Dear Kent. First of all this is a letter of admiration. I love your new journal, The Geyser, and I was an early subscriber. I admire your career and I love your writing. You display truly enviable skills, at once eloquent and expressive, which distinguish a true journalist, and your prolixity, if sustained, matches the rest of the commentators in this sector put together.

But, and their is always a “but”, it seems to me that you are in danger of over balancing, and I worry whether you are developing a monomania which disguises some of the generic developments taking place in scholarly communications overall. In your recent coverage I have felt that you were pursuing a witch hunt against the originators of Plan S which tended to swamp rational comment on anything else. On the day when Clarivate announced radical changes to their finance structure that could materially improve their competitive positioning, what did the Geyser give us but another flood of innuendo? I have never met Robert-Jan Smits, or indeed the founders of Frontiers, but if you continue to make veiled allegations about them without one iota of solid evidence you will be widely dismissed as another conspiracy theorist with no real credibility. Guilt by association has never been attractive, as Joe McCarthy demonstrated. I was a consultant for Robert Maxwell for two years, but you would find it hard to argue that I am expert in pension fraud as a result. In Europe, by the way, we do not generally attack public servants as if they were politicians, since they have no right of reply and we have not politicised executive functions to nearly the same level as the US, and jobs like the one Smits holds do not change with elections.

And the thought that you are slightly misunderstanding Europe leads me to another thought. We need to remember that science journal publishing is around 150 years older than the USA, and from its seventeenth century beginnings was recharged by the huge nineteenth century advances in German chemistry and British engineering, materials science, medicine and evolutionary biology. While these in turn contributed to the US industrial revolution, the published research remained in European hands – which helps to explain the dominance  of European publishing in historical STM – Elsevier, Springer Verla, Nature, and companies like Blackwell and VCH (both acquired by Wiley at the beginning of a long term consolidation of these assets but both still Europe-based). Is it then any wonder that it is European interests who have a primary concern about re-regulating this market in the light of changes in technology, communications, user expectations and taxpayer interests? And Europe is different from the USA and will solve this problem differently!

Then, I find this week, that the unfortunate Smits is under fire from you again for never having published an article in a Peer reviewed journal. He is a policy administrator, not a research scientist, for goodness sake! How many peer review journals did Dirk Haank or Ron Mobed publish in? If the answer is none, it probably stems from them being publishing managers, not research scientists. And would it have been helpful if poor Mr Smits had got something into a peer reviewed policy journal. Almost certainly not, given that there is now serious doubt in very many places over whether peer review at point of publication is intellectually or financially worthwhile. Rigorous review prior to funding awards, and rigorous examination of the impact and reaction to published results seems more in tune to a networked scholarly society. It is conceivable that pre-publication peer review has become redundant. Things do change, even in publishing.

Much the same comments also apply to your vigorous defence of “academic freedom”. I have heard the same elsewhere in the US but seldom in Europe. One is struck by how quickly some publishing advocates become upholders of academic freedom when traditional publishing is faced with economic deprivation. Publishing’s skills have a glorious future in scholarly communication, and there are real margins to be made, but not by hanging on to bogus arguments about ideological notions which barely, if ever, existed. Did academics really have what you describe, the freedom to publish where they liked? Or did they publish where they could in desperate efforts at self promotion for tenure and grant support, rather than some altruistic wish to present their findings to the appropriate subscribing audience? It seems to me that if the government\taxpayer or charitable foundation who funds the research says “and we want the results to be available to all comers with no let or hindrance”, then you are arguing that some social crime is being committed. What ever happened to those great American adages that once filled the airwaves “Follow the Money”. “Listen to the Market”. And how much financial reward did academics get for Freedom to publish? As I recall it, they were mostly forced to give up their copyrights in order to secure this hallowed Freedom!

When the histories are written, we will probably see the 1990s as the time of greatest swing to the dominance of the private sector. Dirk Haank piloted the Big Deal environment that laid library budgets to waste, and a number of commercial publishers boasted of +50 % Ebitda, and talked to investors about “have to have” markets that could not fail as long as taxpayer cash flowed into research, universities and their libraries. By 2007 when markets fell and taxpayers began to talk about value for money, I found myself taking on the role of Chief Advisor to the UK House of Commons Select Committee enquiry into Open Access. We called publishers to give evidence – how much, the committee asked Richard Charkikn, then in charge of Nature, would it cost to get an OA article into Nature. £10k, came the answer. We called Harold Varmus to give evidence, and he outlined PLOS, and in particular PLOS One. The committee, regardless of political bias, felt that a question had been answered. I then accompanied Varmus to Frankfurt, where I interviewed him in front of the STM conference. Have you ever learnt anything from publishers, I asked him. Well yes, came the reply. PLOS One is a publishing response to our (then) funding shortfall. Technical and methodological review, no fundamental peer review to keep costs down, low price point, high value, resulting in high volume and good brand reflection from the other PLOS journals. A good publisher was lost when he became a great scientist!

The pendulum I am describing here is still swinging and has a way to go, and then, like all these things it will swing back. Meanwhile, in data and analytics and machine learning and research support services and AI and through out scholarly communication there are a multiplicity of roles for risk capital and publishing skills. Journals will not survive as they are, articles will change in media and definition, research results will reach users in semi and then completely automated ways. Most readers will be machines. Those who know as much as you know can give the informed and critical commentary markets need. Please do not let us get confused with nostalgia, ideology and conspiracy theory on the way.

Apologies to those kind readers who expected an earlier interjection in December. Truth to tell, I was speechless. Caught somewhere between astonishment at my fellow countrymen’s mania for national self harming, my own complete self-identification historically, culturally and pschychologically as a. “European”, and impatience with all the wise and honest Americans who I know and who cannot collectively somehow re-enact the Emperors clothes nursery tale, there suddenly seemed nothing left to say worth saying, least of all around the topic of electronic information and digital society.

But then I returned to Nova Scotia again for the holidays, and in its clear, cold, sunny air it seems a dereliction of a bloggers duty not to have a message at New Year. And by dint of looking over everyone’s shoulders, I see that Rule One of the New Year message is to make a recommendation, preferably to nominate something as the something of the Year. And as it happens I do have a Book of the Year for this information industry. Please read The Catalogue of Ship-wrecked Books, by Edward Wilson Lee. The inevitable pesky publishers sub-title in the US purports to sell it as a book about Christopher Columbus and his son, but the UK edition hits the point – it is about the attempt by Columbus’s son to build a universal library in Seville, getting royal patronage and setting up buying agents in the great early cities of print to create an early Internet Archive, making available a stream of knowledge as rich as the gold and silver of Peru and Mexico just then flowing into the royal coffers.

The attempt fails of course, but it does set off arguments about the nature of Knowledge which we need to keep having as we dimly perceive the arrival of the leading edge of the development of knowledge products and solutions. And here comes Rule Two: Issue a Warning. And here is mine – Refrain in 2019 from labelling everything you see as AI sourced, related or derived. We are still in the Colon Columbus stage in building the universal knowledge base. Let’s save AI as a term for when AI arrives. Many people are doing really clever things, but they are at best embryonic knowledge products. We are really quite far away from new knowledge created in a machine-driven context without human intervention. Indeed we are still a long way from getting enough information as metadata in a machine understandable form, and when we do we usually do not understand what we have done.

So here comes Rule Three: declare a News Story of the Year. And here is mine. The gracious acknowledgement by Google that their automated recruitment system, which analyses thousands of CVs to produce the best candidates, had a male bias built in to it. And of course it did! Feed the past into an expert system and it replicates the flaws of the past. And its not that the systems doing the analytics are not clever, its just that the dumb data and the dumb documents are not as dumb as we think, and in fact they are larded with all of the mistakes we have ever made. And we need to know that before we evaluate the outcomes as Intelligent, or even believable.

And if we need to be careful about the nature of the information we are using, we need to deal in known quantities. Rule Four: try to make an insight. Mine concerns differentiating between data and documents. The other night, as one does on cold and isolated coastline, we fell to discussing derivations. My wife produced her weightlifters copy of Merriam Webster, and we got into derivations old-style. Datum, neutral, is always related to single objects of an incontrovertible nature. Docuumentum carries the idea of learning throughout its history. When we talk about content-as-data, what do we really mean? And when we talk about AI, do we speak of Intelligence created by machines deriving knowledge from pure data, or of machines learning from knowledge available, fallacies and all, in order to postulate new knowledge? We do need to be clear about our, as derived from our inputs, or we will surely be disappointed by what happens next. We need to start listening very carefully to conversations about concept analysis, concept-based searching and conceptual analysis.

Which logically brings me to Rule Five. End with a prediction. Mine would concern a question I asked in several sessions at Frankfurt this year and have had little but confusion as a result. My question was “What proportion of your readership is machines, and what economic benefits does that readership bring to you?”. I think machine readership will become much more important in 2019, as we seek to monetise it and as we seek to evaluate what content in context means in the context of analytical systems. So just as none of us knew how many machines were reading us this year, next year I think most of us will be aware. And whether those were just browsers, or bots, or knowledge harvesters, or what?

And then I notice there is a Rule Six. You end by wishing every kind reader who reaches this point a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year, which I do for all in 2019. After all, using my rule-based system this column could be written by a machine next year – and read by one too!

« go backkeep looking »