Cyberscience: The future of academia in the age of information and communication technologies

Detailed project description
 

Michael Nentwich, June 1999

	1. Introduction/Status of research (i.) Status quo of research (ii.) Innovative aspects of the project
	2. Project aim(s) (i.) Cyberscience: the empirical starting point (ii.) Cyberscience and the possible liberation from spatial limitations (iii.) Cyberscience and the future distribution of roles in academia (iv.) Cyberscience and the future of knowledge representation (v.) Cyberscience and the future of the publication system (vi.) Cyberscience and the future of quality control (vii.) Cyberuniversity: the impact of teaching in a virtual environment on research (viii.) Cyberscience – Cyberhumanities – Cyber-Social-Science (ix.) Legal aspects of cyberscience (x.) Conclusions I: qualitative aspects of cyberscience (xi.) Conclusions II: policy aspects
	3. Selected methodology (i.) Research approach (ii.) Methodology
	Quoted Literature

1. Introduction/Status of research

Since the early 1980s, the scholarly community is witnessing a considerable increase in its use of information and communication technologies (ICT). The networked PC, E-mail, the internet, on- and off-line databases, the World Wide Web, electronic publications, discussion lists and newsgroups, electronic conferences, digital libraries and “knowbots” are but a few of the trends which influence the daily working of the scientific community. In the context of this project, the notion of “cyberscience” will be used to designate these applications and services. As opposed to “traditional” science which does not use networked computers, cyberscience may be defined as all scholarly activities in the “information and communication space” – formed by the computer and in particular the ICT – in which the scholars work to an ever increasing degree.

A synopsis of the various developments on the path to cyberscience (Nentwich 1999) recently led to two conclusions: First, ICT affect virtually all forms of scholarly activity and several basic framework conditions. Systematic screening reveals that both the organisational setting and the production of knowledge as well as scholarly communication and finally the transfer of academic knowledge (teaching) are directly concerned (for an illustration see table 1 below). The second conclusion is that the many developments faced by scholars do not only accelerate communication or increase the publication output, as frequently assumed, but also have the potential to lead to qualitative changes in the research community. This claim has already been substantiated with respect to the publication system, the removal of spatial limitations of research and with respect to the distribution of roles in academia (see 2. below).

In the proposed research project we aim, first, at exploring and evaluating these potentials in a sample of scholarly disciplines. Second, we shall trace the driving forces as well as the factors which work against this development. In a third step, we shall discuss the implications of cyberscience for research policy and the steering mechanisms within the scholarly organisations.

Table 1: Changes in academia on the path to cyberscience*)

*) In this table the phenomena further to the left will not necessarily be substituted by those further to the right (whether or not they do, will be a central research question).

(i.) Status quo of research

While the various aspects of the application of information and communication technologies in the research system are dealt with in a number of publications separately, there is no comprehensive, comparative and synthetic study yet. This seems mainly due to two inter-related factors. First, there are considerable disciplinary differences in the use of these technologies and hence in the interest in discussing these developments on a meta- or comparative level. Second, the discourse on the various aspects takes place in communities which are more or less isolated from each other. Scholars in communication sciences, sociology of science and law as well as researchers interested in knowledge organisation, internet economics and research policy studies are all interested in specific facets of the topic. Furthermore, the librarian community and, last but not least, the more technically oriented authors such as software developers, human-machine-interface researchers etc. should be mentioned. There is thus a particularly fragmented research landscape which will be outlined in the following paragraphs.(1)

The largest amount of contributions has been written with respect to electronic publishing. There is no integrative book one could point at, but a series of papers on specific aspects, in particular but not only by American authors. The very comprehensive bibliography by Bailey (1999) on scholarly electronic publishing contains well over 900 entries for the period from 1990 to date. The headings deal with e.g. economic issues, general works on electronic serials but also E-books and related legal issues. The questions raised include e.g. the price policies of commercial publishers with respect to print and E-journals, new alternative publishing models and intellectual property rights in the electronic world.

With respect to changes in the communication structure in academia only a small number of rather status-quo-oriented and limited (and now outdated) larger empirical studies have been carried out. A first example is Rutenfranz (1997) who, based on an empirical survey at one German university in 1993, studied the significance of the computer for research and teaching from the perspective of the communication sciences. With a similar approach and also based on a survey during 1992-3 in Germany, Scholl et al. (1996) examined the use of E-mail and discussion lists. Less elaborated are a number of individual contributions aiming at identifying changes in the scientific communication, e.g. with respect to the growing use of E-publications in the scholarly world, the citation and hence impact of E-journals (e.g. Harter 1996), and groupware applications intended to support scholarly co-operation (e.g. Valkenburg 1998).

Another major theme under the heading of “cyberscience” is the evolution of digital and even virtual libraries (e.g. Lesk 1997). Naturally this discussion takes place mainly in the librarian community and is linked to a number of other issues, such as digital archiving, meta-data standardisation and, above all, economic issues. In this context, we should also list those projects dealing with the electronic book, its future and eventual impact on reading habits (e.g. Böhle et al. 1997).

With regard to teaching, there is an abundant literature on tele-learning, in particular on its specific applications, but only a few general discussions of the issue of next-generation universities (see however e.g. the special issue of Futures, Vol. 30, no. 7, and McArthur et al. 1998). What is missing, in particular, is an in-depth discussion of these issues in relation to the research system as a whole.

As to the impact for science and research policies, the OECD recently commissioned two conferences focusing on the sciences as opposed to the humanities (OECD 1998). Worth mentioning are also the various policy papers issued by ad hoc groups in the various communities, such as the Pew Higher Education Roundtable (1998). Concerning ICT use in higher education, we may mention a recent RAND publication from the US (McArthur et al. 1998, 87 ff.). As with the other subjects, however, an encompassing assessment with a view to policy-making in the area is still lacking.

(ii.) Innovative aspects of the project

As outlined above, the research done in the area so far is fragmented, not systematic and in most cases not theory-oriented. Some of it is, to a certain degree, even politically motivated in the sense that the publications were targeted at influencing the behaviour of university administrations or the library community. Most importantly, there is no synthesis available which would enable us to see the full shape of cyberscience and to draw any overall conclusions. Starting from this state of affairs, the proposed project aims at breaking new ground by, first, developing a conceptual framework in order to assess the forces and factors working against and in favour of this development as a whole, second, by synthesising the knowledge available in the area, and third, by addressing the puzzle of the considerable differences (in type of applications, use, acceptance etc.) among the various disciplines. Fourth, we attempt to distinguish between quantitative and qualitative changes of the structures and procedures in academia on the path to cyberscience.

Fifth and last, this analytical synopsis will enable us to discuss the implications of cyberscience for science and research policy and the steering mechanisms within the scholarly organisations themselves. So far only a few Austrian scholars joined the international debate (e.g. Volst 1994; Fröhlich 1993) but did so only with regard to particular points and without any specific conclusions for Austria. While starting from general conclusions, this latter part of the proposed research will focus on the Austrian situation.

2. Project aim(s)

The proposed project’s main aim is to synthesize the knowledge available in the area and to develop a conceptual framework in order to assess the forces and factors which work against and in favour of the possible shift to cyberscience. Central to the envisaged research is the notion of “qualitative changes” in the way scholars work and the research system is organized. In contrast to purely quantitative changes such as the speed of communication or the amount of publications, we mean by “qualitative” e.g. structural changes in the organisational academic environment or basic changes with respect to roles played by the different actors in the research system. Other areas of possible qualitative changes could be the specific characteristics of scientific communication or the way scholarly knowledge is processed. Last but not least, fundamental qualitative changes would also be shifts in relation to the content of the research itself or of the way the research questions are addressed.

In order to reach this overall aim, the topic “cyberscience” will be subdivided into a number of areas in which qualitative changes in the above sense might be expected according to our preparatory research (Nentwich 1999): the spatial limitations of research; the distribution of roles in academia; the way in which knowledge is represented; the publication system; the related issue of quality control; teaching in a virtual environment; the variations among the various disciplines; and legal aspects. In these chapters (in particular ii. to ix.) – to be described shortly below – the following guiding questions will be addressed with a view to contribute to our understanding of the development at stake:

	Are the observed changes of a qualitative nature?
	Do the new applications have the potential to substitute more traditional forms?
	What are the factors influencing the process?
	How can we explain the differences in time, discipline and location?

(i.) Cyberscience: the empirical starting point

The introductory part of the project will provide for a comprehensive description of the elements of cyberscience as they are visible at this moment. Expanding on the first inventory and preliminary typology of functions in Nentwich (1999, ch. 2, see already above) we shall present in a synoptic way and describe from a technical and functional point of view the technologies and applications involved. In this first part of the project, the already available quantitative data will be summarized and put in perspective. Furthermore, we shall discuss some possible trends and influences on academia from other “continents of cyberworld” (such as business software or E-commerce). All this will serve as an overall framework and basis for the analysis in the following parts of the proposed project.

(ii.) Cyberscience and the possible liberation from spatial limitations

The use of networked computers frees scholars from spatial limitations to a considerable extent: the resources in the scholars’ offices may be used even if s/he is not present physically (telework); online access to remote digital libraries having E-journals on stock and access to various online databases may reduce the need to have a real library close by; so-called “extended research groups” may work together in a virtual environment (e.g. in a virtual laboratory or “collaboratory”) while meeting at best occasionally (e.g. Finholt et al. 1997); groupware applications may support this joint research, and virtual or E-conferences may take place on a larger scale. By this token, cyberscience may have considerable impacts on the way research will be done in the not-so-distant future: multi-authorship may increase; the oral scientific discourse might be replaced by written procedures; scientific communities may be more fragmented, i.e. specialised, but interconnected world-wide to a high degree; research infrastructure requirements may shift; and the positioning of more peripheral research units may alter due to this development (e.g. OECD 1998, 198). Our guiding question will therefore be: to what extent and with which qualitative consequences will the path to cyberscience affect the “geography”, i.e. the spatial structure of academia. In exploring these issues we shall be collecting hints as to the future requirements for research locations and thus for research policy.

(iii.) Cyberscience and the future distribution of roles in academia

The spreading of I&C technologies in academia and the related concentration of resources at the office desk may lead to new requirements for those working in a research environment. Since these qualifications are partially too demanding to be fulfilled at all or at least sufficiently at the individuals’ level, this may also impact on the distribution of roles in academia. Due to the increasing digitalisation of the libraries, the traditional librarian may be soon replaced by the new “cybrarian” who will inter alia provide access to the new information resources (e.g. Johnston 1998; Okerson 1997); furthermore, specialised “information-brokers” might be needed to assist scholars in finding, ordering and managing online knowledge resources (e.g. Stichweh 1989, 52) – possibly with the help of electronic data-mining techniques and “know(ledge-ro)bots”; at the extreme this might bring about a completely new division of labour in research between those gathering and preparing information and those working creatively; also the traditional distribution of roles between the authors of scientific texts and the publishing houses as well as between the latter and the university libraries are changing due to the possibility to publish electronically (e.g. Pew Higher Education Roundtable 1998); finally, the entire development may also have effects on the structure of the community of researchers as a whole – effects which have been discussed under the label of “democratisation” (with regard access to information and publication opportunities in particular, cf. Fröhlich 1993; OECD 1998, 198). The discussion of these questions will aim at drawing a tentative picture of the social structures in the age of cyberscience and thus give us some clues as to the future needs in the formation of scholars.

(iv.) Cyberscience and the future of knowledge representation

While there is a long tradition to communicate scholarly knowledge in the form of a (linear) text, i.e. in an article or a book, the increasing digitalisation of texts may lead to a different form of knowledge representation. Hypertext technology may enable scholars to present their findings in a modular way (e.g. Kircz 1998) and thus provide for multiple ways to access their “texts” by the readers/users. Furthermore, in a fully electronic, networked environment it would be possible to link scientific hypertexts together to form a combined knowledge database, thus revolutionising the way we think of scholarly products. Postulating that this development would take place, we have to discuss the inherent dynamic of electronic texts – potentially they are never finished – as well as consequences with regard to the notion of authorship – the individual’s contribution of modules may not be regarded as authorship with respect to the whole of the “hyper(data)base”. Finally, the readability of such texts should be under scrutiny (e.g. Rost 1996, 175). Starting from an analysis of knowledge representation in academia today, we shall explore these questions, eventually also discussing its consequences for the relationship between science and research on the one hand, and the public on the other.

(v.) Cyberscience and the future of the publication system

The most obvious repercussions of the evolution of cyberscience are probably those for the scholarly publication system. The massive advent of E-publications in various forms, in particular E-journals, has already shattered the long-standing relationships between libraries, publishers and scholars. Not only are E-journals relatively cheap to produce if compared to printed journals and may thus be run relatively easily, but they also provide for innovative opportunities: we already mentioned modularisation and may add full-text search facilities, hyperlinking to quoted literature and new forms of reviewing processes as well as online commenting [see also below (vi.)]. Apart from discussing these developments from various angles – not least from the point of view of internet economy – we also need to address the question of whether cyberscience may do without paper altogether? A further interesting topic under this heading are certainly the ongoing “pricing battles” between the commercial publishers and the libraries which might eventually lead to a completely different scholarly publication model which could be run by academia itself, simply in order to cut costs (e.g. Harnad et al. 1998; Pew Higher Education Roundtable 1998; Okerson et al. 1995). The guiding question of this chapter will be: to what extent and in what direction will the scholarly publication system evolve?

(vi.) Cyberscience and the future of quality control

While the now established procedures of quality control in the scholarly publication system are a centrepiece of today’s research system, electronic publishing may well affect these traditions. On the one hand, there are now new forms of refereeing, in particular online-refereeing, the so-called “open peer commentary” which involves self-appointed referees (e.g. Sumner et al. 1997) and rating systems (e.g. Alton-Scheidl et al. 1997) which all challenge the traditional system. On the other hand, electronic preprint archives (e.g. Ginsparg 1998), personal homepages from which papers can be downloaded, conference web sites and various small working paper series, even run by students, made a massive amount of papers available over the net without much or no quality control. Based on an account of the present situation we shall assess the future of this cornerstone of academia in close connection with issues related to the publication record: will E-journals have the same standing as print journals and will scholarly “skywriting” (Harnad 1990), i.e. the active participation in electronic discussion lists, be credited? There are signs that some professional associations already discuss this issue, but the state of the debate and direction of developed strategies are to be explored. Thus the discussion of cyberscience impact on quality control and publication records is at the very heart of the research system.

(vii.) Cyberuniversity: the impact of teaching in a virtual environment on research

Research being the main focus of the study, we need nevertheless to look closer at the future of teaching in the age of cyberscience since, first, giving seminars and lectures accounts traditionally for a considerable part of many researchers’ time (“unity of research and teaching”) and, second, changes in the university structure as the traditional environment of most researchers directly affects the research system itself. Already today information technology plays an important role in distance-learning courses. It might be hypothesised that tele-learning, i.e. taking part in seminars and lectures without physical presence on the university’s premises, may increase its share and that there might eventually be virtual universities whose staff is dispersed all over the globe (Nicholson 1998). Furthermore, there are new opportunities given by networked multi-media course; also grading systems and teacher-pupil relationships are at stake. All this affects how teaching researchers cope with their two traditional roles. Thus, rather than discussing ICT applications in higher education (see e.g. McArthur et al. 1998) the guiding question of this chapter will be in what way the ongoing developments in teaching will change the environment for research.

(viii.) Cyberscience – Cyberhumanities – Cyber-Social-Science

Obviously there are considerable differences among the various disciplines when it comes to the use of I&C technologies. While these differences will be addressed in all previous chapters occasionally, the comparison will be at the centre of this part. It will be based on the combination of existing (e.g. Rutenfranz 1997; Scholl et al. 1996; OECD 1998) and newly generated empirical data (interviews, see below). Our main focus will be to find out about the factors which account for these differences. The common distinction between the sciences and the humanities will probably not turn out to be of great explanatory power. Other factors may play a more important role, such as the distribution of the relevant community around the globe, the publishing traditions in a discipline, the degree of computer use, the relationship between the research and economically exploitable applications, the intensity of data dependency and the need to compute models, to name but a few. Furthermore, we shall ask whether there might be convergence among the various disciplines in the way scholarly communication processes and information gathering works due the widespread use of similar cyberscience applications.

(ix.) Legal aspects of cyberscience

A TA study about cyberscience would not be complete if not taking into account the various legal aspects of the development. Electronic publishing raises important questions in the field of intellectual property rights (copyright) but also touches upon the contractual relations between scholarly authors, their publishers and the research libraries (e.g. Chodorow 1998). In particular, the international dimension of these questions is not at all trivial, as there is not yet an international regime in place (e.g. Dreier 1998). Hence the legal constraints and rooms to move might present important factors involved in the evolution of the research system.

(x.) Conclusions I: qualitative aspects of cyberscience

The concluding chapter of the envisaged research report/book will pull together the various conclusions of the preceding discussions. Here we shall interpret these findings in the light of a conceptual framework which will be gradually elaborated and refined along the implementation of the project. Based on our preliminary attempt to distinguish between the various functions in academia (organisation/production/communication/distribution, see above table 1), this framework should account for the various factors found to be influencing the transition from traditional to cyberscience. Inter alia, we need to answer under what circumstances the new cyberscience applications will have an additive or substitutive effect respectively a durable or temporarly impact on more traditional forms. We shall differentiate between the various disciplines, the geographical situation of a research unit and so on. With this framework we will also attempt to refine the core concept of qualitative (e.g. structural) and quantitative changes taking place on the path to cyberscience.

(xi.) Conclusions II: policy aspects

These overall conclusions will enable us not only to draw a comprehensive picture of the possible future of the research system but also to discuss the implications of cyberscience on science and research policy as well as on the steering mechanisms within the scholarly organisations themselves. While the main focus of the proposed research will be to study in-depth the development, we nevertheless expect to be able to give – on the basis of our findings – the main actors at the state level and in the research communities advice on how to cope with the incremental changes which have been discussed here under the label of cyberscience.

3. Selected methodology

(i.) Research approach

Given the great variety of aspects to be dealt with when trying to draw a well-founded and integrative picture of the state of academia in the not-so-distant future, it will be necessary to study cyberscience on the basis of an interdisciplinary approach. Obviously the study will need to have a focus in sociology of the sciences (e.g. with respect to scholarly activities, roles, inner workings of research communities etc.) and technology and innovation studies, but also political science (policy conclusions to be drawn, research policy system), communication sciences (technical aspects of scholarly communication processes), legal studies (copyright and contractual issues) and, last but not least, economics (internet economy, pricing policies) will have to contribute to the project. Furthermore, the project needs considerable input from people with specific technical knowledge (market research, software trends, description of applications and services). The Institute of Technology Assessment is particularly well suited to host this research project since its staff covers several of these disciplines and has long-standing contacts with outside experts in those fields where its resident researchers are not competent themselves.

Following the well-established and recognised practice of technology assessment at ITA, the project team will not base its research on one particular strand of theory or approach in the disciplines involved, but will even actively seek to involve all possible points of view, empirically and theoretically, before drawing conclusions.

(ii.) Methodology

In a first phase, the proposed study will focus on the rich bulk of existing literature in order to provide for a basic and comprehensive description of the phenomenon in question and a collection of arguments and hypotheses advanced in this context. Furthermore, the literature will be systematically screened for quantitative data, such as usage statistics, citation analyses, attitudes towards new applications, distribution of hard- and software and the like, in order to contribute to a well-rounded picture of the status quo.

A comprehensive technical market research into the soft- and hardware trends will present another important input to this first phase.

With regard to the core questions raised in the proposed project, we shall then elaborate a series of hypotheses possibly explaining the factors which influence the development in each of the areas described above. These hypotheses need to address for instance the issues whether cyberscience applications and services will replace or complement traditional forms, whether decisions to use or not to use are taken on individual or rather institutional levels etc. A series of such preliminary hypotheses has been put forward already under the heading 2. above and have been explored to some extent in our preparatory research (Nentwich, 1999). Further hypotheses will be generated on the basis of the research carried out in the first phase of the project.

Since our topic is quite encompassing, a potential questionnaire to be analysed with quantitative methods would have to be quite long. Experience shows that high enough response rates cannot be attained with such questionnaires. This would be even further aggravated in an international setting. Furthermore, as we know little about our topic from the outset, we expect to learn more details and new aspects/perspectives when speaking to researchers in person. Therefore, a series of qualitative interviews based on half-structured questionnaires with representatives of the relevant communities (researchers, librarians, publishers, professional associations, software engineers etc.) will be conducted in order to provide the empirical basis for evaluating the hypotheses and to collect empirical data on computer and ICT use. Our preliminary design of the sample of interviewees looks as follows: In order to generate comparable and balanced – with respect to disciplines, experience, geographical distribution etc. – representative data, we need to include interviewees from both sides of the Atlantic since we expect to learn a lot from looking at those two research systems in comparison – given the fact that they might represent to a certain degree two consecutive stages of the evolution towards cyberscience. Another fruitful comparison in our context could be made by including both (central) high-level top institutes as well as low-profile peripheral institutes. Obviously our interviewees should come from different scholarly disciplines. At the present stage of project design we envisage to focus on three to five disciplines, including particle physics, biochemistry, political science/sociology, economics and/or philosophy.(2) As to the categories of people to be interviewed, a senior researcher (preferably head of institute), a more junior/younger researcher,(3) someone from the institute’s or the closest larger research library and someone from the computer department should be included. If we add a few representatives of publishing and software houses as well as from scholarly associations, about 80 interviews will have to be conducted altogether.(4)

The elaboration of policy recommendations in the last phase of the project will be done with the help of, inter alia, an expert panel including some Austrian scholars as well as experts from the research bureaucracy. The panel would meet for a two or three half-days, be presented the findings of the proposed project and would discuss them in the light of the specifically Austrian situation. The conclusions of the panel would be incorporated in the final report of the project.

With a view to further improving the empirical basis on which our conclusions will be drawn we intend to carry out a number of practical tests with innovative cyberscience soft- and hardware designed to enable wide-area collaboration, E-conferencing, distributed hypertext writing, data-mining, shared databases and the like. These tests will mainly involve the project team and other scholars working at the Institute with a view to their current projects.

With regard to our topic “knowledge representation“ (above 2.iv.), preliminary research reveals that there is a high probability that no suitable hypertext authoring software is on the market yet. In order to be able to assess nevertheless our hypothesis (see above), we shall work together with a programmer in order to be able to emulate future software developments.(5)

Quoted Literature

Alton-Scheidl, R., Schmutzer, R., Sint, P.-P., Tscherteu, G. (Hg.), 1997, Voting, Rating, Annotation - Web4Groups and other Projects: Approaches and First Experiences, , Wien/München: R. Oldenbourg.

Bailey, C. W. J., 1999, Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 1999-04-01 1999 [cited 1999] <http://info.lib.uh.edu/sepb/sepb.html>.

Böhle, K., Riehm, U., Wingert, B., 1997, Vom allmählichen Verfertigen Elektronischer Bücher. Ein Erfahrungsbericht, Frankfurt/New York: Campus <http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/projekt/peb/proda_t.htm>.

Chodorow, S., 1998, The Faculty, the University, and Intellectual Property [Paper at the Faxon Institute Colloquium "Electronic Publishing and the Scholarly Communication Process, 7-8 January 1998], Journal of Electronic Publishing 3(3) <http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/03-03/chodorow.html>.

Dreier, T., 1998, Copyright principles in a digital scientific world, in: I. Butterworth (Hg.): The impact of electronic publishing on the academic community: an international workshop organized by the Academia Europaea and the Werner-Gren Foundation, London/Miami: Portland Press <http://tiepac.portlandpress.co.uk/books/online/tiepac/session2/ch2.htm>.

Finholt, T. A., Olson, G. M., 1997, From Laboratories to Collaboratories: A New Organisational Form for Scientific Collaboration, Psychological Science 8(1), 28-36.

Fröhlich, G., 1993, 'Demokratisierung' der Wissenschaftskommunikation durch Fachinformationssysteme und Computernetze?, in: Institut für Höhere Studien (Hg.): Information und Macht, Wien.

Ginsparg, P., 1998, Electronic research archives for physics (Update September 1996), in: I. Butterworth (Hg.): The impact of electronic publishing on the academic community: an international workshop organized by the Academia Europaea and the Werner-Gren Foundation, London/Miami: Portland Press <http://tiepac.portlandpress.co.uk/books/online/tiepac/session1/ch7.htm>.

Harnad, S., 1990, Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum of Scientific Inquiry, Psychological Science 1, 342-343 <ftp://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/pub/harnad/Harnad/harnad90.skywriting>.

Harnad, S., Hemus, M., 1998, All or none: no stable hybrid or half-way solutions for launching the learned periodical literature into the post-Gutenberg galaxy, in: I. Butterworth (Hg.): The impact of electronic publishing on the academic community: an international workshop organized by the Academia Europaea and the Werner-Gren Foundation, London/Miami: Portland Press <http://tiepac.portlandpress.co.uk/books/online/tiepac/session1/ch5.htm>.

Harter, S. P., 1996,What is a Digital Library? Definitions, Content, and Issues, KOLISS DL '96: International Conference on Digital Libraries and Information Services for the 21st Century, 1996-09-10/13, Seoul, Korea <http://php.indiana.edu/~harter/korea-paper.htm>.

Johnston, C., 1998, Electronic technology and its impact on libraries, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 30(1), 7-24.

Kircz, J. G., 1998, Modularity: The next form of scientific information presentation?, Journal of Documentation 54(2), 210-235 <http://www.science.uva.nl/projects/commphys/papers/jkmodulm.htm>.

Lesk, M., 1997,Digital Libraries: A Unifying or Distributing Force?, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Conference "Scholarly Communication and Technology, 1997-04-24/25, Emory Univ. <http://www.arl.org/scomm/scat/lesk.html>.

McArthur, D. J., Lewis, M. W., 1998, Untangling the Web. Applications of the Internet and Other Information Technologies to Higher Learning, Bd. MR-975-EDU, Santa Monica/Wahsington, D.C.: RAND <http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR975>.

Nentwich, M., 1999, Cyberscience: Die Zukunft der Wissenschaft im Zeitalter der Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien, in: Max-Planck-Institute for the Study of Societies (Hg.): Working papers, Bd. 99/6, Cologne <http://www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/publikation/working_papers/wp99-6/index.html>.

Nicholson, P. A., 1998, Higher education in the year 2030, Futures 30(7), 725-729.

OECD, 1998, Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 1998. Chapter 7: The Global Research Village: How Information and Communication Technologies Affect the Science System, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development <http://www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/s_t/scs/prod/global.pdf>.

Okerson, A. S., Introduction to the 6th Edition (1996) of the Directory of Electronic Journals, Newsletters and Academic Discussion Lists 1997 1997 [cited <http://www.people.virginia.edu/~pm9k/libsci/96/intro.html>.

Okerson, A. S., O'Donnell, J. J. (Hg.), 1995, Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subversive proposal for Electronic Publihsing, <http://www.library.yale.edu/~okerson/subversive.html>.

Pew Higher Education Roundtable, 1998, To Publish and Perish, Policy Perspectives 7(4) <http://www.arl.org/scomm/pew/pewrept.html>.

Rost, M., 1996, Wissenschaft und Internet: Zunft trifft auf High-Tech, in: M. Rost (Hg.): Die Netz-Revolution. Auf dem Weg in die Weltgesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main: Eichborn.

Rutenfranz, U., 1997, Wissenschaft im Informationszeitalter. Zur Bedeutung des Mediums Computer für das Kommunikationssystem Wissenschaft: Studien zur Kommunikationswissenschaft, Bd. 19, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Scholl, W., Pelz, J., Rode, J., 1996, Computervermittelte Kommunikation in der Wissenschaft, Münster: Waxmann.

Stichweh, R., 1989, Computer, Kommunikation und Wissenschaft: Telekommunikative Medien und Strukturen der Kommunikation im Wissenschaftssystem, in: Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung (Hg.): MPIfG Discussion Paper, Bd. 89/11, Köln.

Sumner, T., Shum, S. B., 1997,From Documents to Discourse: Shifting Conceptions of Scholarly Publishing, CHI '98, 1998-04-18/23, Los Angeles <http://kmi.open.ac.uk/tr/abstracts/kmi-tr-50-abstract.html>.

Valkenburg, P., 1998, BSCW and Web4Groups as Tools for Wide-Area Collaboration, Scmitar 10(1998) <http://www.iihe.ac.be/scimitar/J0698/groupware.html>.

Volst, A., 1994,The Benefit of Computer-Networks in Science, Mehrwert von Information - Professionalisierung der Informationsarbeit. 4. Internationales Symposium für Informationswissenschaft (ISI '94), 1994-11-02/04, Graz.

Footnotes

(1) This is however not the place to give a detailed overview of all strands of publications in the area – the following overview will therefore quote particular items only occasionally. For a more detailed account of the existing literature see Nentwich 1999.

(2) The rationale of this choice is the following: Particle physics representing basic research is one of the most advanced disciplines in its use of electronic publishing; biochemistry is one of the applied sciences which are heavily influenced by commercial interests and thus more reluctant vis-à-vis an open publication culture; political science and sociology are exemplary for the social sciences which only recently discovered ICT; economics differs from the latter in being much more internationalised and – as regards some sub-fields – heavily depending on computers for processing large quantities of data; philosophy was taken as a representative of the humanities.

(3) The distinction senior/younger researcher not only attempts to cover possible age differences but seems (at least for the time being) a method to assure involvement of both more enthusiastic and more reluctant ICT users.

(4) {4 people per institute} x {3 institutes (at least one top, at least one peripheral; preferably from both the US and Europe)} x {5 disciplines} + {5 publishing houses} + {5 software specialists} + {10 representatives of associations (5 disciplines x 2 continents)} = 80.

(5) A simple and easy-to-use hypertext authoring tool is needed to test to what extent scientific texts may be modularised. Preliminary market research in this area shows that the available tools still distract the writer from the creative process too a high degree by forcing him/her to simultaneously perform rather technical activities. It would be relatively easy to develop a simple editor allowing to generate hypertexts without any knowledge of the involved technology (as it is the case now).

| Back to project home page | Zurück zur Projekt-Homepage |