Thanks, John. I didn't understand until today that "Bloggercon" was held at Harvard and hosted by Winer. The Internet as a place for Academic publication? "Volokh Blog"
_________________________________________
Sunday, October 05, 2003
[Tyler Cowen, 7:53 PM]
Why not publish everything on the Internet? I've been thinking lately about why my discipline, economics, doesn't publish everything on the Internet, with subsequent commentary on the Internet as well. Some people, such as Brad DeLong, think this scenario is in the cards, only a matter of time. Many parts of physics already operate this way. So why don't all fields?
I might add that Gordon Tullock predicted this possibility long ago. When Gordon and Brad agree, there is much force behind the position.
I am inclined to agree with Brad and Gordon, but I thought I should give the contrary view a closer look. Here are some possible reasons (or not) why a research field would not become Internet-based:
1. The field is too big. Perhaps a field moves to the Internet only when you can follow the whole thing on a few easily accessible web pages.
2. The field is too small. Maybe the relevant insiders already digest the stuff through informal networks, and they don't need to "air their laundry" to a broader public.
3. The field is too irrelevant. Maybe the important work is digested on the web in advance, but that is only a very small portion of the total. So Alan Krueger on the minimum wage, Paul Krugman on Bush, and John Lott on guns -- all important topics -- do get done on the web.
4. Publication must be costly to signal quality. Anyone can publish on the Internet, thus there is no exclusivity.
5. "Paper publishers" will market and promote journals, hoping to extract funds from university libraries, but no one will invest resources in promoting a web journal. Good editors and writers therefore go with paper publishers because they want the accompanying promotion.
What is my take on these? #1 and #2 contradict each other, you can't have them both. Neither seems to fit the facts, however. We don't see the smaller (or larger) fields gravitating towards the web in any simple way, not that I am aware of. #3 doesn't explain why the irrelevant work shouldn't move to the web as well; OK, maybe it is irrelevant, but why not bore people more cheaply? #4 I just don't buy, a web journal edited by Harvard's Andrei Shleifer would have higher status than a web journal edited by an unknown.
#5 strikes me as the most likely. It implies that, over time, the Internet itself can be used to promote a journal at very low cost. Promotion/publicity might become altogether less important, and at that point the Web-based scholarly world can take over. So you can think that a web-based scholarly world is on the way, without necessarily expecting it immediately.
Can #5 explain why physics has moved to the web and economics has not? I don't know. Maybe physics ideas are more easily proved (or disproved) than economics ideas. Then the ideas don't need journal promotion so much. And the journals too would need promotion less. Just a hypothesis, I don't know much about the world of physics. Your thoughts on the matter are, as always, welcome.
volokh.com |
