print journals after they are electronically received and before the printed versions appear may create confusion – the comments may be available only to some of the audience, authors of comments may prefer to have their comments included in the print version of the paper, and readers may see greater value in comments that are reviewed before they are made publicly available, which is not the case in discussion lists. E-journals vary in their practices for publishing comments about articles. For example, D-Lib Magazine (a pure e-journal) does not publish comments. First Monday (a pure e-journal) publishes comments as "Letters to the Editor" in the next issue. The British Medical Journal (a p-e journal) takes advantage of the electronic options by allowing the reader to e-mail comments about and article, and have them rapidly linked to the relevant article. In addition, the BMJ provides a customized alert service, posts citations to related articles that they have published, and offers a citation alert service. Analyzing interactivity features through the prism of the Standard Model presents them as very powerful communication tools. But a tool is only an instrument to facilitate communication between authors and readers. Interactors reside in different social settings and their communication is moderated not by the medium, but by editors and publishers. The network between readers and authors develops on many levels - citations, reviews, personal communications - and the interactive features of e-journals are only one part of this network. For example, free comment posting the creates possibility of spam and unprofessional remarks, which requires setting up a socially accepted authority to maintain professional decorum. 7. Additional features E-journals offer the ability to include links to raw data, to attach multimedia files, or to include mathematical algorithms. In practice few p-e journals include these features; for most of them, an online article is simply a copy of the printed article. Including new features in different file formats in documents requires readers to have all the necessary tools to decode them. Publishers need to ensure that their files can be viewed using publicly accessible software and also provide access to it from the publisher’s web site. Many of the opportunities that the medium has to offer are not used or are deliberately suppressed in order to give the look and feel that the article was published in a print-based journal (e.g., using vertical flow of the pages and consecutive page numbering). An example of such a journal (e-p), Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), was analyzed by Kling and Covi (1995). JAIR publishes its articles in PostScript and PDF formats on an Internet site. Each article is formatted and paginated as it would appear in a printed journal. An article printed from JAIR looks exactly like a photocopy of an article from a traditional p-journal. While access to the electronic version is free of charge, the publishing house, Morgan-Kaufman, also sells a printed version of JAIR as an annual volume. This strategy has probably facilitated JAIR’s success. The authors cite their articles without revealing that they were published in an e-p journal, thus avoiding any prejudice against the electronic medium. The existence of the printed volume ensures that articles will be accessible regardless of what happens with electronic versions in the future and provides access for those who prefer traditional paper-based issues, or do not have easy access to the Internet.

An additional advantage of pure e-journals is the possibility that their articles need not be limited in length by considerations of printing and mailing costs. However, this advantage cannot be utilized in p-e journals if the online version is the same as the printed version. Table 2A. Comparison of P-E journals and Pure E-journals with Pure P-journals Model Pure E - journal P-e journal Standard May be technically quicker by Publication time may be longer, Model speeding delivery time as creating two versions of the journal will consume more time. SocioPublication of separate articles Speed of publication depends on Technical may be quicker, but publishing the editorial decisions. If the Network the whole issue may be electronic version is published Model prolonged by editorial decisions before the print one appears it to collect more articles on the may be quicker; if they appear subject. simultaneously there may be no difference. Standard The cost is cut on paper, Same as printed journal + cost Model printing, binding, delivery, etc. of creating and maintaining the Depends on type of coding used electronic version and number of additional features. Socio- Cost may be higher as some Even if the electronic version is Technical journals publish in multiple a copy of the printed one, the Network formats to ensure that all costs may be higher due to the Model subscribers have access to need for security and site formats they can support. maintenance. - Cost may also be elevated by price of security software and site maintenance. - Readers may be forced to get/purchase additional software to be able to retrieve multimedia files cost is shifted to the users Standard Lowering costs should result in Same as printed journal lowered prices. Model SocioEach of a journal’s versions can Technical be priced separately. Network Model

Table 2B. Comparison of P-E journals and Pure E-journals with Pure P-journals Model Pure E - journal P-e journal Standard - May be limited by poor - Does not depend entirely on Model Internet connection and lack of Internet connection. necessary software. - Access may be better for - Assumes that all readers are researchers, who do not have to comfortable with electronic go to the library to read a new format. issue, but can access it from their desks. Socio- Some journals exist in multiple Articles can be more easily Technical locations, which creates found in databases if the print Network confusion. version was already there. Model Standard Full text articles can be searched Full text articles can be searched Model by keyword. by keyword. SocioReaders are required to learn Technical new ways of searching and Network browsing documents, especially Model if journals and database vary in their search options. Standard E-journals can be easily Model connected to electronic databases. SocioIndexing services do not include Printed versions may be Technical e-journals because providing included in indexing services, Network this service will probably not depending on reputation of the Model increase subscriptions. journal Standard Easy feedback on articles After the electronic version is Model though e-mail and discussion created the comments may be lists. The comments can be attached to the article. attached directly to the article. SocioComments in discussion lists not In cases when p and e versions Technical reviewed, however the are not the same, authors may prefer to have their comments Network discussion list may be included in the printed version. Model moderated. Implementing a protection against spam necessary.

Table 2C. Comparison of P-E journals and Pure E-journals with Pure P-journals Model Pure E - journal P-e journal Standard - Ability to include raw data, Ability to include links to raw Model animation, movies, data, animation, movies, mathematical codes, etc. mathematical codes and - Length of the articles additional lengthy articles in the practically unlimited. online version. Socio- Reader has to have appropriate - Adding features to one version Technical tools to be able to view different of the journal only requires Network file formats. editorial decisions on prices and Model - Many of the pure e-journals privileges for different groups of use ASCII or HTML only subscribers. because of cost and accessibility - Currently most of the concerns. electronic editions do not take advantage of available options, are just copies of the printed versions. Standard In case journal stops publishing Printed copies available in Model there is no guarantied access to libraries and on private shelves the previous issues. even if the journal stops publishing. SocioArchiving responsibility moved Different library cataloguing Technical from libraries to publishers. practices - both versions Network For libraries - shift from issue cataloged as one or separately. Model ownership to access only with different subscription options. [add brief introduction] 1. Archiving and cataloging Printed journals are often retained in libraries and in private collections even after the journals cease publication or subscriptions expire. There is a fear that pure e-journals can cease to publish and that their previously published and cited articles will be no longer be available. Publishers of e-p journals try to overcome this fear by printing a limited version of the journal for libraries so that the articles are always available in print. Long-term archiving is a concern to many. Arms (1999) presented three case studies of different approaches to long term storage of electronic articles, analyzing how the ACM Digital Library, the Internet RFC series and D-Lib Magazine archive electronic resources. Arms examined the different factors that may predict the future of these cases. The ACM is an association with over 50 years of tradition, more than 80,000 members, and significant financial resources. The ACM Digital Library is perceived by ACM to be one of its biggest assets. The academic community may be reasonably confident that this collection will be maintained. The prospects are less certain for the Internet RFC series. Currently, the Internet Engineering Task Force maintains it, but the informal status of the

organization does not guarantee that the Internet RFC series will be available in the long term. The Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI), which publishes DLib Magazine, depends on (DARPA) grants. If the funding ceases, CNRI may stop publishing the magazine. With no funds for maintaining the website, the collection may be lost. There are other complexities of managing and reading e-journals, such as the possibilities that they can be stored in multiple locations. Mirroring a journal’s website speeds access from different corners of the world, but also increases its costs, as it requires the maintenance of separate servers and accessing software. Additionally, some publishers allow authors to "publish" a version of their papers on their personal websites, which increases the number of copies (and potentially versions) available. Libraries have to tackle the problem of cataloging e-journals and deciding how to include pure e-journals into their catalogs. The p-e journals are even more complicated, because the policies of libraries vary, with some cataloging each version separately and some cataloging them together. Wilkins (1997) surveyed libraries and learning centers about their practices of cataloguing p-e journals. Twelve university libraries responded to her survey. One institution responded that they have not yet faced the issue, and three were still debating it and held back by lack of resources. Some respondents were concerned about temporary Pilot Site License agreements, that would require a substantial amount of work for cataloging and updating records, and then having to restructure them again if funding for these projects from sources such as The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) were terminated. Most libraries surveyed seem to agree on one entry per title. In addition, Wilkins' respondents preferred providing the "real" URL for each journal title, rather than providing a link to the p-e journal publisher's WWW site. In some universities e-journals were accessible only from the library’s home page; some universities reported plans to include journal records in a web- based library catalog. The dual journal versions created additional difficulties as librarians wanted to add information about access to electronic copies on each printed journals’ records. 2. Possibility of direct plagiarism E-journals are considered to be easy targets for plagiarism, as they enable the direct copying and pasting of sections of one document into another (although some journals try to prevent this by posting their articles in Adobe Acrobat or Postscript formats, which are much more difficult to copy). On the other hand though, today’s technology also allows easier plagiarism from a printed journal, through the use of scanners and character recognition software. The electronic technologies that simplify plagiarism also may make it easier to detect (Kock, 2001). The posting of files on the WWW can often be traced back to the person who downloaded them and text fragments can be compared for similarity. There are already initiatives to use specialized software for detecting copies and very similar documents in digital libraries, such as SCAM (Stanford Copy Analysis Mechanism (Denning, 1995; Shivakumar & Garcia-Molina Hector, 1995). However because it is impossible to compare each document against thousands of others, it is still easier to copy a paper than is to identify plagiarism. For example, Kock (1999) accidentally discovered that an article of his had been plagiarized. The chances for successful plagiarism are

relatively low in fields where the research projects are highly visible to participating scholars (ie., experimental high energy physics where research data is collected at a few major laboratories). In contrast, a plagiarist may have greater chances of success in fields where the invisible colleges are not tightly knit and where the research could have been conducted "almost anywhere" and by "any of many" competent investigators. One of the most important issues in electronic publishing is the legitimacy of pure e- journals and ep-journals. The legitimacy of e-journals can be understood differently by different players in the scholarly communication process: authors, journal editors, promotion and tenure (P&T) committee members. Several studies have evaluated perception of e-journals in the community by examining different aspects of the issue: reported perception, use of ejournal articles, citing behavior, etc. 1. Usefulness of e-journals Studies of the perception of e-journals have changed their focus over time. The older studies concentrated on possible benefits of e-journals, while more recent studies ask questions about legitimacy. Respondents to a survey conducted on chemists at Cornell University reported that they expected their access to e-journals would allow them to read more complete articles, spent their reading time more efficiently, and read articles sooner after their publication (Stewart, 1996). For these respondents, the most important features of e-journals were considered to be the ability to create printed copies and to browse text and graphics. The respondents believed that e-journals will soon adopt all the functions of p-journals (e.g., browsing text, graphics capability, flipping through pages, annotating and highlighting text). But one-third did not anticipate that p-journals would ever be replaced by some form of e-journals. In the Spring of 1994, Butler (Butler, 1995) studied approximately 500 natural and social scientists who had either published in at least one of 10 peer-reviewed pure ejournals or who had served on their editorial boards. She reported that 63% of her respondents felt many of that their colleagues did not perceive their e-journal publication as "real," and 43% of her respondents felt that their colleagues viewed e-journals as less important than p-journals. Brown (1999) reported that less than 50% of the faculty in science fields at the University of Oklahoma obtained journal articles electronically, and 62-65% preferred print versions. Between 23% and 31% of her respondents favored an electronic version (depending on their field). Those who wanted to have access to both versions still wanted to be able to print articles published that were electronically. According to a survey conducted by Björk and Turk (2000), researchers in the area of construction information technology and construction management downloaded half of the materials that they read from the Internet. Lenares (1999) studied a diverse but small (500) sample of faculty at 20 research universities in 1998 and in 1999. She found that the number of faculty who reported using e-journals increased (from 48% in 1998 to 61% in 1999), with the biggest increase, from 60% to 90%, in the physical sciences. However print journal usage still predominated – only 14% of respondents to the survey reported using e-journals frequently, compared with 65% of those who frequently used print journals. While Lenares noted that a large fraction of the "e-journals" listed in the most recent edition of the Association of Research Libraries’ Directory of Electronic Journals were p-e journals rather than pure e-journals, her survey report does not clearly

report how much of the increase in e-journal readership is of pure e-journals versus p-e journals (or both). Speier et al.(1999) surveyed business school faculty. The results of their study differ from those studies conducted in the sciences. Less than one-third of their sample (300 scholars) had general awareness of electronic publishing, approximately 16% read articles in e-journals, and only 7% had submitted (or intended to do so) publications to ejournals. Business faculty did not perceive e-journals as being as high quality as paper journals. Those with higher awareness were the younger faculty and the more prolific ones. Faculty with tenure were also more likely to submit their work to e-journals. Of special interest is the finding that faculty who served on Promotion and Tenure (P&T) committees were more likely to have greater awareness of e-journals and read electronic articles. Faculty in more technical disciplines like finance, accounting and MIS were more willing to integrate e-journals in their scholarly work. These results are similar to those obtained by Tomney and Burton (1998). Faculty from more technically-oriented fields, like science and engineering, were more likely to read e-journals, while faculty from history and the School of Education reported no use of e-journals. However, of those the survey respondents who had read e-journals, the overwhelming majority (71%) considered the quality of the articles in e-journals to be the same as in p-journals. These studies focused primarily on the process of receiving articles (electronically) and ignored the differences between p-e journals and pure e-journals. Of these studies, only Butler (1995) distinguished between these two types of publications by selecting pure e-journals for study. 2. Journal Impact Factors A few researchers have used citation analysis to determine the scholarly impact of pure e-journals. Harter (1996) examined 39 peer-reviewed e-journals in this way. The results suggest that the majority of scholarly, peer-reviewed pure e-journals have had negligible influence on scholarly communication in their respective fields. Only eight of the 39 pure e-journals had been cited ten or more times over the course of their lifetimes. However, this study has some weak points. The pure e-journals and p-e journals were analyzed together. It was difficult to determine which version a citation should be associated for the 11 p-e journals. A similar study of e-journals in the fields of library and information science by Yin Zhang (1998) showed that during the years in which the study was conducted (1994-1996), the impact of e-journals increased, though not to a statistically significant extent. One of the most interesting examples of differences among print journals, p-e journals and e-journals can be seen in the case of Pediatrics (Anderson, Sack, Krauss, & O'Keefe, 2001). This journal has been published in print since 1948. In January 1997 the editors added an online only section, named Pediatrics electronic pages. Articles published in those pages were chosen by an editor from accepted papers, with preference given to those of broader international interest. Abstracts of those articles were published in the printed version of the journal. In July 1998 the editors started publishing the print content online (by subscription), while still maintaining the Pediatrics electronic pages free of charge. Anderson et al. studied articles published in 1997 through 1999 in order to determine how successful articles published online are. They examined Web usage statistics, citations within the biomedical literature and author perceptions. Interviews

with the authors revealed that they perceive online-only publications as second-tier publishing compared to print, and felt that they are not perceived equally by P&T committees and the academic community. The fear of a lower perception of articles published online only is consistent with that found in other studies (for example Schauder, 1994). In contrast with this perception are the results of Andersen et al.’s citation analysis and P&T committees’ opinions. 16% of the Pediatrics survey respondents (44) reported that they had applied for tenure since their articles were published in online-only editions and that they included those articles in their portfolio. In all cases the articles were accepted by their institutions. Interestingly, all of the authors included their online-only publication in their CVs, even if they considered online publications inferior to printed ones. Online-only articles were cited in a manner similar to print articles, and there were no differences in how quickly the articles are cited after publication. Online-only articles were accessed four times as often as print edition articles on the website, which may be due to the fact that the online-only articles are free of charge. One caveat to be mentioned is that only 21% of the readership of Pediatrics is actively engaged in research. The rest consists of mostly practicing pediatricians, so the analysis of citations has to be interpreted with care. 3. Perception of e-journals by Promotion and Tenure committees Presenting of results of studies to peers (and sometimes the public) is an important part of a researcher’s job. The quality, and to some extent the quantity, of his/her publications in recognized scholarly journals are the measures typically used in the promotion and tenure processes. Faculty seeking promotion may be under special pressure to present the results of their work; however, publishing is important at every stage of a scholar’s career. But not all publications are considered to be of equal value. Many scholars compete to have their work published in more prestigious journals, which gather larger audiences of their peers. Publishing in pure e-journals may be especially appealing to young faculty who are advised to produce large numbers of publications in a short period of time. However, there is a common assumption that publications in pure e-journals will not be regarded as equal to publications in p-journals. For this reason, some faculty may not want to publish their best work in pure e-journals or e-journals, fearing that P&T committees will not consider it as valuable. The assumption of the lesser value of e-journals may result from unfamiliarity with their peer-review processes. Only a few studies examine P&T procedures with regard to e-journals and the attitudes of P&T committee members towards the legitimacy of pure electronic publications. Cronin and Overfelt (1995) examined 49 sets of P&T guidelines from various universities and their departments, and found only one mention of electronic publishing media, and it seemed to refer to non-refereed electronic bulletins. The other guidelines did not mention electronic publishing, but put an emphasis on the quality of the research rather than its quantity. Quality was assessed by whether an article was peer reviewed and by the perceived quality or status of the journal in which the work was published. Journals were also evaluated by the ratio of acceptances to rejections, editorial board membership and refereeing policies. One of the most important aspects was

longevity and currency of the journal, which may be a factor responsible for perceiving the new e-journals as being of lesser value. Formal guidelines are only one part of the tenure and promotion process. The people who serve on the P&T committees play a critical role when they interpret and apply their guidelines to specific cases. The analysis of unsolicited comments from provosts, deans, chairs and others which accompanied the guidelines sets submitted for Cronin and Overfelt’s study suggests that what is most taken into consideration while reviewing a scholarly portfolio is not the kind of publishing medium but the refereeing process. Electronically published articles that have gone through the same reviewing process as printed publications were likely to be treated in the same manner. However, some respondents stated that in many fields this issue is for now nonexistent as the faculties in their departments do not publish electronically, and thus the P&T committee have not had to make decisions on this issue. The situation may not have changed much over the last five years. Sweeney (2000) surveyed the administrators and faculty of Florida State University about their perceptions of the acceptance of e-journals for promotion and tenure. The survey did not distinguish between pure e-journals and p-e journals (which was pointed out by some respondents), so the quantitative data of this study is problematic. However, Sweeney included comments provided by the administrators and faculty, which constitute a rich source of information about the attitudes of the scholarly community toward electronic publishing. The results of the survey are consistent with the findings of Cronin and Overfelt. The respondents were not aware of P&T guidelines with regard to electronic publishing, but pointed out that the refereeing process is a key issue. As many of these journals are relatively new, the respondents suggested that researchers should be required to attach full information about the reviewing process of a journal to articles they include in their portfolios. However, the number of the articles published in e-journals by faculty seeking a promotion or tenure review was relatively minimal in comparison with the other works they submitted. The results of these studies suggest that many scholars are unwilling to submit their work to e-journals because they fear that those publications will be valued less in academic reviews than are publications in p-journals (or p-e journals). On the other hand, designers of P&T guidelines do not see the need to address the value of pure e-journals because relatively few scholars publish in them. The small number of publications in ejournals may also be a result of the fact that there are only a small number of pure ejournals today. In any case, the medium of a publication does not seem to be an important factor in the P&T process. 4. Perception of e-journals by journal editors Professional societies state in their editorial guidelines and policies what constitutes "prior publication" and what should be treated as such by the editors of society journals. The Internet enables authors to distribute their work more easily to their peers prior to publication. This practice results in more detailed descriptions of examples of prior publication in the policies of some professional societies. Kling and McKim (2000) analyzed pre-publication polices in four fields: psychology, chemistry, computer science and information systems, and found that these policies vary from field to field. The policy of the American Psychological Association (APA) posted in 1996 instructed

that authors are not allowed to put their manuscripts on the Internet at any stage of their work. It also stated that after publication the publisher is the copyright holder and authors are not allowed to post the full text of the papers on their websites. A year later the APA revised its policies and left it to the discretion of journal editors whether to accept articles that had been previously posted on the Internet. The American Chemical Society (ACS) has a similar policy with respect to articles published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society. It states that work submitted to the journal should not have previous publication in any medium, including e-journals and computer databases of a public nature; this includes electronic conferences, WWW pages and newsgroup postings. These policies differ from the practices in other fields, such as computer science and particle physics. The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), for example, does not include any statement declaring that posting of documents on the Internet is equivalent to publishing. The ACM grants authors the rights to reuse their work with citations to ACM publications and the rights to post preprints and revisions on personal servers. Similar practices can be seen in the field of particle physics. It is common that authors post documents at the time of submission on publicly accessible working paper servers. Another journal which allows posting of article drafts on the Internet is MIS Quarterly, one of the most influential journals in the field of information systems. Authors are allowed to post articles that have been accepted for publication on their own Web pages, with notes indicating preprint status of the articles. Once a journal issue is available, the authors must remove the drafts from their home pages. Not all societies and journal editors have strict sets of guidelines regarding prior Web posting of submitted articles. Harter and Park (2000) surveyed journal editors to examine their acceptance policies about articles that had been posted electronically. Their sample included the top and bottom 20 journals (according to Journal Citation Reportst) from mathematics, physics, psychology and education, and 42 random titles from the arts and humanities. The survey questioned how different types of prior electronic publication would affect publication decisions, and which factors would contribute to the decisions. A significant majority of the editors were willing to consider a manuscript for publication even if it had appeared previously in an electronic form. More than half would consider such a manuscript if it had previously appeared linked to an author’s home page, been placed on a preprint server, been published in a conference proceeding or appeared on a listserv. Fewer than half would consider an article published previously in a print journal and only one-fourth if it had been published in a scholarly e-journal. The editors disagreed on the importance of different factors that might affect their decision. Some of the most important factors were: lengths of manuscripts, whether the electronic version still existed on the Internet, the perceived quality of the research, the language of publication, potential for a different audience, and whether the electronic version was refereed. If the previous version had been peer-reviewed, only a small number of editors would consider it. While some editors had fairly strict and negative attitudes towards work published previously in an electronic form, most of them are willing to consider it for publication in their journals. One major finding of the study was the significant difference in how an article previously posted on the Web would be considered for publication among the various fields studied. Editors in mathematics and physics were more likely than others to

consider manuscripts that had been previously posted electronically; for arts and humanities’ editors prior posting seemed to be a more serious barrier to subsequent publication. Peer review of a prior publication was perceived to be a more factor for the editors of education journals than for those in the arts and humanities. They also considered the fact that a prior publication still existed on the Web to be of greater importance than did the editors of physics journals. 5. Peer-review processes of Pure e-journals Peer review is perceived to be the primary characteristic in legitimizing scholarly journals, including e-journals. The stereotypical peer review of a manuscript requires that it be evaluated for its relevance to the journal, its likely importance and its scholarly quality by specialists who are located outside of a journal’s office. In practice journals vary in the number of peer reviews that they solicit, the specific processes that they use for selecting reviewers, the possibilities that authors and reviewers could identify each other, and so on (Weller, 2001:15-27). While the concept of peer review is over 200 years old, it became most widely adopted after World War II. Weller’s (2001) superb integrated review of the research about peer review practices identifies some of their key variations, as well as the few studies that examine the impact of peer-reviews. These studies found that authors did not feel that peer-review generally did not result in substantive changes in their manuscripts. However, authors felt that peer-reviews generally helped them to improve the structure and clarity of their analyses and conclusions. The peer-review process has been criticized for being both lengthy and undemocratic. One of the proposed solutions to change this status quo was to replace reviews with readers’ comments (signed or anonymous) on articles. The comments would help authors make necessary changes, and would inform other readers about the quality of the articles. In traditional publishing, readers do not know the names of the reviewers of a particular article, but may know the members of review teams and/or they trust that an editor will select reviewers with appropriate expertise. In reviews through readers’ comments, where everyone has an equal voice, readers not only evaluate the articles for themselves, but also comment on the article. The names of the commentators may give readers some appreciation of their relevant expertise. If the review process is completely anonymous, the authors could post their own positive comments. Let’s examine some cases of e-journals and their peer–review processes. Wood and Hurst (2000) describe an experiment conducted in 1996 by the Royal Society on the p-e (?) journal Proceedings: Biological Sciences. This experiment applied the traditional model of peer review, while utilizing the Web to conduct and facilitate the process through the Electronic Submission and Peer Review (ESPERE) service. The authors would post their articles in PDF format in password-protected personal workspaces. The editor would then e-mail the referees the paper’s URL, and the referees would submit their comments through a Web-based report form. The experiment had promising results – almost half of the contacted authors (23) took advantage of this offer. After the study, authors were asked to evaluate the service. They seemed to be satisfied with this form of submission, once they had invested the time to learn how to use it. However, they expressed concern that the exclusive use of this

method would restrict submissions and referees to countries which have good quality Internet access. Reviewers chosen for the experiment were experienced computer users, who work on the Internet daily. Their comments were also positive. 89% (39) of reviewers said they would like to receive papers for review this way again. The majority stated that they found the electronic review took less (60%) or the same time (29%) as the traditional way, and was less (46%) or equally (43%) difficult. The results of this experiment encouraged the editors to change their submission policy. After August 2001 Proceedings Biological Sciences stopped accepting the paper submission of manuscripts; only e-scripts can now be submitted for review and possible publication in this p-e journal. A similar approach was tested by the p-e journal Medical Journal of Australia (eMJA). Articles submitted for publication were circulated among reviewers via the Web (with password protected entry) and the review process was conducted as an online discussion (which took 3-4 weeks) among the journal’s editors, reviewers, authors, and a small number of consultants who represented the journal’s readership. After acceptance, articles and records of the review process were published on the Internet for open review by the readers. After four weeks of open review the articles were published in print. The standard reviewing procedure for MJA is "double blind." For the Internet study reviewers were asked for permission to publish their reviews for an open review period on the journal's WWW site. Almost two-thirds of the 90% who agreed to participate signed their reviews; the rest posted anonymously (with their identities known to the editor). In the second stage of the review, anonymous comments were e-mailed to the editor, who judged their merit. In this study most of the participants in both stages of the process did identify themselves by name. This process is still under evaluation, and is currently not accepted as a standard review process for MJA. A similar system is used by the editors of Journal for Interactive Media in Education (Sumner & Buckingham Shum, 1996). After submission, an article is placed online and reviewers use a computer-supported collaborative argumentation (CSCA) environment to deliver their comments. The software allows them to work in two windows – one displays the article text while the second is used for their comments for each section of the article. The editor pulls together all the comments, and the article and reviewers’ comments are then posted on the Web. The process moves into an open discussion phase, where authors, reviewers and readers can engage in debate. The editor decides if the article is to be accepted and which changes are necessary. The discussion can continue even after publication. Some new initiatives attempt to restructure peer review, by enabling a journals' readers to participate in the process. The differences between these more open processes and more traditional peer review are in the way that the public’s comments are treated in the process (Weller, 2001). Also different practices in different disciplines are due to the nature of the research studies conducted – the benefit of public comments may be different in the disciplines which rely on the wide discussion, than in those which rely on empirical data. VI. Unrefereed Research Manuscripts and E-scripts

In section III, we discussed nomenclatures for articles that have not been accepted for publication in a specific venue. Scholars employ a variety of labels to refer to these documents: manuscripts, drafts, working papers, research reports, technical reports, and research manuscripts. We criticized the use of the term preprint to characterize these kinds of documents, and proposed to call them all research manuscripts (or e-scripts). We are keenly aware that our usage is contrary to the growing convention of referring to all of these documents as preprints (or e-prints). However, we believe that the elastic extension of the term preprint to refer to any memo that an author releases for discussion or review for publication blurs categories that many scholars often treat as fundamentally different: documents that have been accepted for publication in a specific venue and those that have not (yet) been accepted, or that have been reviewed and rejected (and will possibly never be published in a different venue). The coy use of the term e-print to refer to electronic manuscripts borrows its semantics from preprint, and suffers from the same limitations. Authors often include their research manuscripts and conference papers as part of their electronic dossier (Cronin, Snyder, Rosenbaum, Martinson, & Callahan, 1998). In some fields, such as mathematics, demography, computer science and economics, escripts produced by the members of an academic department or research institute are published on an institutional WWW page. Other disciplines, such as astronomy, physics, computer science, and parts of linguistics, have developed centralized archives to collect these e-scripts and facilitate their dissemination. In some fields, such as economics, experimental particle physics and computer science, there are both local departmental and research institute e-script collections as well as field-wide centralized archives. Archives vary in their architectures: submission and publication models, storage facilities, search capabilities, and disciplines covered (Van de Sompel et al., 2000). Some archives use a procedure in which manuscripts are submitted to a centralized system (arXiv, CogPrints), while others provide access to the academic institutions which host the papers (RePEc, NCSTRL). Generally, authors (or their assistants) submit their escripts to the centralized archives and the centralized archives are easily searchable. The decentralized archives may provide a unified search for all participating institutions (RePEc), or require a reader to search the archive of each institution separately. Some, like RePEc, rely on third-parties for end-user services. Other differences among the repositories include disciplinary coverage (one or many disciplines), and forum coverage (manuscripts only, or manuscripts plus other electronic documents). Similar to the case of e-journals, publicly available e-scripts are the subject of controversy. E-script archive proponents, such as Odlyzko (1995) and Ginsparg (1999) portray them as a solution to the crisis in scholarly publishing, and a solution that other scientific disciplines should adopt for their own good. Others, such as Kling and McKim (2000), suggest that the disadvantages of the dissemination of the e-scripts through the Internet should not be ignored, and that a universal model of e-memo archives may not be suitable for all fields. This diversity of opinion stems from the fact that in many cases the advantages of e-scripts papers are viewed from the perspective of the Standard Model of electronic publishing, while application of a Socio-technical Network Model reveals problems associated with the distribution of e-scripts that should be examined as well.

An excellent example of the controversy field-wide e-script repositories are the commentaries on Joseph Y. Halpern's "CoRR: A Computing Research Repository" (Halpern, 2000). Halpern describes the history, architecture, main functions and features of the Computing Reseach Repository, established in 1998 by a partnership of ACM, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) ePrint Archive and Networked Computer Science Technical Report Library (NCSTRL). The article characterizes the e-script archive mostly from the Standard Model perspective, underlining the speed and low price of distributing electronic documents. Halpern writes: "With the advent of the Internet, researchers developed and began to use a variety of electronic means for rapid dissemination. Individual and organizational Web sites made it possible to provide cheap and almost instantaneous access to research results." For those who want to post their research papers, the repository is open only to those who are affiliated with a university, government research lab or industrial research lab; however, anyone can browse CoRR, search for, and download papers. In response to Haplern's article a few scholars expressed their concerns about some of the challenges facing CoRR. James Prekeges (2000) contrasts the virtues of speedy communication with the questions of the credibility of unrefereed e-scripts. He criticizes the officially open acceptance policy, and points out that archive administrators will have to devise a way to help readers assess the quality of the articles. The idea of accepting only articles posted from reliable domains places the responsibility of author selection on technology, and can be easily bypassed, as anyone can register a domain with an ".edu" extension. Additionally, there is an issue of easy searchability – because there is practically no content control, the number of potentially relevant e-scripts that a reader must sort through could grows at a rapid rate. As one solution to this, Prekeges suggests implementing an Amazon.com or E-bay model, where buyers submit their "product ratings" along with supplemental comments. The system can also suggest to buyers other products they may be interested in, based on previous searches. Speed as a "value added" by a research repository was also criticized by A. J. van Loon (2000). He argued that the rapid dissemination of research results cannot be treated as a goal in itself, since it can come at the sacrifice of quality. The focus on speed comes from researchers who want to have their materials published quickly, mostly due to economic reasons. However, the only way to achieve quicker publication is to reduce the review process, and this would limit the standards of the forum. Van Loon also pointed to another issue – e-scripts that are submitted to an archive can be revised; thus they may be immature at the time of submission. This would mean that CoRR's function is facilitating the distribution of information about what researchers in the field are doing, rather than spreading research results, because there are no criteria about the which stage at which an e-script can be submitted to the repository. Authors can submit different revisions, but there is no guaranty that after articles are formally published, the authors will submit the latest versions to the repository. This may mean that the material in CoRR is not up-to-date and that there will be more recent versions of the articles published elsewhere. Van Loom also emphasizes that while "free service" means free for readers, it does not mean "cost free." He suggests that having customers pay a small fee, like ten cents per downloaded document, could recover the costs of maintaining the database, and

still would be much cheaper than the average scientific journal subscription. Further, the fact that the repository is funded based on cooperation with LANL and NCSTRL brings up the question of what will happen when the funding ceases. It’s interesting that two of the commentaries address the issue of disciplinary differences in traditions in publishing and information sharing. David L. Armbruster (2000) discusses publishing practices in the biomedical sciences and shows the reasons why working paper repositories in the form presented by Halpern may have difficulty being adopted in this field. Biomedical journal publishers generally do not accept for publication materials which have previously appeared elsewhere. In the late 1980s a few publishers had policies which stated that even conference proceedings abstracts longer than 700 words would be considered prior publication. Currently, journals of the American Physiological Society will not accept manuscripts which appeared online. On the other hand, the British Medical Journal accepts e-scripts as long as their status as escripts is clear. The success of an archive depends upon the willingness of authors to submit their articles for publication. Authors need to feel assured that publishers will not only accept for publication papers which are posted in the electronic archives, but also that they are supportive of working paper archives (Carr, Hitchcock, Hall, & Harnad, 2000). This may be especially difficult in fields with many journals in contrast to fields in which only a few journals are published, as the smaller number of journals increases the possibility that they can exert more influence over archives. Let us examine these controversies from the perspectives of the Standard and Socio-Technical Network Models. 1. Speed of dissemination of recent research results Standard Model: Research results are available to the scholarly community immediately after authors post e-scripts in online repositories. Socio-Technical Network Model: Speed is not the most important factor in dissemination of research results. It must be counterbalanced with the credibility of sources. The temptation of presenting the results of their research quickly may cause some researchers to post articles which are not fully developed. Research manuscripts by definition are not completed are intended to have future revisions, but they have to be presented in an acceptable form. Professor Robertr Delbourgo opines: "A substantial proportion of papers (in arXiv.org) are not well thought out,"(Glanz, 2001). On this issue, gains for one group of the network’s participants (authors) may cause losses for another group (readers). 2. Cost Standard Model: Working paper archives are free to authors and readers, and will be the solution to the rising prices of scholarly journals. Socio-Technical Network Model: When authors and readers have free access to an ememo archive, other parties are paying the costs of building and maintenance. The cost of the technology involved has to be calculated, as well as the time needed for volunteers and administrators to develop and manage them. Working paper archives depend on funding from research institutions and organizations, which do not guarantee that the funding will continue forever.

3. Rapid access to recent research results Standard Model: Articles are easy to find, and can be accessed from around the world without problems, and without waiting for printed journals to arrive by mail. While speaking to a New York Times reporter, Dr. Jorge Zanelli from Chile commented that "It (arXiv.org) freed the third world from the need to be in Princeton, Pasadena or Paris in order to do frontier research" (Glanz, 2001). As with e-journals, there is a common belief that because they are on an Internet site they are available to almost everyone. There is also the possibility that e-scripts can be easily included in archiving and indexing services. "After e-prints are published formally, it would be simply a matter of updating the database record to include place of publication and even link to the full text" (Youngen, 1998). Socio-Technical Network Model: Free access and lack of strict credentials and quality control results in a huge number of papers, which the user has to comb through to find those that are relevant and worth reading. Because in some archives article acceptance is based on the .edu domain, it is easy for students to submit their class papers into databases. In physics, where a substantial number of scientists work in non-academic research centers (Glass, 2000), this may not be an issue, but for other disciplines it may cause a problem. Also, universal access to an archive has to be viewed as a combination of technological, economic and social components. Glanz acknowledges that access to the repositories is not equal for all the places in the world and that poor Internet connections in some developing countries hampers their use. Further, the fact that the articles are available free of charge does not mean that they are free for everyone. In many places Internet connections depend on phone connectivity and are billed for every minute of use, and thus are rather costly. For this reason some universities may decide limit or not provide Internet access for their scholars. Meyer and Kling (Meyer & Kling, 2000) found that seventy-file percent of the submissions to arXiv.org originate outside the United States, but there is a need for future studies to determine from which countries the submissions are most frequent. Including research manuscripts in archiving and indexing services may seem valuable for readers, but this means activating additional resources on the part of those services, which probably will not result in benefits for them. Updating the status of escripts after they are published will also not happened automatically – someone has to update the database, which again would require additional resources to deal with growing number of e-scripts. 4. Acceptance of e-script archives by scholarly communities Standard Model: Considering all the benefits of e-script archives, researchers from various disciplines will gladly take the opportunity to submit their papers and download articles.

Socio-Technical Model: Authors must be sure that publishers in the field will feel comfortable about research manuscripts archives. In the section on e-journals we discussed the issues of accepting manuscripts for publication which had previously appeared on the Internet. Policies of editors for papers which are posted in e-scripts archive may vary: - papers posted in an e-script archive will not be accepted - papers posted in an e-script archive will be accepted for publication, but must be removed from the server (in some cases the abstract can remain on the server) - papers posted in an e-script archive will be accepted for publication, and may remain on the e-script server, but citations to publication sources have to be added - papers posted in an e-script archive are accepted without restrictions. Tomaiuolo and Parker (2000), asked publishers why they would not accept for publication articles which appeared online. Publishers reported the following rationales: (1)an article would be presented again to the same population and should be in print first, (2) the income of the scientific societies and journals depends on subscriptions, so research manuscripts are competition; (3)citations to unstable sources may be lost. The claim of presenting an article to the same community appears to have some validity. Brown (1999) (2001), in a study conducted among the faculty at University of Oklahoma, found that 67% of physics and astronomy faculty reported using e-scripts, 13% relied on e-scripts for keeping current with the newest developments, and one respondent reported using arXiv.org exclusively and not reading articles when they appeared in journals. In the case of a paper being accepted but then having to be removed from the server, the rules on how the paper can be removed have to be clearly stated. Removal of papers creates other complications. Studies conducted by Youngen (1998) and Brown (2001), discussed later in the section, suggest that many research manuscripts are being cited. If they are removed from the servers, users wanting to read the papers will have a more difficult time finding them. Most of the essays written on the subject of e-scripts are position papers. However, there are some research studies that allow us to see more clearly how research e-script archives are accepted by scholarly communities. One of the area studied is the impact of research manuscripts on scholarly communication. Citation analysis is one of the traditional techniques of measuring the impact of articles. Youngen (1998) conducted a comparative study of citation rates for manuscripts and e-scripts (preprints and e-prints) in physics and astronomy. Unfortunately, he does not provide detailed definitions for each of the terms. We assume that he differentiates between them based on their distribution medium. Youngsen reports that the number of citations to manuscripts gradually declined between 1996 and 1998, whereas the number of citations to e-scripts has nearly doubled every year since 1992. Unfortunately, Youngsen does not provide the total numbers of manuscripts and e-scripts for the years studied, and therefore it is difficult to judge the actual scope of his

results. The type of article which would previously have been distributed by other media is now being posted on e-script servers. While overall the results suggest that e-scripts are becoming increasingly accepted by the physics and astronomy community, the scope of these results requires further research. Cecilia Brown (2001) has also investigated the use of e-scripts. Her study examined two kinds of data. First, the editors of leading journals were queried on their journals’ policies for accepting articles that were posted in e-script archives, and the citation of e-scripts. Second, data from ISI Journal Citation Reports were examined to find citation patterns. Of the 13 editors questioned, eight responded that papers that have appeared in escript archives are eligible for publication in the journal, but two of them required that the papers be removed from the servers after being accepted. Two editors did not allow escripts to be published, with one of them stating that this is because the papers are already widely distributed. Thus, it was not a question of format and medium, but rather of audience. The other editors reported that they do not have a specific policy regarding escripts. Seven of the editors allowed e-scripts to be cited, but were not enthusiastic about this practice. Concerns ranged from citation of sources that may not be permanently available to the lack of peer review. Authors have acknowledged the difficulties in researching e-scripts in the ISI database due to the different ways they can be cited, which may result in researchers not being able to retrieve them all. Kling and McKim (2000) examined differences in communication forums in the fields of high energy physics, molecular biology, and information systems to determine the differences in traditional communication forums and how those differences affect the utilization of electronic media. While high-energy physicists exchanged manuscripts long before use of the electronic media, and since 1970 have submitted articles to clearinghouses which later distributed them to interested scholars (Kreitz, Addis, Galic, & Johnson, 1997), molecular biologists tend to circulate their research papers only to a small group of colleagues; thus, the creation of a working paper archive in this field is less likely. Similarly, information science has not developed a research manuscripts archive, but instead created a digital library (ISWORLD) of articles, syllabi, tutorials, software, tools and resources. Kling and McKim argue that "it is not just a matter of time" for all fields and disciplines to adopt the arXiv.org model of research results distribution. They suggest that electronic forums must suit the practices of the field, otherwise they will not be socially accepted, and will stagnate or die. They predict that "The divide between fields where researchers share unrefereed articles quite freely ("open flow fields") and those where peer review creates a kind of chastity belt ("restricted flow fields") is likely to change slowly, if at all." Brown’s study also reveals an interesting observation on the differences in the use of the archive by different subfields. Among the different archives, papers from the High Energy Physics-Theory archive from 1991 to 1999 were cited at the highest rate (63.6%). The largest archive, High Energy Physics-Phenomenology, was on third in the citation rates (38.1%), while one of the smallest High Energy Physics – Lattice (3,901 papers) had the second highest rate of citations (39.7%). Two large non –High Energy Physics archives, Astrophysics and Condensed Matter, scored 17.0% and 25.4 % respectively.

The outcome of Brown’s and Kling and McKim’s studies leads to an interesting question. Because the impact of e-scripts varies not only among fields but even among different subfields, the issue of disciplinary differences in accepting e-script servers may go even further. Of course, without data about the size of the subfields it is difficult to make any judgment, but the question still remains. The existence of differences in sub-fields in the arXiv.org archive was also observed by Youngen (1998), who, after examining number of citations in various physics and astronomy journals, concluded that the use of e-scripts is the greatest in highenergy (especially particle) physics and astrophysics. Some fields may be more willing to accept research manuscripts archives, but that fact alone cannot be responsible for the success or failure of a repository. An interesting example comes from the field of economics, which has two major archives – the Economics Working Paper Archive (EconWPA) and the RePEc database. RePEc, which started as a small collection of electronic papers on an ftp server in 1993, presently catalogs more then 40,000 downloadable papers, while EconWPA, which has operated for more than four years, has not grown beyond 1,500 documents (Krichel & Warner, 2001). Possibly the answer should be sought in fitting the right architectural archive model (centralized, decentralized) with a field’s traditional communication practices.. VII. Conclusions We have emphasized two broadly different foci of innovation in publishing electronic articles: the development of various kinds of refereed e-journals and the development of electronic forums for publishing articles that have not been refereed. Our choice of these foci was driven by the emphases in the available research. We would have liked to have examined scholars’ behaviors with regard to electronic conferences (where complete articles are published online and discussed by the conference participants). But we found no systematic research about online conferences and online conference proceedings. We noted that analytical and empirical research is a small portion of the writing about scholarly communication via electronic research articles. Such research constitutes less than five per cent of the articles and books listed in Charles Bailey's extensive Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography. It should not surprise us that a notable fraction of Bailey's bibliography lists works by practitioners. In this case the practitioners are scholars who are often writing for their peers about electronic publishing practices in their own fields or in other fields. Some of these articles are useful case studies of specific e-journals written by those who have organized and managed them. Other articles advocate or criticize potential shifts in some aspects of scholarly communication with electronic media. We have fond two major conceptual limitations with much of this practitioner literature and even much of the research literature. Key terms, such as e-journal, are often loosely defined and used in ways that confuse the issues in the extension of publishing to electronic media. We have tried to rectify this problem by distinguishing between pure ejournals, pure p-journals, p-e journals and e-p journals. It is common for practitioners and even researchers to accept an oversimplified view for examining scholarly communication practices that could be influenced by information and communication

technologies, which we have called the Standard Model. We have tried to rectify this problem by contrasting the Standard Model with a richer Socio-technical Network Model. We used the Socio-technical Network Model as a lens through which to view the organization, development and use of both e-journals and forums that publish unrefereed research articles. The Socio-technical network Model helped to illuminate the following phenomena: 1. Strict definitions of various electronic forums are needed – the fact that they are all "electronic" does not mean that they work and are used in exactly the same way. 2. Discussions on advantages and disadvantages of electronic forums in scholarly communication have to be analyzed from the network perspective. Advantages for one group of actors may mean disadvantages for other participants in the scholarly communication network. Implementing various technological features of the forum has to be adjusted to the work practices of various forum participants. 3. Advantages and disadvantages of electronic forums cannot be analyzed separately from each other, because there are interdependent. Taking advantage of one improvement may mean sacrificing other benefits. 4. The practices of various potential forum participants are more diverse than is suggested in the popular and enthusiast literature, and for this reason, implementation of each new forum should be evaluated separately – the model of "one size fits all" is not likely to work. 5. Electronic forums are not the only means of scholarly communication; they are one of the possible options. Current opinion literature tends to present them in contrast with other forums, but there is not much discussion on how well they work as a part of scholarly communication. 6. The acceptance of new electronic forums is dependent on many factors, such as communication practices in the field, the model of the forum used, structure of the field, and its understanding of technology. All of those aspects have to be taken into consideration. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding was provided in part by NSF Grant #SBR-9872961 and with support from SLIS at Indiana University. This article benefited from helpful discussions about electronic scholarly communication with a number of colleagues, including Ingemar Bohlin, David Cheney, Blaise Cronin, Joanna Fortuna, Adam King, and Geoff McKim. Sharon Ross provided important editorial assistance.

Reference List Protocol of peer review study II (1998a). [On-line]. Available: http://www.mja.com.au/public/information/iprs2bod.html. Last checked 11-162001a Electronic journals: A selected resource guide (2000b). [On-line]. Available: http://www.harrassowitz.de/top_resources/ejresguide.html. Last checked 11-162001b Amiran, E., Orr, E., & Unsworth, J. (1991). Refereed electronic journals and the future of scholarly publishing. In J. A. Hewitt (Ed.), Advances in Library Automation and Networking (pp. 25-53). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Anderson, K., Sack, J., Krauss, L., & O'Keefe, L. (2001). Publishing online-only peerreviewed biomedical literature: Three years of citation, author perception, and usage experience. The Journal of Electronic Publishing [On-line]. Available: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/06-03/anderson.html. Last checked 11-16-2001 Armbruster, D. L. (2000). Issues of online research repositories from the perspective of the biomedical sciences. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24, 49-53. Arms, W. Y. (1999). Preservation of scientific serials: Three current examples. The Journal of Electronic Publishing [On-line]. Available: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/05-02/arms.html. Last checked 11-16-2001 Bailey, C. W. Jr. (2001c). Scholarly electronic publishing bibliography. [On-line]. Available: http://info.lib.uh.edu/sepb/sepb.html. Last checked 11-16-2001c Bannon, L. J. & Schmidt, K. (1989). CSCW: Four characters in search of a context. In (pp. 358-372). Dortrecht, NL: Elsevier. Bishop, A. P. & Star, S. L. (1996). Social informatics of digital library use and infrastructure. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 31, 301401. Björk, B.-C. & Turk, Z. (2000). A survey of the impact of the Internet on scientific publishing in Construction IT and Construction Management. Electronic Journal of Information Technology in Construction [On-line]. Available: http://www.itcon.org/2000/5/. Last checked 11-16-2001 Borgman, C. L. & Furner, J. (2001). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36. Bot, M., Brugemeester, J., & Roes, H. (2000). The cost of publishing an electronic

journal. A general model and a case study. D-Lib Magazine [On-line]. Available: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november98/11roes.html. Last checked 11-16-2001 Brown, C. (2001). The e-volution of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 52, 187-200. Brown, C. M. (1999). Information seeking behavior of scientists in the electronic information age: astronomers, chemists, mathematicians, and physicists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 929-943. Buckley, C., Burright, M., Prendergast, A., Sapon-White, R., & Taylor, A. (1999). Electronic publishing of scholarly journals: A bibliographic essay of current issues. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship [On-line]. Available: http://www.library.ucsb.edu/istl/99-spring/article4.html. Last checked 11-16-2001 Butler, H. J. (1995). Where does scholarly electronic publishing get you? (reprinted from Filling the Pipeline and Paying the Piper, Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium). Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 26, 174-186. Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Hall, W., & Harnad, S. (2000). A usage based analysis of CoRR. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24, 54-59. Crawford, W. (1998). Paper persists: Why physical library collections still matter. Online [On-line]. Available: http://www.onlineinc.com/onlinemag/OL1998/crawford1.html. Last checked 1116-2001 Cronin, B. & Overfelt, K. (1995). E-journals and tenure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46, 700-703. Cronin, B., Snyder, H. W., Rosenbaum, H., Martinson, A., & Callahan, E. (1998). Invoked on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 1319-1328. Dalton, M. S. (1995). Refereeing of scholarly works for primary publishing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 30, 213-250. Denning, P. J. (1995). Plagiarism in the Web. Communications of the ACM, 38, 29. Eason, K. (1988). Information technology and organizational change. London: Taylor & Francis. Fisher, J. (1996). Traditional publishers and electronic journals. In Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier (pp. 231-242). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fisher, J. (1997). Comparing electronic journals to print journals: Are there savings? Paper presented at Scholarly Communication and Technology Conference organized by The Andrew W.Mellon Foundation at Emory University, April 2425, 1997. [On-line]. Available: http://www.arl.org/scomm/scat/fisher.html. Last checked 11-16-2001 Ford, C. E. & Harter, S. P. (1998). The downside of scholarly electronic publishing: Problems in accessing electronic journals through online directories and catalogs. College & Research Libraries, 59, 335-346. Glanz, James (2001, May 1). Archive opens a new realm of research. The New York Times, pp. Science Times. Glass, G. V. (2000). Anonymous FTP: Can we risk it? Dare we publish pre-prints? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 2000, [On-line]. Available: http://glass.ed.asu.edu/gene/papers/aera2000/. Last checked11-16-2001 Halpern, J. Y. (2000). CoRR: a computing research repository. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24, 41-48. Harnad, S. (1995). The postGutenberg galaxy: How to get there from here. Information Society, 11, 285-292. Harter, S. P. (1996). The impact of electronic journals on scholarly communication: A citation analysis. The Public-Access Computer Systems Review [On-line]. Available: http://info.lib.uh.edu/pr/v7/n5/hart7n5.html. Last checked 11-16-2001 Harter, S. P. & Park, T. K. (2000). Impact of prior electronic publication on manuscript consideration policies of scholarly journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 940-948. Holoviak, J. & Seitter, K. L. (1997). Transcending the limitations of the printed page. The Journal of Electronic Publishing [On-line]. Available: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/03-01/EI.html. Last checked 11-16-2001 King, D. W. & Tenopir, C. (1999). Using and reading scholarly literature. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 34, 423-477. Kirkpatrick, David D. (2000, November 3). As publishers perish, libraries feel the pain; Mergers keep pushing up journal costs. The New York Times. Kling, R. & Covi, L. (1995). Electronic journals and legitimate media in the systems of scholarly communication. The Information Society, 11, 261-271. Kling, R. & McKim, G. (1997). A typology for electronic journals: Characterizing

scholarly journals by their distribution forms. Center for Social Informatics, Working paper [On-line]. Available: http://www.slis.indiana.edu/csi/wp9707.html. Last checked 11-16-2001 Kling, R. & McKim, G. (1999). Scholarly communication and the continuum of electronic publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 890-906. Kling, R. & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 1306-1320. Kling, R., McKim, G., & King, A. (2001). A bit more to IT: Scholarly communication forums as socio - technical interaction networks. Center for Social Informatics, Working paper [On-line]. Available: http://www.slis.indiana.edu/csi/wp0102.html. Last checked 11-16-2001 Kock, N. (2001). A case of academic plagiarism. Communications of the ACM, 42, 96104. Kreitz, P. A., Addis, L., Galic, H., & Johnson, T. (1997). The virtual library in action: Collaborative international control of high-energy physics pre-prints. Publishing Research Quarterly, 13, 24-32. Krichel, T. & Warner, S. (2001). Disintermediation of academic publishing through the Internet: An intermediate report from the front line. Working paper [On-line]. Available: http://openlib.org/home/krichel/sants.html. Last checked 11-16-2001 Lenares, D. (1999). Faculty use of electronic journals at research institutions. Paper presented at Racing Toward Tomorrow, ACRL Ninth National Conference, April 8-11, 1999, Detroit, Michigan. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ala.org/acrl/lenares.pdf. Last checked 11-16-2001 Meadows, A. J. (1998d). Communicating research. London, San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Meyer, E. T. & Kling, R. (2000). The research divide: Internet commons, scholarly participation and pre-print servers. Paper presented at the International Association for the Study of Common Property Conference, Bloomington IN May31- June 4, 2000 [On-line]. Available: http://php.indiana.edu/~etmeyer/workpap.htm. Last checked 11-16-2001 Miller, R. H. (2000). Electronic Resources and Academic Libraries, 1980-2000: A Historical Perspective. Library Trends, 48, 645-670. Nadasdy, Z. (1997). A truly all-electronic journal: Let democracy replace peer review.

The Journal of Electronic Publishing [On-line]. Available: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/03-01/EJCBS.html. Last checked 11-16-2001 Peek, R. P. & Pomerantz, J. P. (1998). Electronic scholarly journal publishing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 33, 321-356. Prekeges, J. (2000). The dilemma of credibility vs. speed. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24, 60-63. Schaffner, A. C. (1994). The future of scientific journals: Lessons from the past. Information Technology and Libraries, 13, 239-247. Schauder, D. (1994). Electronic publishing of professional articles - attitudes of academics and implications for the scholarly communication industry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 73-100. Shivakumar, N. & Garcia-Molina Hector (1995). The SCAM approach to copy detection in digital libraries. D-Lib Magazine [On-line]. Available: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november95/scam/11shivakumar.html. Last checked 1116-2001 Smith, A. G. (2000). Search features of digital libraries. Information Research [On-line]. Available: http://informationr.net/ir/5-3/paper73.html. Last checked 11-16-2001 Sosteric, M. (1996). Electronic journals: The grand information future? Electronic Journal Of Sociology [On-line]. Available: http://www.sociology.org/vol002.002/Sosteric.article.1996.html. Last checked 1116-2001 Speier, C., Palmer, J., Wren, D., & Hahn, S. (1999). Faculty perceptions of electronic journals as scholarly communication: A question of prestige and legitimacy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 537-543. Stewart, L. (1996). User acceptance of electronic journals: Interviews with chemists at Cornell University. College & Research Libraries, 57, 339-349. Sumner, T. & Buckingham Shum, S. (1996). Open peer review & argumentation: Loosening the paper chains on journals. Ariadne [On-line]. Available: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue5/jime/. Last checked 11-16-2001 Sweeney, A. E. (2000). Tenure and promotion: Should you publish in electronic journals. The Journal of Electronic Publishing [On-line]. Available: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/06-02/sweeney.html. Last checked 11-16-2001 Tenopir, C. & King, D. W. (2000). Towards electronic journals: Realities for scientists, librarians and publishers. Special Libraries Association.

Tomaiuolo, N. G. & Packer, J. G. (2000). Preprint servers: Pushing the envelope of electronic scholarly publishing. Searcher [On-line]. Available: http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/oct00/tomaiuolo&packer.htm. Last checked 11-16-2001 Tomney, H. & Burton, P. F. (1998). Electronic journals: a study of usage and attitudes among academics. Journal of Information Science, 24, 419-429. Trivedi, P. K. (1993). An analysis of publication delays in econometrics. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 8, 93-100. Van de Sompel, H., Krichel, T., Nelson, M. L., Hochstenbach, P., Lyapunov, V. M., Maly, K., Zubair, M., Kholief, M., Liu, X., & O'Connell, H. (2000). The UPS prototype: An experimental end-user service across e-print achives. D-Lib Magazine [On-line]. Available: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/february00/vandesompel-ups/02vandesompel-ups.html. Last checked 11-16-2001 Van Loon, A. J. (2000). A computing research repository: Why not solve the problems first? ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(2), 64-71. Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Information Today, Inc. Wells, A. (1999). Advantages and disadvantages of electronic journals. In:Exploring the development of the independent, electronic, scholarly journal. MSc.Dissertation, Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield. [On-line]. Available: http://panizzi.shef.ac.uk/elecdiss/edl0001/ch0402.html. Last checked 11-16-2001 Whisler, S. & Rosenblatt, S. F. (1997). The library and the University Press: two views of the current system of scholarly publishing. Paper presented at Scholarly Communication and Technology Conference organized by The Andrew W.Mellon Foundation at Emory University, April 24-25, 1997 [On-line]. Available: http://www.arl.org/scomm/scat/rosenblatt.html. Last checked 11-162001 Wilkins, V. (1997). Cataloguing e-journals: Where are we now? Ariadne [On-line]. Available: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue11/survey/. Last checked 11-16-2001 Wilkinson, S. L. (1998). Electronic Publishing Takes Journals Into a New Realm. Chemical & Engineering News [On-line]. Available: http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cenear/980518/elec.html. Wood, D. & Hurst, P. (2000). Online peer review: Perception in biological science. Learned Publishing, 13, 95-100.

Youngen, G. K. (1998). Citation patterns to traditional and electronic preprints in the published literature. College & Research Libraries, 59, 448-456. Zhang, Y. (1998). The impact of Internet-based electronic resources on formal scholarly communication in the area of library and information science: a citation analysis. Journal of Information Science, 24, 241-254.