is not solely about communication; it is also about maintaining a historical record, so that future generations of scientists can learn and build on the work of the past. Whether new forms of scholarly communication pass this second test is far from certain.

A common misconception about the “dead tree” model of scholarly communication is that it is antithetical to speed. This is only true to a certain extent, but almost certainly not to the extent that most believe.

Scott Delman, ACM’s Director of Group Publishing, commented that “The current system of peer review is the single largest bottleneck in the scholarly publication process, but this does not mean the established system can simply be thrown out in favor of new models just because new technology enables dramatic improvements in speed.” Establishing a new model for scholarly communication will involve experimentation, trial and error, and most likely evolution instead of revolution. Proclamations of the death of scholarly publishers and scholarly publishing as a result of the rise of the Internet are no longer taken seriously by those working in the publishing industry. What we have seen is a slow but steady evolution of print to online publication and distribution models instead of an overnight upheaval.

Delman adds, “I believe strongly
that there is a need for a new model,”
but then goes on to refute the notion
that digital-only publishing—and the
elimination of print—would quicken
the publication of scholarly articles.
“The most substantial component in
the time delay related to the publica-
tion of articles in scholarly journals is
the peer-review process,” and a digital-
only model won’t change that, he says.
Nor will it reduce article backlogs or
remove page limitations. “Eliminat-
ing print will not have the dramatic
impact that most assume will occur if
print publications go away,” he says.
Importantly, ACM readers and sub-
scribers “look for high-quality content
delivered in multiple formats, and
they still want print.”
Adding to the complexity of the
challenge is the fact that while science
is global, scientific publication mod-
els are often socially or geographically

[CoNtINUeD fRom P. 16]

influenced, so there is no single solution that can be identified to improve the speed or efficiency of scholarly communication. Ed Chi, of the Palo Alto Research Center, described some of the difficulties of modernizing peer-review publishing in the Blog@ CACM at ( http://cacm.acm.org/blogs/ blog-cacm/100284). “In many non-U.S. research evaluations, only the ISI Science Citation Index actually counts for publication. Already this doesn’t fit with many real-world metrics for reputation,” Chi said via email. Some well-known ACM conference publications are excluded from the SCI (http://bit. ly/iaobEa), “even when their real-world reputation is much higher than other ‘dead-tree’ journals.” Technology may provide opportunities to facilitate and accelerate the discourse, but there is no guarantee the academic establishment around the world will move as quickly in accepting new media and ways of communicating.

Paperless publishing will happen gradually, but “only if there are ways to manage the publication process,” Chi says. “Open source journal publication management systems will enable journals to go somewhat independent of traditional paper publishers, but we will also need national scientific institutions to establish digital archives.” Other challenges he notes include handling an increased number of submissions and managing potentially larger editorial boards.

As an organization with the stated mission to advance computing as a science and profession, ACM could “lead the charge” in experimenting with new digital publishing models for computing scholarship, says Chi. “This might include creating usable software, digital libraries, or archival standards.” A particularly important area of research would examine how to make socially derived metrics a part of reputation systems, so that the number of downloads, online mentions, citations, and blog discussions can be measured for influence. Then, according to Chi, ACM “should work with national libraries to actively change the publication models of other professions and fields.” This will not be a revolution. ACM can help to drive the change in a positive way for the scientific community.