The diversity of electronic journals in the past five years has led some to predict the extinction of traditional academic journals, that a new "paradigm" is sweeping scholarship. A closer examination of the ways in which digital and printed scholarly journals are developed clearly indicates that most electronic journals are not all that different in their fundamental editorial processes than print. Hence future researchers will enjoy a rich variety of media to share ideas and data with colleagues, providing greater opportunities for communication, debate, and agreement.


What is an electronic scholarly journal? We might simply define it as a digital periodical dedicated to publishing, on the Internet, articles, essays, and analyses that have been read and commented upon initially by a select group of editors and reviewers, to meet a certain arbitrary standard of excellence (as determined by the editors) for a given discipline addressed by the journal itself. The medium distinguishes an electronic scholarly journal from its print counterparts but the process of developing content for both print and electronic peer-review scholarly journals is generally the same. The digital medium allows the editorial process to occur at a faster pace than in print by providing authors with information quickly to revise and otherwise modify their work to meet editorial standards. That electronic medium, in addition, allows for some experimentation in the ways in which authors and their audiences react, although many electronic journals fail to take advantage of these opportunities for debate and discussion.

An electronic journal, like its paper antecedents, appears — with a collection of revised, examined and tested written works — on a routine, although not always regular, schedule. Digital journals are formatted to have certain styles, designs, and formats, just like print journals, but within the limits of the Internet medium chosen for publication and distribution (text files deposited on an FTP server and distributed as attachments to electronic mail; Gopher files arranged with a certain order in a directory on a server; HTML-marked copy with text, illustrations, and other files combined in a certain format as decided by the editors and production team). The very electronic nature of the journal provides ample opportunities for experimentation with formats, layouts, fonts, and other design features, although many electronic journals fail to jump at some obvious opportunities to make a given issue more readable and appealing to the eye. [1]

Fundamentally, we need to ask if an electronic scholarly journal is a different animal from an everyday academic journal printed for the intellectual demands of a specific scholarly audience? Have electronic scholarly journals redefined the meaning of a scholarly journal, exploded it into some new creation? Or are electronic journals just a continuation of a long tradition of scholarly publication, where colleagues within a given discipline provide their imprimatur to new ideas and research? [2]

Fussler and Simon (1969), long before electronic journals were a reality, described a serial as "a related sequence of publications issued at regular or irregular intervals, with some scheme of consecutive numbering, and intended to be continued indefinitely, containing work by several writers."[3] These publications work as "collections of several short articles that may act independently in drawing readers."[4] So far, these definitions fit current notions of both printed and electronic scholarly journals.

The very nature of serials as independent "packages" of articles (with each article usually an independent work of scholarship totally unrelated to its surrounding envelope of articles (except in the case of a "special" issue dedicated to a given editorial theme) in a given issue), according to Fussler and Simon, encourages browsing. Browsing we may define as the physical act of casually examining an issue for a particular essay, article, or author on a given topic or topics of interest. That act of browsing makes it nearly impossible to track the number of real users of a given issue, because each interaction with a printed issue is ephemeral.[5] However, to each scholar browsing, the experience is anything but ephemeral, because any given issue of any given journal may yield a paper that could seriously affect a scholar's research.[6] One study of browsing found that "an average scholar scans seven journals and reads three to five articles a week ... ." That same survey found that "scholars spend 10 to 12 hours a week reading books and journals ... ."[7] Obviously, browsing and reading physical entities called journals, in paper, is still a vital part of scholarship.

"The journal, by the mere fact of publishing a given article, gives it an imprimatur of acceptance."

Academic, scholarly journals are a special class of serials by virtue of the way in which their contents are verified by a group of editors, editors defined by reputation and achievement as experts within a given discipline. Articles in a scholarly journal transfer ideas and data from one or more different groups to a global dispersed community of researchers within a particular discipline. It is important to recognize that a scholarly journal does more than just transfer information. If that was its sole function, there would be no need for the journal, its editors, referees, and publisher. More importantly, the journal, by the mere fact of publishing a given article, bestows its imprimatur. Acceptance does not mean that an accepted paper is deemed "right;" the act of publication merely opens a paper to commentary and criticism on a discipline-wide scale.[8] Review by peers and subsequent publication means that the article has some value beyond its mere telling of facts, descriptions of experiments, and creative conclusions. Each and every paper in a peer review journal has passed through a hazing, where drafts, revisions, and editorial comments are part of the process.[9] The ultimate version of a paper is significant for both its content and its acceptance into a discipline's corpus of knowledge.

Is an electronic scholarly journal radically different from its print complements? The mere "electronics" of digital journals — the networking of authors, editors, and reviewers — makes for a more interactive and instantaneous editorial analysis. How? First Monday, a peer-review electronic journal dedicated to the Internet, includes an editorial board scattered around the United States, Europe, India, and Australia. Articles arrive from authors in South America and Africa in addition to the well-connected continents of North America and Europe. The nature of the Internet means that reviewers thousands of miles apart review an article nearly in real time with other editors, allowing for the rapid development of comments and opinions. In turn, authors enjoy rapid notification of the editorial fates of their opera. With acceptance in First Monday, digital proofs of articles are available for review by authors (and editors) usually two weeks in advance on the server. That rapid production process means authors and editors have ample opportunities for last-second revisions, which for a journal specializing in the ever-changing world of the Internet, is crucial.[10] That relatively quick publication, compared to print, makes First Monday attractive to a diverse audience, from contributors to editors to readers.[11]

Like regular issues of scholarly periodicals, the availability of digital archives of back issues of electronic scholarly journals, such as First Monday, encourages browsing. Statistical evidence from the logs of the First Monday server prove the value of openly accessible electronic archives. The current issue of First Monday is the most heavily browsed issue, its table of contents examined ten times as frequently as the least viewed back issue in the archives. The second most browsed issue happens to be the issue preceding the current issue. Issues older than these two are much less frequently browsed, parallel to the browsing habits of scholars examining a stack of issues of a journal in a library's reading room.

In summary, electronic scholarly journals differentiate themselves from printed scholarly journals by accelerated peer review, combined with mercurial production schemes (allowing for creation of proofs and final versions very quickly). The sheer interactive nature of digital journals — providing ample opportunities for peers to critically analyze articles — and the ability to access the complete archives of a given title on a server make that sort of publishing a significant departure from the long established traditions of print.[12] But do the mechanics of electronic journals really make them as "revolutionary" as some would claim; I would argue that electronic scholarly journals are, like their print relatives, decidedly not about communication per se, but about validation and acceptance, so that a given idea expressed in a paper is legitimized by its publication. Communication, even in this network medium, is of secondary importance.[13]

First Monday

First Monday works like a traditional (printed) scholarly journal in that a group of editors provide a basis for analysis and validation of contributions. The division of labor on First Monday concentrates many chores in the hands of in an uppermost editorial tier. For First Monday, that "tier" is a triumvirate, with me, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh of New Delhi, and Esther Dyson of New York setting editorial policies and handling diverse chores governing the overall direction of the journal. That triumvirate works in conjunction with the editorial board, consisting of Internet digerati such as Vint Cerf, Ed Krol, and Rich Wiggins, plus specialists such as Bonnie Nardi, Tony Durham, and others. The board points out recent developments worthy of attention in First Monday; assists in the editorial process; and contributes, on occasion, manuscripts. Communication between all editorial members is accomplished entirely over the Internet.

"Just because that methodology is accelerated by the Internet does not alter the significance of peer review and acceptance."

Is First Monday very different from a traditional scholarly journal? Earlier, we differentiated electronic journals from print by the ability of digital journals to feature prompt peer review; highly interactive communications between contributors, editors, reviewers, and eventually readers; rapid production of a final product; and accessible complete archives for anyone at any time. First Monday's editors routinely remark on new contributions within 24 to 48 hours of their submission into the journal's editorial office (since papers are distributed to editors almost immediately upon receipt). Communications from editors to authors is facilitated by electronic mail, making it very easy for authors to begin to revise their works for publication. Revisions usually are completed in a matter of days or weeks, compared to a more traditional lag time of months. With final acceptance of a paper, copy is sent to a production team in Copenhagen for development of proofs in the style of First Monday. The creation of proofs takes 48 to 72 hours depending on the nature of the copy.[14] Authors review their proofs electronically, and send comments and corrections to the editorial office. Editors, in addition, examine the proofs for errors in production and send their remarks to the editorial office. The office in turn collects all comments and organizes them for the production team in Copenhagen. The production team then examines the comments, makes the corrections, and adds the title graphics before releasing the issue on the first Monday of the month.

All of these steps make the entire process move like quicksilver but they do not fundamentally alter the traditional editorial review and verification mode of scholarly publication. Just because that methodology is accelerated by the Internet does not alter the significance of peer review and acceptance. A successful, peer-reviewed, electronic journal, read by thousands of Internet users every week does not necessarily mean that a "revolution" has begun in the ways in which scholars analyze and accept ideas.[15]

Glory is like a circle in the water,

Which never ceaseth to enlarge itself,

Til by broad spreading it disperse to naught.

Shakespeare, Henry VI

Reading Kuhn: Expecting Paradigm Shifts to Fall from the Virtual Sky

The transition in scholarship from paper-based traditions to digital communication has been anything but pleasant and logical. Parties on all sides in this transition argue in print, on computer screens and across networks, and in conferences, workshops, and meetings, on the proper path for serious scholars to reach their colleagues and others with ideas, research results, and opinions. The fervor of some participants in these discussions seems to indicate that this "battle" is nothing less than a religious war. Like all technological "religious" wars founded in part on the habits of academics, this conflict seems to find no easy resolution. As in all such wars, there are those who are seen as the leaders, defining the new "paradigm," pulling in evidence from diverse sources that indeed the "revolution" has already started.

In much of the current online and print literature on electronic scholarly publishing, Stevan Harnad has been one of the most vocal in arguing for change, based on his experiences with both the electronic journal Psycoloquy and the more traditional Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Harnad routinely invokes the experiences of Paul Ginsparg at Los Alamos and his archive of papers in high-energy physics as proof of concept, an indication that the scholarly communications revolution is moving at the speed of the Net.[16]

Harnad forgets that comparing scholarly communication in the fast-paced world of high-energy physics to the mere academic deliberations of humanists, social scientists, and non-physics scientists is dangerous. Clearly, scholarly communication in high-energy physics is quite a different matter than say the discussions of two paleontologists over the evolutionary history of a trilobite; the disagreements between two lawyers over an interpretation of moral rights; the interpretation of Picasso's Guernica by several art historians. As Lord Kelvin once remarked, "there are two kinds of scientists - physicists ... and stamp collectors."[17] Physicists communicate in one way, stamp collectors another.[18]

"To argue that a digital methodology that works for physicists will work for academic legal researchers ignores the histories and social structures of both disciplines."

How do physicists use information? Physicists were already in the habit of utilizing research results well in advance of traditional publication in print journals, thanks to the rapid flow of preprints among researchers. Preprints, an advance form of a paper in the process of development for publication or in the process of editorial review, became the norm for communication. Physicists were certainly not the first to use this medium as a means to distribute findings in advance of formal publication. In the United States in the latter part of the 19th century, paleontologists often published preprints of their findings in advance of publication at their own expense to inform their colleagues of their discoveries and to claim new species for their own.[19] In any case, for physicists the initial electronic equivalents of preprints in 1991 started on a very small scale but rapidly grew to a current astronomically level of some 70,000 transactions per day.[20]

That way of communicating is extremely different from the ways in which other disciplines — for example, law — exploit the electronic medium. A recent debate on the nature and importance of electronic publishing for legal scholars provides a good contrast to the hectic world of physics. Professor Bernard Hibbitts of the University of Pittsburgh and Archie Zariski of Australia's Murdoch University both argued, in recent pages of First Monday, for the value of electronic journals but differed on their impact within their profession.[21] In law, there are incredibly profound differences in the ways in which scholars communicate as compared to physicists. To argue that a digital methodology that works for physicists will work for academic legal researchers ignores the histories and social structures of both disciplines.

Nevertheless, repeated arguments in the literature by Harnad and others point to the Internet solutions by physicists as the model and paradigm for all scholarly communication. These opinions fail to understand how different are the styles of communication and verification, debate and consensus among academic disciplines. In addition, they ignore the fundamental differences in the ways in which paper and computer-based text are used. These differences indicate no magic point in time when all print scholarly journals will be replaced by Internet versions, but instead indicate that the future will be a rich in print, electronic, and mixed media for scholars.

Why the Revolution Will Never Happen

Paper and computer screens work very differently, as we may all suspect qualitatively. Information on a computer monitor cannot substitute for paper, in terms of utility and convenience.[22] Paper can hold up to 50 times more information for a given area than a monitor.[23] Because of flicker and other factors, we lose up to 40 percent of the information presented on a computer screen. That information loss is actually greater for above average readers.[24] We also read more slowly on a computer compared to paper, up to 25 percent to 30 percent more slowly.[25] Digital text works well in some cases as long as readers are not forced to read anything of any great length from a monitor, and have an option to print easily. One study of the uses of 19,000 pages of online text indicated that readers tolerated only limited amounts of electronic text, information that satisfied a specific need and did not require a great deal of scrolling through screens.[26] If there are indeed large differences in the ways in which we use paper-based information and computer-displayed information, there may indeed never be a point when electronic scholarly journals completely replace their paper counterparts. Each serves different functions for multiple audiences within a discipline.


Perhaps some day on-screen versions of electronic scholarly journals will be as easy to read as their paper equivalents. Advances in display technology may point to a time in the near future when monitors will nearly be as pleasing to the eye as print and paper. Editors of paper-based scholarly journals may not be over-enthusiastic about that crossover to the digital realm because it will translate into means more editorial work, not less.[27] But will a scientist curl up with a monitor at the lab stand while running an experiment? Will a scholar flip from one screen to another, browsing for just the right case defending a legal argument? Probably not.

Electronic scholarly journals are indeed different from traditional print scholarly journals, but not as radically different as some would argue. They are different in terms of process, but not in terms of the ancient traditions of peer review and verification. As Tony Rothman noted, "A referee's job is to filter out crackpots, check for obvious errors, and suggest improvements in the exposition."[28] This job is the same in the electronic and print worlds of scholarly journals. It may not matter that one referee uses editing symbols in the margin of a proof, while another alters HTML tags on screen. It may not matter that one editor send an airmail letter by post to an author in Argentina, notifying a scholar of the acceptance of his paper for publication, while another editor dashes off a message with an electronic form letter.

Although processes may vary, at a fundamental level, electronic scholarly journals have much in common with print. To quote William Gibson, "Once perfected, communication technologies rarely die out entirely; rather, they shrink to fit particular niches in the global info-structure."[29] Printed scholarly journals indeed fill one niche today and will continue to do well into the future; electronic scholarly journals fill other niches today which may expand in the future with parallel increases in network bandwidth and accessibility. Both are successful iterations of a kind of communications scheme, necessary for the growth of knowledge. The future of scholarship will be both diverse and complicated, with rich options for publication in a variety of multimedia.

More About First Monday

First Monday is a monthly, Internet-only, peer-review journal, dedicated to the Internet. It has been greeted with critical acclaim, earning awards for content from USA Today, New Scientist, the McKinley Group's Magellan Directory, among others. Issues of First Monday in 1996 included contributions by Hal Varian of Berkeley, Rich Wiggins of Michigan State, Arjen Lenstra of Citicorp, John Seely Brown of Xerox PARC, and others. Esther Dyson, Vint Cerf, Ed Krol, Bonnie Nardi, and Rishab Ghosh are some of the members of First Monday's editorial board. First Monday reaches a large and global audience, counting 65% of its readers outside the United States.

First Monday can be found at It is a product of Munksgaard International Publishers in Copenhagen, publishers of some seventy traditional journals in the sciences and medicine.

Edward J. Valauskas is Chief Editor, First Monday, and principal of Internet Mechanics. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) and the Professional Board of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). You may contact Mr. Valauskas at


1. Some sites, of course, go too far in the use of color and backgrounds, making text illegible. That graphic revitalization occurred as a consequence of Netscape Navigator v. 1.1 in 1995 supporting the background and bgcolor attributes. "Surfing from page to page was more like experiencing a laser light show than turning the pages of a book," according to Darcy DiNucci with Maria Giudice and Lynne Stiles, 1997. Elements of Web Design. Berkeley, Calif.: Peachpit Press, p. 113.return to text

2. An overall history of the progress of scholarship and publication would chart the book as the main medium for the expression and diffusion of ideas from the 1470s through the 1660s, then the scholarly printed journal from the 1660s through the present. The explosion of scholarly journals in the 19th century (thanks to inexpensive mass publishing and abundant wood pulp-based paper as stock, and the ever specializing nature of many academic disciplines) led to the rise of abstract journals a century ago. The growth of scholarly journals and abstracts has continued at an exponential rate in this century. To meet the demands of many scholars and their libraries in the last two decades, many of the larger abstract journals and services migrated to computers. It was only natural that electronic scholarly journals would flourish in the last five years, parallel to the growth of the Internet and the increasing abundance of computers and software tools. On the history of scholarship and printing, see, for example, Derek J. de S. Price, 1961. Science Since Babylon. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 50-56, 94-107.return to text

3. This definition would fit newspapers, some newsletters, scholarly journals, and certain monographic series. See Herman H. Fussler and Julian L. Simon, 1969. Patterns in the use of books in large research libraries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 9, 93.return to text

4. Fussler and Simon, p. 94.return to text

5. Although some enterprising researcher probably could devise a way to track browsing of specific issues of a given printed journal with microscopic sensors tagged to the actual issue, or videotaping the physical area in a library where browsing takes place. Of course, that sort of research might be considered an invasion of a scholar's privacy. The entire issue of browsing on the Internet was addressed briefly by the Conference on Fair Use (CONFU), convened in 1994; it was decided that the browsing meant different things to different parties participating in the Conference - librarians, publishers, software developers, and others. Since no agreement could be reached on the meaning of browsing on the Internet, no guidelines were developed in the course of the Conference. See U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, 1996 The Conference on Fair Use. An Interim Report to the Commissioner.return to text

6. Some scholars would argue that browsing is not productive; a scholar well connected to his own invisible college of peers within a discipline routinely learns of research developments in advance of formal publication in print, by electronic mail; Internet publication of results and drafts of papers; preprints; and the usual academic gossip. Conferences and workshops provide additional outlets for research results in advance of publication. That "advanced warning" system differs from discipline to discipline as to its functionality and efficiency; for a pre-Internet view, see Diana Crane, 1972. Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 41-84, 115-121.return to text

7. National Enquiry into Scholarly Communication, 1979. Scholarly communication: the Report of the National Enquiry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 43-44.return to text

8. "Every paper that appears in an established scientific journal has passed through a peer review in which one or more fellow scientists have decided that a work merits publication. That does not mean that every scientific paper is right. to the contrary, all scientific papers must in some sense be wrong, if for no other reason that every paper in based on assumptions that will break down under certain conditions. A referee's job is to filter out crackpots, check for obvious errors, and suggest improvements in the exposition." From Tony Rothman, 1989. Science a la mode: Physical fashions and fictions. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, p. 126.return to text

9. This ritualistic and intellectual hazing makes scholarly journals an incredibly valuable marker of the state of a given field at a particular point in time. See Crane, Invisible colleges 122.return to text

10. I do not wish to imply that all printed scholarly journals are tardy in reviewing and publishing manuscripts. Many printed journals, early in their history, publish articles and reports quickly. For example, the Bulletin of the Geological Society of America at the turn of the century between 1890 and 1910 was able to publish articles within 60 to 90 days of receipt; within five decades, the time lag grew to 18 to 24 months. See Henry W. Menard, 1971. Science: Growth and change. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, p. 146.return to text

11. In the October, 1996 issue of First Monday (volume 1, no. 4), two papers appeared that originally were part of the Library and Information Technology Association's (LITA) Presidential Program in July, 1996. The papers were published in First Monday instead of LITA's own peer-review, print journal Information Technology and Libraries (ITAL) because ITAL itself could not publish the papers until sometime in 1997 (if they were indeed accepted for publication). As one of papers was time-sensitive in its remarks on copyright issues under review for a conference of the World Intellectual Property Organization in December, 1996, it was decided that publication outside of LITA's own province was necessary and important. First Monday provided a reasonable avenue for rapid publication of time-sensitive research on a crucial issue of continuing interest to the Internet community, copyright.return to text

12. Those differences have been noted by many proponents for that medium such as Jerry Willis, 1995. "Bridging the gap between traditional and electronic publishing," paper presented at the 1995 EDUCOM Conference in Portland, Ore.return to text

13. "Publishers of a research journal, for example, cannot ignore the fact that the research community has some very definite expectations as to the way articles should be submitted, checked, copy-edited, produced and distributed." From Jean-Claude Guedon, 1994. "Why are electronic publications difficult to classify? The Orthogonality of print and digital media," Directory of electronic journals, newsletters and academic discussion lists. 4th ed. Washington, D. C.: Association of Research Libraries.return to text

14. Since First Monday is a World Wide Web-based journal, authors often submit their papers in HTML, which greatly reduces production time. In addition, the editors of First Monday will assist in the development of HTML copy in the First Monday style, which also lowers the amount of time needed to develop proofs for a new issue.return to text

15. The logs for the First Monday server indicate that some 4,500 unique computers on the Internet access the journal each week; 65 percent of these computers are outside U. S. domains. In addition, there are some 2,300 subscribers to an electronic mailing service that sends notice of a new issue, with a table of contents and abstracts.return to text

16. Harnad invokes his Ginspargian Success Story, for example, in Stevan Harnad, 1996. "Implementing peer review on the Net: Scientific quality control in scholarly electronic journals," In: Robin P. Peek and Gregory B. Newby (eds.), Scholarly publishing: The Electronic frontier. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 103-118; and, Stevan Harnad, 1995. "The PostGutenberg galaxy: How to get there from here," Times Higher Education Supplement (12 May).return to text

17. Lord Kelvin's quote has been repeated often; for example, see Arno Penzias, 1989. Ideas and information: Managing in a high-tech world. New York: Norton, p. 158. Kelvin's analysis of the scientific community was provided as a reaction to disputes with geologists over Kelvin's estimate of the age of the earth. Kelvin, operating before radioactivity was well understood, made some assumptions about the heat of the Earth and the cooling of the sun. Kelvin estimate the Earth to be no more than 40 million years old (not 100,000 years as noted by Penzias). Several geologists argued, based on their "butterfly collector" evidence from stratigraphy and paleontology, that it was impossible for the Earth to be only 40 million years old. Kelvin dismissed his geologic critics and their unmathematical approaches to the world, in turn earning himself a footnote in most textbooks as an example of scientific hubris; see, for example, Frank Press and Raymond Siever, 1982. Earth. 3rd ed. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co., 41-42; Derek York and Ronald M. Farquhar, 1972. The Earth's age and geochronology. Oxford: Pergamon, 150-151; and Arthur Holmes, 1965. Principles of physical geology. New & rev. ed. New York: Ronald Press, 346-348.return to text

18. Pointed out decades ago by Derek J. de Solla Price and others; see for example Derek J. de S. Price, 1970. "Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology and nonscience," In: C. Nelson and D. Pollock (eds.), Communication among scientists and engineers. Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 3-22.return to text

19. For paleontologists in this century, the 19th century habit of privately publishing descriptions of new species in advance of real publication in traditional journals was a frequent source of confusion. It required a great deal of additional verification to prove the validity of the species established in publications which reached a very limited audience. For example, see one paleontologist's effort in cleaning up a problem with a fossil snail in J. Marvin Weller, 1929. "On some of Gurley's unfigured species of Carboniferous Bellerophon," Illinois State Academy of Science Transactions (February 1929), 313-325.return to text

20. Paul Ginsparg, 1996. "Winners and losers in the global research village"return to text

21. See Bernard Hibbitts, 1996. "Last Writes The Law Review in the Age of Cyberspace," First Monday, Volume 2, number 3 (September 1996). (; Archie Zariski, 1997. "Never ending, still beginning": A Defense of electronic law journals from the Perspective of the E Law Experience," First Monday, Volume, number 6 (June 1997); Bernard Hibbitts, 1997. "E-Journals , archives and knowledge networks: A Commentary on Archie Zariski's defense of electronic law journals," First Monday, Volume 2, number 7 (July 1997); and, Archie Zariski, 1997. "'Knowledge Networks' or Discourse Communities?: Response to Hibbitts' Commentary on Electronic Journals,"First Monday, Volume 2, number 8 (August 1997).return to text

22. For a physiological explanation, see Edward J. Valauskas, 1994. "Reading and computers - paper-based or digital text: what's best?, Computers in Libraries, 14:1 (January 1994), 44-47.return to text

23. Edward R. Tufte, Dequantification in scientific visualization: Is this science or television?, (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University, 1991) 3.return to text

24. Alan Kay (Apple Computer, Inc.), personal communication, 7 December 1992.return to text

25. Edward R. Tufte (Yale University), personal communication, 13 November 1992.return to text

26. T. R. Girill, Clement H. Luk, and Sally Norton, "The Impact of usage monitoring on the evolution of an online-documentation system: a case study," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 18:2 (March/April 1988), 327.return to text

27. Some time ago, editors at the Miami Herald discovered that editing with video display terminals (VDTs) required a third more time over the traditional routines with paper and pencil. In a head-to-head study of editors using paper-and-pencil vs. VDT-bound editors, paper users were faster than their digital counterparts in eight out of ten cases. Nevertheless, the losses in time during the editing process were more than compensated by gains in production. See Martin L. Gibson, Editing in the Electronic Era, (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1977) 10-11.return to text

28. Rothman, Science a la mode, 126.return to text

29. William Gibson, "Academy leader," in Cyberspace: First Steps, Michael Benedikt (ed.), (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991) 28.return to text


Crane, Diana. 1972. Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

DiNucci, Darcy, with Maria Giudice and Lynne Stiles. 1997. Elements of Web Design. Berkeley, Calif.: Peachpit Press.

Fussler, Herman H. and Julian L. Simon. 1969. Patterns in the use of books in large research libraries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gibson, Martin L. 1977. Editing in the Electronic Era. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Gibson, William. 1991. "Academy Leader." In Cyberspace: First steps, edited by Michael Benedikt, 27-29. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Ginsparg, Paul. 1996. "Winners and loser in the global research village,"

Girill, T. R., Clement H. Luk, and Sally Norton. 1988. "The Impact of usage monitoring on the evolution of an online-documentation system: a case study," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 18:2 (March/April), 327.

Harnad, Stevan. 1996. "Implementing peer review on the Net: Scientific quality control in scholarly electronic journals." In Scholarly publishing: The Electronic frontier, edited by Robin P. Peek and Gregory B. Newby, 103-118, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

———. 1995. "The PostGutenberg galaxy: How to get there from here," Times Higher Education Supplement (12 May) and

Hibbitts, Bernard. 1997. "E-Journals, archives and knowledge networks: A Commentary on Archie Zariski's defense of electronic law journals," First Monday, 2:7 (July 1997), http://www.

———. 1996. "Last Writes The Law Review in the Age of Cyberspace," First Monday, 2:3 (September 1996),

Holmes, Arthur. 1965. Principles of Physical Geology. Rev. ed. New York: Ronald Press.

Menard, Henry W. 1971. Science: Growth and Change. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

National Enquiry into Scholarly Communication, 1979. Scholarly communication: The Report of the National Enquiry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Penzias, Arno. 1989. Ideas and information: Managing in a high-tech world. New York: Norton.

Press, Frank and Raymond Siever. 1982. Earth. 3rd ed. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Price, Derek J. de S. 1970. "Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology and nonscience." In Communication among scientists and engineers, edited by C. Nelson and D. Pollock, Lexington, Mass.: Heath. 3-22.

———. 1961. Science since Babylon. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Rothman, Tony. 1989. Science a la mode: Physical fashions and fictions. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.

Tufte, Edward R. 1991. Dequantification in scientific visualization: Is this science or television? New Haven, Conn.: Yale University.

Valauskas, Edward J. 1994. "Reading and computers - paper-based or digital text: what's best?" Computers in Libraries, 14:1 (January), 44-47.

Weller, J. Marvin. 1929. "On some of Gurley's unfigured species of Carboniferous Bellerophon," Illinois State Academy of Science Transactions (February), 313-325.

Willis, Jerry. 1995. "Bridging the gap between traditional and electronic publishing," paper presented at the 1995 EDUCOM Conference in Portland, Ore., and available at http://www.c

York, Derek and Ronald M. Farquhar. 1972. The Earth's age and geochronology. Oxford: Pergamon.

Zariski, Archie. 1997. "'Knowledge Networks' or Discourse Communities?: Response to Hibbitts' Commentary on Electronic Journals," First Monday, 2:8 (August 1997),

———. 1997. "'Never ending, still beginning': A Defense of electronic law journals from the Perspective of the E Law Experience," First Monday, 2:6 (June 1997),