BMJ No 7123 Volume 315
Education and debate Saturday 20/27 December Christmas 1997 issue
Variation adds value to the author's logic
Anne Dixon A primary research article purports to be an
objective record of a discrete piece of work that addresses, in
sequence, the introduction of the problem at issue, the approach and
methods adopted, the results, and the conclusions to be drawn. One of
the key questions for publishers of scientific papers is whether and
how one can retain the author's logic but also provide the variety,
segmentation, and ancillary information that electronic publishing can
allow, and which end users may want.
But firstly let's look at the work of scientists themselves. In
five years' time it will be almost inconceivable that some part of
their work, or more likely all of it, will not have been created using
computing power. The output could be data, tables, pictures, texts,
sound, images, animations, computable formulas, three-dimensional
movable structures, simulations, URL addresses, or other unique
identifiers. Furthermore, during the preparation of their articles the
authors may well have already segmented the content by using headings
and other textual devices or by electronic methods.
Once a publisher or content provider has completed the refereeing
process (if such exists) the article manipulation process begins. This
is where the bulk of the "new" work occurs for publishers: format
conversion; storage; cataloguing; adding identifiers; adding metadata;
determining and implementing segmentation; imposing security,
validation, or terms of trade layers; adding or identifying further
crosslinks or keywords; data processing; database insertion; and
improving or standardising multimedia elements. This is the new added
value publishers can and will bring to the article. Once these
considerable tasks have been undertaken the article will reside in at
least one of the publisher's databases, quite possibly in several
formats and versions. Further manipulation is required to pre-
pare the content for different delivery methods, be they print,
online, or portable digital medium.
Now we get to the appearance of the article. It could look
exactly as the author intended it to appear; or, as is the case with
many existing electronic journals, it could emulate the print product;
or its segmentation and appearance could be determined by the user,
author, publisher, customer, or other authority. We already have
examples of this: an article does not have the same appearance on a
preprint server as when it is later published; articles offered by
different aggregators have different levels of functionality;
personalised services allow for a range of different interfaces; and
intuitive filtering, where content is sent to users on the basis of
their previous behaviour, will shortly be a reality. It is unlikely
that there will be a lessening of this differentiation; indeed, it is
bound to increase as content providers become increasingly competitive.
The big question is, "When is great variation in presentation not of
value to the reader? And in which circumstances should certain articles
warrant great variation, and others not?" The review article is a
more obvious candidate for segmentation, for example, than a rapid
communication.
Finally, we need to ask, "What becomes of the authoritative
archive?"Is it the author's accepted text, the relevant parts of the
publisher's database, the first version published in the first medium
available, the version sent to a national deposit library, or the
latest version available, with all the added functionality which has
been created since the article was first published? These questions
will continue to haunt us. I look forward to learning the answers.
Institute of Physics Publishing, email: anne.dixon@ioppublishing.co.uk
Once the paper is submitted to a publisher or other content provider,
the refereeing process (if indeed there is one) may build on these
elements, altering the context of the content to aid comprehension and
clarity and suggesting further information trails for readers to
follow. Open or semimoderated peer review may be favoured by the
publisher or author, or both, and this creates its own issues in terms
of fixing the state and status of the work in time, and establishing
priority and ownership of the work. In this context there may never be
a "final version" of the work; rather, it will be a "living
document," with its own ecosystem. 
Bristol BS1 6BE
Anne Dixon,
electronic publisher
Home | Current issue | Past issues |
Classified ads | Career Focus | Feedback
Collections |
About this site | About the BMJ | BMA | Medline