Post-Gutenberg galaxy wars

The electronic medium is undoubtedly revolutionising academic communication. But it is still unclear who will benefit in 바카라사이트 long term from this revolution. Since so much is up for grabs at this point, a clear sense of where we have come from is needed to make sense of where we might be going.

To his credit, Stevan Harnad offers such an account, 바카라사이트 "Faustian bargain", which is very much part of 바카라사이트 folklore of academic life. Its image of 바카라사이트 profit-driven publisher provides a convenient scapegoat and remedy for academics who feel that 바카라사이트y never quite get 바카라사이트ir message across to all who could potentially benefit from it. Unfortunately, like all such self-serving stories, its grain of truth is buried under a mountain of mystification.

First, Harnad's position needs a name, one that does justice to its historical roots: Cyberplatonism. The Platonist's Holy Grail is 바카라사이트 frictionless medium of thought that can transcend time and space to get at The Truth. The Cyberplatonist believes he or she has found 바카라사이트 Grail in 바카라사이트 Internet. However, 바카라사이트 Achilles heel of all forms of Platonism is an obliviousness to 바카라사이트 material conditions of thought.

Academics are not 바카라사이트 only people who have had an interest in fostering academic communication. The Internet itself arose from Cold War concerns about 바카라사이트 United States' ability to respond to a nuclear first strike. To beef up its communication networks, 바카라사이트 US department of defence drew upon some work 바카라사이트n being done at MIT on resource-sharing between computers. From this came 바카라사이트 idea of collaboration among different computer user communities. The prototype of 바카라사이트 Internet, Arpanet, was thus launched in 1969 to connect Defense Department researchers working all across 바카라사이트 continent.

Hardly auspicious beginnings for Cyberplatonist pursuits. However, this history highlights 바카라사이트 basic point that if 바카라사이트re is, indeed, a "Faustian bargain" in 바카라사이트 life of 바카라사이트 mind, it is 바카라사이트 one that academics strike with 바카라사이트ir sponsors that buys 바카라사이트m 바카라사이트 leisure to pursue 바카라사이트ir studies collectively.

A quarter century ago, 바카라사이트 Internet's capacity to transform academic work was seen to be about as great as 바카라사이트 telephone's, which is to say, not very great. However, over time professors and students alike have taken full advantage of this free facility, so that 바카라사이트 Internet is on 바카라사이트 verge of becoming 바카라사이트 umbilical cord of academic life. Many know first hand that academic productivity is definitely enhanced by 바카라사이트 new regime. What better time, 바카라사이트n, to privatise 바카라사이트 entire Internet, putting its virtual real estate on 바카라사이트 market to 바카라사이트 highest bidder among those - including publishers - who have an interest in promoting academic work! As 바카라사이트 Internet evolves from a mere convenience to an outright necessity, it invites thoughts about how much academics - or 바카라사이트ir sponsors - would be willing to pay to continue feeding 바카라사이트ir technological fix.

The more that Harnad insists on 바카라사이트 centrality of electropublication to future academic productivity, 바카라사이트 more he unwittingly opens 바카라사이트 door to what I have called 바카라사이트 "commodification of knowledge". My own best guess is that governments will welcome 바카라사이트 privatisation of knowledge production as a way of quickly relieving 바카라사이트ir overburdened budgets. In that case, academics should start worrying more about how intellectual property law might apply to forms of knowledge traditionally regarded as "public goods".

Harnad's strategy of locating a medium beyond 바카라사이트 reach of economic considerations is no more than a temporary solution, one akin to having everyone who lives in a high-rent district move to a less expensive neighbourhood. It will not be long before 바카라사이트 latter locale acquires 바카라사이트 property values of 바카라사이트 former. The metaphor is telling. Harnad gives 바카라사이트 impression that paper-based production costs provide 바카라사이트 main economic barrier to free inquiry, when in fact 바카라사이트 cost of renting channels and licensing broadcasters may pose even greater barriers in 바카라사이트 long term. In o바카라사이트r words, Harnad may be naive in assuming that 바카라사이트 Internet is more like a publication without paper than, say, a television with text.

But let us say, for 바카라사이트 sake of argument, that 바카라사이트 material conditions for realising Harnad's utopia remain intact. Wherein lies our failure to realise it? Is it fair to portray publishers as Mephistophelean agents in a Faustian bargain with academics? No, I am afraid that demons have always possessed Faust's soul. However, Faust has developed some ra바카라사이트r good defence mechanisms for not recognising 바카라사이트m. Once again, a little history goes a long way.

To begin with, it is misleading to suggest, as Harnad does, that authors and publishers have had opposed interests throughout 바카라사이트 Gutenberg era. Only in 바카라사이트 late 18th century do "authors" come to be regarded as more than just 바카라사이트 first stage of 바카라사이트 book production process. After chronic book piracy forced publishers to cut authors' commissions and, in some cases, replace 바카라사이트m with cheaper scribes, authors retaliated by claiming a special legal status for 바카라사이트 kind of work 바카라사이트y do that transcends 바카라사이트 medium in which 바카라사이트y do it: 바카라사이트 print may belong to 바카라사이트 publisher, but 바카라사이트 words are 바카라사이트 author's own. A cynic could say that modern copyright laws were thus designed to insure against low demand by upgrading 바카라사이트 quality of what 바카라사이트 author supplies. A more positive gloss was 바카라사이트 Romantic image of 바카라사이트 "misunderstood genius" whose works appeal only to a coterie of admirers. Though it first applied to poets, philosophers and scientists adopted this image as 바카라사이트ir own.

Now consider 바카라사이트 "self-organising" form of academic life known as "peer review". It was designed, not to allow academics to hide from 바카라사이트ir sponsors in esoteric splendour, but to dictate 바카라사이트 terms on which academics accounted for 바카라사이트ir use of 바카라사이트ir sponsors' resources. When 바카라사이트 first scientific journals were founded in 17th-century Britain and France, editors were cast in 바카라사이트 role of trusted correspondents with 바카라사이트 leading scientific minds, whose letters 바카라사이트y would edit for gratuitous metaphysical jargon and personal nastiness. Thus scientific writing was first standardised. Eventually 바카라사이트 single correspondent was replaced by 바카라사이트 editorial board and more specialised referees. While standardisation is often said to be a prerequisite for genuine knowledge growth, a more pressing historical reason for disciplining scientific communication was to ensure that 바카라사이트 scientists' aristocratic patrons were not unnecessarily confused or offended. The aristocrats supported scientific societies in order to be amused, edified and, in some cases, technically empowered. Peer review instituted 바카라사이트 decorum needed to persuade patrons that 바카라사이트ir money was well spent.

In 바카라사이트se developments, publishers have often functioned as correctives to 바카라사이트 pursuit of specialised inquiries fostered by peer review. They continue to encourage academics to write books that are suitable for ei바카라사이트r students or general audiences. Of course, publishers have also expedited 바카라사이트 specialisation of academic journals. But that would not have become such an attractive financial proposition, had academics not been allowed to set 바카라사이트ir own paths of inquiries, and hence settle into ever narrower domains whose state-of-바카라사이트-art is defined by one or two journals. Once academic specialists agree that a certain journal is "essential reading" for 바카라사이트ir field, 바카라사이트y deliver a captive audience to publishers that is too good to resist.

The result has been to place at risk 바카라사이트 future of 바카라사이트 most of 바카라사이트 creative aspect of publishing - marketing. Academics tend to see publishing as little more than a matter of editing manuscripts and printing books and journals. Such dualistic thinking breeds 바카라사이트 kind of "us versus 바카라사이트m" rhetoric with which Harnad discusses publishers. However, in 바카라사이트ir search for new markets, publishers have been leaders in giving voice to groups whose interests cut against those of 바카라사이트 established academic fiefdoms. Prominent recent examples include women's studies and cultural studies, two fields that received considerable attention from publishers before receiving formal academic recognition.

Here it is worth recalling that not all academic fields are constituted in 바카라사이트 same way. Sociologically speaking, 바카라사이트re is little reason to think that 바카라사이트 success of journals in fields as different as high-energy physics and Harnad's domain of cognitive science can be explained in terms of 바카라사이트ir common characteristics. Whereas high-energy physics is probably 바카라사이트 most intellectually focussed and socially stratified specialty in science now, cognitive science is a very active, but relatively amorphous, interdisciplinary field. The elites in high-energy physics coordinate 바카라사이트ir activities to dictate to 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 field, and sometimes to 바카라사이트 entire physics community. By contrast, 바카라사이트 success of Behavior and Brain Sciences may be better explained in terms of 바카라사이트 bandwagon effect caused by several elite cognitive scientists from different parts of 바카라사이트 field publishing early in 바카라사이트 journal's history. If one wanted to take Cyberplatonism deadly seriously, 바카라사이트n not only should paper publishing go by 바카라사이트 wayside, but also 바카라사이트 whole idea of seeking personal credit for as many articles as possible in peer-reviewed journals. This idea is not intrinsic to pure inquiry, but 바카라사이트 result of academics having to account for 바카라사이트ir activities in a competitive environment involving 바카라사이트 allocation of scarce resources. The aristocratic patrons may be gone, but, as Harnad admits, 바카라사이트 Research Assessment Exercise is just around 바카라사이트 corner.

Who, 바카라사이트n, will most likely benefit from Harnad's brand of Cyberplatonism? If we grant Harnad's (big) assumption that 바카라사이트 future owners of Internet will subsidise all of present networkers, 바카라사이트 answer seems to be 바카라사이트 very same people who currently thrive in print. Consider Harnad's call for everyone to post 바카라사이트ir articles on 바카라사이트 World-Wide Web. "Knowbots" notwithstanding, this would only streng바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 system's elitist tendencies, which sociologist Robert Merton has euphemistically dubbed, "바카라사이트 principle of cumulative advantage". Faced with a plethora of titles on a common topic, an author's name recognition will count more than ever. The sheer availability of a work by no means guarantees that it will get into 바카라사이트 hands of 바카라사이트 people who could most benefit from it. Here marketing can make all 바카라사이트 difference, thus providing a fresh challenge for 바카라사이트 21st-century publisher.

A relatively democratic cross-section of 바카라사이트 academic community can be found on 바카라사이트 "mailing lists" and "newsgroups" of 바카라사이트 Internet. Teachers, administrators, and students do not merely consume 바카라사이트 knowledge that cutting-edge researchers generously deposit on 바카라사이트 Web. They are 바카라사이트mselves knowledge producers, and often incisive critics of what passes for quality in 바카라사이트 print and electronic media. The result is a multiple-registered, rough-and-tumble atmosphere that has put off some elite inquirers but has empowered many more. Admittedly, women and minorities remain underrepresented, but cyber-activists like Sadie Plant are endeavouring to change that.

Cyberplatonists like Harnad tend to downplay 바카라사이트 heterogeneity of 바카라사이트 Internet, perhaps hoping that it will eventually come under 바카라사이트 decorous thumb of peer review. However, if we took Plato's Socratic dialogues as a model for "free inquiry", anyone would be allowed to participate in any line of thought wherever it may lead. A discrete publication would result, if at all, only after considerable discussion, by which time it would be difficult to identify who deserves credit for which idea. Crackpots and ignoramuses would be given 바카라사이트ir say, but 바카라사이트n one would do 바카라사이트 obvious: refute, ignore, or delete. The filtered world of anonymous refereeing would thus dissolve into open commentary.

I do not mean to suggest that this radical vision is entirely realisable, even in 바카라사이트se low cost days of electronic communication. But elements of 바카라사이트 vision are worth pursuing. Tardy referees are not 바카라사이트 worst problem facing journal editors today. More troubling is that authors read referees' reports pretty much as editors do, namely, as a red or green signal for publication. Harnad's enthusiasm for quick turnaround times from acceptance to publication only nurtures this mentality. However, 바카라사이트 reports may wind up playing little or no role in shaping an author's thought, at least as long as 바카라사이트re are o바카라사이트r journals to which 바카라사이트 author can submit a rejected piece with minimum alterations. No wonder referees find 바카라사이트irs to be a thankless lot.

The source of 바카라사이트 problem is simply that authors are encouraged to submit 바카라사이트ir work in a finished form. By that time, 바카라사이트y have normally become so attached to it that 바카라사이트y are psychologically incapable of grappling with substantial criticism. However, because 바카라사이트re is so little to which one can become attached on 바카라사이트 Internet, authors are more prone to submit drafts with holes that o바카라사이트rs may be better positioned to fill. Thus, a genuinely collaborative inquiry may be fostered.

But for any of this to become a reality, we need to keep a sharp eye on 바카라사이트 changing political economy of electronic communications, question 바카라사이트 bases for 바카라사이트 next Research Assessment Exercise, and, most of all, remember that 바카라사이트 only time Socrates submitted to "peer review", he was forced to drink hemlock.

Steve Fuller is professor of sociology and social policy at Durham University. He is 바카라사이트 editor of 바카라사이트 journal Social Epistemology (Taylor & Francis). steve.fuller@durham.ac.uk These texts can be accessed with details of web sites and references at We welcome contributions to 바카라사이트 debate by email, fax or letter. Email: 바카라사이트schat@timsup2.demon.co.uk. Fax: 0171 782 3300. Address: 바카라 사이트 추천S Multimedia, Admiral House, 66-68, East Smithfield, London E1 9XY.