EDITORIAL
SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS-WHITHER
Since mid-Summer, I have been acutely aware of an increasing concern by many chemists with the scientific journal structure. This concern has been expressed in terms of dissatisfaction with the growth of the journal literature and with the failure of scientific journals, including the abstract journals, to escape from their commitment to the past. Publishers of journals are expressing concern with rising costs and decreasing revenue (subscription and advertising). Authors, for t h e most part, have not become involved t o any appreciable extent, although they might prefer a faster publication schedule a n d less interference from the editor and reviewers. I n addition to t h e three parameters, reader, author, and publisher, there is another: science, which, in m y opinion, is the most important of t h e four. T h e force a n d meaning of science lies in its journal literature. A scientist’s research and discoveries are meaningless if not based on t h e past scientific achievements of others as reported in the evolving journal literature. There is a journal literature because t h e primary occupation of scientists is t h e obtaining of facts, and it is these facts, which were the results of experiments and observations, t h a t constitute the journal literature. And it is in a n d through this literature t h a t scientists inform their professional colleagues of the results of their continuing research. I t is t h e cumulating facts in t h e literature on which other scientists formulate hypotheses and theories, and advance the frontiers of science. I t is the empirical facts in t h e literature by means of which scientists resolve ambiguities and find solutions to problems. It is t h e evolving journal literature t h a t allows a scientist to maintain his professional growth and increase his knowledge beyond t h e limits of his education. T o be the world’s expert a n d authority in a narrow field and in which there is no research activity is like being a blacksmith on Interstate-95. I t is difficult for me t o conceive of a n y science without a journal literature. I find it equally difficult to understand how a scientist can remain a scientist without being a constant reader of t h e journal literature. And, to a certain degree, a scientist cannot remain a scientist without contributing to his journal literature. A man becomes a scientist for a variety of reasons: he wants to be useful, b u t he cannot be useful in science unless he has knowledge; he enjoys the excitement of experimenting and exploring, b u t he cannot experiment a n d explore meaningfully unless he
OR WITHER?
knows what has been experimented and explored; he hopes to find order in the results of his work, b u t he cannot unless he knows where order is not yet achieved; he desires t o test established knowledge, b u t he cannot unless he knows the established knowledge. A scientist is nurtured b y his literature. I would be concerned if the chemical journal literature were not growing. A mature science is dominated by text books. A growing and viable science moves too rapidly to be significantly based on text books; it must move primarily through a n active journal literature. Nevertheless, it is fair t o ask: “If we did not already have the journal structure we do, what should t h e structure be?” There may be many answers to this question depending upon our frame of reference: the reader, author, publisher, or the science. If journal publishing were like any other business enterprise, the publisher would find out what t h e readers want, and provide it. B u t journal publishing is not like a n y other business. Because scientific journals evolved through shared attitudes and values of research scientists, there is a feeling within the scientific community t h a t the scientific literature grows to accommodate what authors choose to write. This feeling, however, is not based on fact as authors are readers first and authors second. Nor is the journal literature dominated by the kind of work most scientists do, for most scientists are not authors. Readers of scientific journals are not a uniform class. Indeed, no scientist is consistent in his reading of the journal literature primarily because his needs are not constant. W e know little about how and why scientists read t h e journal literature, and we certainly do not know what he wants. W e do know, however, t h a t scientists need to read their literature, if they are to grow professionally. This is not to say t h a t t h e style and format of journal articles are sacrosanct. There will be changes as there have been changes, even though the resistance to change is great. B u t what to change, how to change, and when to change are not easy questions. Those of us who insist on easy and simple answers tend t o aggravate the problem, whereas we should be directing our energies to finding out w h a t the problems really are. Then, rather than solving problems we can solve, we might solve those t h a t need to be solved.
HERMAN SKOLNIK
190
J O U R N A L OF
CHEMICAL DOCUMENTATION, VOL. 8, No. 4, NOVEMBER 1968
