POLITICS Journal Advertising/Integrity of Science

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@

> This shouldn't be news to anyone, but it's nice to see it getting

> more coverage ..,.

>

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20147-2004Feb6.html?

referer=email

>

> Business, Science Clash at Medical Journal

@@@@@@@@

Reading this great little article, it occurs to me that the financial

dependency of journals on advertising is counterintuitive to an

extent. Clearly there are minimal expenses with running a journal,

like paying people to do the behind-the-scenes adminstrative work,

but I can't see that this would be so expensive as to warrant the oft-

cited compromises implicated by pharmaceutical funding.

It seems to me that the only essential distinction between a

scientific journal and any other publication is the rigorous peer-

review process and its attendent " stamp of approval " in the bowels of

discourse. Naturally it wouldn't suffice for institutional decision-

making to rely on the full range of possible discourse and the

personal judgement of its employees; there is an absolutely vital

function to the collation of independent judgement given the burden

of responsibility borne by institutions like hospitals, universities,

governments, etc.

This uncontroversial assumption aside, what is the cost of peer-

review? I would argue that it is a self-sustaining phenomenon that

comes " free " once the salaries and grants of the scientists are paid

for. While the role of unethical corporations like pharmaceuticals

is indisputable in these funding channels, the relevant point here is

that the money doesn't come from the coffers of journals who

implement the peer-review process.

To elaborate on this claim that peer-review pays for itself, I can

note that the limited set of " stamps of approval " afforded by peer-

review creates a competitive scientific ecology in which the

refutation of a colleague's work gives an immediate competitive edge

to the refutor, to say nothing of the more substantial benefit of

deepening both parties' understanding of the content at hand. The

essential workload of scientific journals is hence done ideally on a

volunteer basis as part of the routine activities of scientists.

So if the expenses of a journal are exhausted by peer-review,

editorial administration, and the materiality of the publication,

then do the costs of editorial administration require the

intellectual compromises that are stock-and-trade in our current

scientific climate? After all, I've argued that peer-review comes

free, and the physical printing of journals is unnecessary and

probably undesirable as a standard practice in our technological

climate of superior electronic information distribution and

management. Certainly the vast majority of actual scientific

discourse is conducted electronically or inkified on an informal

individual basis as scientific works are kneaded into their final

form by the community of insiders who comprise their primary

audience. The corporeality of scientific journals is irrelevant to

their essential function as name brands in the information

supermarket.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania