Second ICSU Press/UNESCO International Conference on Electronic Publishing - in Science

The dramatic impact of the new technologies on the distribution of information is being particularly felt in science, where many of the innovations such as the World Wide Web were initiated. The new developments provide enormous potential benefits for the scientific information chain and hence for the progress of science. And yet there are real difficulties in developing a new paradigm that meets the needs of science in an effective way.

In early 1996 UNESCO and the International Council for Science (ICSU) Press convened a major international conference on Electronic Publishing in Science to study these issues from the perspective of practising scientists worldwide. It involved the broadest spectrum of experts representing the international scientific unions and associations, librarians and information scientists copyright specialists, publishers (both commercial and learned-society) and information brokers. It also attempted to achieve wide international participation through the constituencies of our two organizations.

The experience and knowledge shared in the lectures and discussion groups enabled the Conference to make a number of important recommendations on how this interests of the international community of scientists can be best served by electronic publishing. It gave rise to a number of follow-up activities that have examined certain issues in more detail and tracked the continuing changes. The Conference itself is generally considered to have been something of a milestone event in consideration of the impact of electronic publishing in science.

Major developments in the field of science publishing since that time prompted the sponsoring organizations to convene a second Conference,to provide the same effective blend of lectures by international experts and interactive break-out sessions. Subjects covered included the changing nature of the editorial process; legal issues of copyright; archiving in an electronic environment; the search and referencing function; issues relating to large data sets; ethical and privacy issues; and economic models of electronic publishing. Wide participation was sought, since one major concern for both organizations is how the changes brought about by the new technologies were likely to impact on scientists in less scientifically developed countries. Another issue was the way in which science interacts with the general community and serves national development.

A series of recommendations on good practice in electronic publishing developed during the course of the breakout sessions and endorsed by the Conference as a whole are included in these, the proceedings of the event.

Speech of welcome
Gisbert Glaser
Acting UNESCO Assistant Director-General for Science

Professor Yoshikawa, President of the International Council for Science,
Sir Roger Elliott, Chairman of the Conference
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It gives me great pleasure to welcome you all to UNESCO Headquarters this morning, and to participate in the opening session of this important international meeting devoted to Electronic Publishing in Science.

I would like to express the sincere apologies of the Director-General, Mr Matsuura, in not being able to join us today, as he had fully expected to do. Urgent meetings concerning the establishment of the Organization’s Medium-Term Strategy have required his personal involvement. I know he was particularly looking forward to sharing the podium with his friend and distinguished scientist, Professor Yoshikawa. They have had a number of opportunities to meet since he took office, and to discuss issues of mutual concern in the science arena. I am at any rate happy to see him here once again in UNESCO.

You come from many different countries and belong to various professions. You represent scientific associations, government bodies, commercial and non-profit publishing houses, libraries, abstracting services, and international and national scientific organizations. You do have one thing in common, though – you all have a keen professional interest in the creation and distribution of knowledge – and are links in the scientific information chain.

In late June 1999, UNESCO joined forces with ICSU in convening the World Conference on Science in Budapest. Several of you were participants, I know. The World Conference was a timely event that sought to bring all stakeholders in science to discuss how science could be organized to better respond to the needs and expectations of society as we entered the Twenty-first Century, and be given the means and conditions under which it could do so. It was an occasion on which scientists and governments were able to talk together on the international stage.

The outcome of the Conference was embodied in two important documents that were adopted unanimously by those in Budapest (and incidentally endorsed later without change by the governing bodies of both UNESCO and ICSU). These two texts were the Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge, and Science Agenda – Framework for Action. Together, they represent our guidebook – our road map – for the future.

They had much to say about science and its relationship with society. They contained numerous recommendations or expressions of commitment towards science for meeting basic human needs and achieving sustainable development, the balance between private and public sector research, the ethics of science, science policy, science education, equality of opportunity for women in science, and so on. One preoccupation seemed to run through all debates, however: that of the sharing of knowledge. All those assembled in Budapest, from North and South, East and West, recognized the need for an efficient and equitable means by which scientific information and knowledge could be used, shared and safeguarded for all, both now and in the future. The ability to participate in the scientific endeavour was seen as not only a universal right, but also a motor driving development.

We live in a world of rapid change, and you happen to be associated with a process that is changing faster than most. You are part of that knowledge revolution. Many of you attended the first conference on Electronic Publishing in Science in this very room, five years ago to the day. The advances in the technologies allowing us to manipulate and diffuse information, and the ways in which we have learned to use them, have been little short of miraculous in that period. The new means of communicating the results of scientific research continue to modify how scientific research itself is being conducted and organized. Many of the issues identified in 1996 remain to be resolved, however. We shall be looking to events like this for possible consensus on how best to provide the optimum conditions for the recording, the sharing and the preservation of science – conditions under which creativity and investment are protected and rewarded, yet knowledge in the public domain is freely available to all, without hindrance or discrimination.

You are concerned essentially with the publication of primary scientific literature, but I am sure you share many of the concerns of the worlds of education and culture in general. Just how are the new information and communication technologies going to impact on, and shape, our globalized, but as yet far from equal world?

This question has led the Director-General, Mr Matsuura, to propose to our Member States – who will gather here in October of this year to discuss our next Medium-Term Strategy and the Programme and Budget for 2002-2003 – that a substantial part of our next budget be assigned to two cross-cutting themes. The first is the eradication of poverty; the second, the impact of the new information and communication technologies on UNESCO’s particular fields of competence. UNESCO, as you know, brings under one roof the areas of education, of the sciences – both natural and social – of culture and of communication. What better place therefore, than this, for discussions on the various impacts of the new technologies on the field of science?

The holding of the World Conference on Science was a tangible expression of the close relationship that exists between UNESCO and the ICSU family. It emphasized our mutual concerns over the pursuit of science and the sharing of the benefits that it can bring to society. It also underlined the complementarity of our action and our constituencies. This Conference is yet another example of the closeness of our ideas and our ideals.

Ladies and Gentlemen, you have much of importance to discuss in the days before you. I shall end by wishing you and the Conference every success, and the Director-General and I look forward to hearing the results of your discussions in due course.

I am absolutely delighted to be here today – and to have this opportunity to welcome you all to this Conference on Electronic Publishing in Science - hosted here within the UNESCO Headquarters building. ICSU also has its headquarters here in Paris - and this has helped to facilitate the close and special relationship between ICSU and UNESCO over the past 50 years.

The joint convening of this conference by UNESCO and ICSU reflects the growing collaboration - indeed partnership - between ICSU and UNESCO. While this collaboration has always been important to both our organisations, over the past several years our relationship has become even closer - as particularly reflected in our joint sponsorship of the World Conference on Science in Budapest in 1999. That Conference brought together our distinctly different members; UNESCO’s inter-governmental members and ICSU’s broad membership of scientists and researchers. The complementarity of our two organisations provides an excellent framework for us to convene such specialised conferences as this Second Electronic Publishing Conference today.

The rich and extensive agenda for your Conference contains many issues that ICSU believes will be especially important for the future of science - and for the success of the international scientific community. Your discussions on the challenges of electronic publishing, however, represent only one part of ICSU’s overall strategy and work programme related to scientific data and information. As many of you already know, ICSU has as one of its most important principles the protection and promotion of full and open access to scientific data and information for research and education. It is a principal that ICSU has indeed been required to significantly enhance its efforts to protect in the face of potential and very real challenges over the past years.

In fact the international scientific community, as you the participants in this Conference all well know, is confronting a very real and complex dilemma. One trend is driving the availability of data and information upwards at a pace hardly imaginable, even just a few years ago at our First Electronic Publishing Conference in 1996. The other trend, however, is much less visible and yet more worrisome and threatening to the scientific community. It concerns the development of special limitations, restrictions, negotiated agreements and "cost recovery" policies that are making it more difficult for some scientists to gain access to data and information than others. This latter trend is creating particular obstacles for those scientists working in developing and transition countries.

ICSU has been drawing attention to these serious problems in many fora, including the World Intellectual Property Organisation, the World Meteorological Organisation; but as well within UNESCO at the International Oceanographic Commission; and within the European Union as regards its current review of its Directive on Electronic Databases. Recently, ICSU has had to express its deep concern regarding the special agreement between SCIENCE and CELERA - that has led to an apparent break with the widely endorsed international consensus on the release of all genetic data related to a published article. While this has led to some very exciting new information being made available on genetic sequencing last week - ICSU and the ICSU family remain deeply concerned about the possible consequences for the principle of full and open access of data for research and education in future. ICSU has proposed that there be a serious, independent, inter-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder review of the general principles and practices related to the availability of data and information regarding genetics in the future. We believe there could be significant advantages gained by all if a new consensus could be reached by all the parties concerned: including the scientific community, public and private institutions, industry, the scientific press and the public. ICSU stands ready to facilitate such a dialogue.

The whole ICSU family look forward to your Conference making useful and visible progress in promoting the development of electronic publishing opportunities to support science even more in future. We invite you to use this UNESCO-ICSU Conference to create new, or to strengthen existing, partnerships between the scientific community, publishers, policy makers and society. We believe that the issues you will discuss this week should be directed at helping us to ensure that we are able to use the rapid technological progress in electronic publishing to close the so-called digital divide and not to widen it!

I wish you well in your deliberations and thank you in advance for your guidance and assistance that will help both ICSU and UNESCO and their diverse membership to deal with these challenges better in future.

Effective dissemination of information for science
Keynote address by
Jürgen Rosenbaum (representing Philippe BUSQUIN the EU Commissioner for Research)

One important aspect of the problem of circulating scientific information in Europe is the question of what media to use. In this field, marked by hefty financial stakes and also hit by recent restructuring and the rapid development of electronic publishing and information media, the key to success is operating on a large enough scale. Europeans have so far not taken their rightful place in the world of scientific information and communication. This is true both of communication within the scientific community itself and where information for citizens is concerned.

Allow me to say a few words about the first of these two aspects and then go into the second in rather more detail.

Discussing the effective dissemination of information for science inevitably brings us to the problem of electronic publishing, which is far more than simply the electronic version of a publication; it is an entirely new medium and, in a sense, a new publication. Major initiatives have been taken recently with varying degrees of success, including, for example:

PubMedCentral, the initiative of the NIH,
E-biosci, the European initiative conducted by EMBO,
Gallica 2000, providing access to 80,000 multimedia documents in the French National Library.
These developments are giving rise to a number of new issues, such as:
quality control,
ethical issues and the protection of intellectual property,
the development of the new technologies themselves.
Current changes are irreversible and three things are already realities:
the emergence of a new medium,
the questioning of the dominant economic model,
an impact on research proper, including the departitioning of scientific disciplines.

I am sure you are more aware of this than I am and will be discussing it during the conference, which I shall follow with great interest.

Allow me to turn now to the more general aspect I have just mentioned, namely the effective dissemination of scientific information and, more general still, the role of science in our societies.

As I am addressing you in place of the Commissioner and not on his behalf, what I want to say to you reflects my own ideas and assessments, not those of Mr Busquin. I can, however, confirm that Mr Busquin would also have decided to talk about these general aspects if he had been able to attend the conference himself. Considerable debate has just been launched on this subject at European Union level.

In Europe today, science and society have a paradoxical relationship. On the one hand, science and technology are central to the economy and the functioning of society and exert an ever more positive influence on the life of societies in Europe. We have ever greater expectations of them and there are few problems confronting European society to which science and technology are not, in one way or another, asked to provide solutions.

On the other hand, the progress of knowledge and technologies is encountering increasing scepticism, sometimes actual hostility. The adventure of science no longer draws the unreserved enthusiasm it did a few decades ago. More and more attention is focusing on the social and ethical consequences of scientific and technological progress and the conditions in which fundamental choices are or are not made in this field. The importance thus acquired by what are now called "science/society" issues is the result of several convergent developments.

First of all, development in the sciences and technology in the form of increased human capacity to intervene at the very heart of the mechanisms of matter and life, and on a planet-wide scale. But also the ever more systematic appearance of scientific and technological breakthroughs on the frontiers of fields and disciplines.

Then, development in the relationship between science, technology and society, which is undergoing a threefold change:

social changes influence research agendas by stimulating new needs;
very substantial economic, financial and commercial interests are ever more closely associated with scientific progress;
this progress is accelerating, challenging society to keep pace, and more and more often questioning the basic values and principles of society.

Lastly, development in more general social and political terms with the generally increasing ability of better informed and educated citizens to exercise their critical faculties with respect to developments perceived as endured rather than desired, together with erosion of confidence in political authority.

These developments and the resultant tensions are a warning to scientists, politicians, economic and industrial decision-makers and citizens that they must establish new forms of relationship. New relations are needed that are adapted to the new configurations of the relationship between science, technology and society. This is essential because of the decisive impact science and research are having on competitiveness, growth and employment, and on the quality of life in Europe.

The research system long operated on the hypothesis that science spontaneously produced knowledge that could be used by society, and that such knowledge could be transformed into useful applications without the interference of the beneficiaries. Today, scientific knowledge and technological know-how are no longer the exclusive result of the activity of specialist institutions. They are produced in a vast spectrum of organizations and structures, as well as networks bringing together research bodies and the public and private users of the products of scientific work.

The involvement of patients’ associations, users’ groups and consumer protection organizations in defining and following up research activities and programmes is bringing research closer to society and ensuring that its results are relevant to needs. While ensuring that enough of what is called pure, disinterested research, without which the sciences lose their fine edge, is maintained, the involvement of representatives of civil society in the various stages of research, especially in setting the priorities of publicly funded research, must therefore be encouraged and strengthened. Social dialogue is necessarily a two-way process in which everyone shares equally in listening and doing the talking.

So we can but welcome the appeal made by an increasing number of scientists for a genuine sharing of knowledge, which is a prerequisite for better distribution of power. We will see, however, that this distribution cannot be an end in itself. The real aim must be to put science "where it belongs". It seems reasonable to postulate the existence of a causal link between lack of control over technological progress and the gulf that has opened up, and has widened over the past century, between the world of research and the rest of society, between technological and scientific disciplines and other areas of knowledge. So that is the level at which we must act in order to establish the conditions for effective control of technological developments. Making "technoscience" again part of general culture should make it possible:

on the one hand, to facilitate citizens’ access to scientific knowledge; and
on the other, by opening up "technoscience" to dialogue and criticism, to establish the conditions for an ethical approach and increased democratic control.

The thesis is therefore that promoting scientific information and public communication about research projects should make it possible to improve social control of the "technosciences".

On the face of it, the idea looks good. It seems obvious that citizens who are well-informed about scientific and technological matters will be able to make the right choices about research applications. From this point of view, stimulating the popularization of science and creating opportunities for communication about high-technology subjects – through, for example, magazines, lectures, museums and television programmes – can only be welcomed. But, in such a context, one cannot overlook the problems there are within the source: the science community. Popularization is simple in theory, but not always easy in view of the realities of the situation. It is not always easy to marry scientists’ willingness to communicate with non-specialists to the imperatives of such communication.

Let us take a practical example. At the beginning of the winter of 2000 the atmospheric conditions above the Arctic suggested there would be significant depletion of the ozone layer by early spring – probably of about 50% over the period. We know that very low temperatures speed up the chemical reactions that ultimately degrade ozone molecules in the stratosphere. In a draft press release that my colleagues had written, we suggested the heading: "Will a hole develop in the ozone layer over the Arctic?" Agitation in the laboratories concerned and discussion of the concept of "a hole in the ozone layer". From what degree of depletion could one begin to speak of a "hole"? This notion, the scientists explain, is at present only valid for the Antarctic, where the depletion of the ozone layer is far more advanced. But while one must recognize the relevance of the scientists’ arguments, one nonetheless asks oneself some questions. Is it not the responsibility of scientists to draw attention to a problem that is becoming greater and directly threatens public health? One is then tempted to see the scientists’ prudence as an abdication of responsibility and a desire not to become involved in problems which are, nonetheless, very real. As though they were afraid that, if they were too explicit, they would seem to be responsible. The reality is still more prosaic: such prudence probably derives form the attitude of scientists who are essentially concerned not to expose themselves to the criticism of their peers by, for example, crossing the boundaries of their field and trespassing on non-scientific territory. In fact, most real-life problems, because of their complexity, cut across all individual scientific disciplines. When communicating with the general public scientists are also – perhaps even mainly – communicating with their colleagues, making sure, even in this context, that they speak as scientists. This is understandable when one realizes that scientists are constantly assessing themselves and that therefore their main capital is their standing with their colleagues.

So all researchers who communicate come to ask themselves the same questions. Should priority be given to scientific rigour? Should the public be made aware of as yet unresolved problems at the risk of going outside the strict framework of science, of one’s science? In other words, should scientific controversies be exposed? I nevertheless believe that it is always possible to communicate with the general public by being exact from the scientific point of view, without necessarily being rigorous.

It remains true that, while information and scientific communication are underdeveloped in science, their contribution to the problem that concerns us must not be overestimated. We now know that that is no panacea either. Convinced that scientific knowledge can and must be further developed, we must oppose those who say that our fellow citizens’ lack of scientific education explains both the public’s resistance to some new technologies and the development of parasciences and the irrational in our societies.

The traditional conception of popularization sees it as the organization of a flow of information from the "knowledgeable" world to a more "ignorant" community, through a process of adequate "translation". But we now know that things are not so simple. We have realized that the popularization and public communication of science are characterized by an uncertain status, an ambivalent function and sometimes ambiguous messages. These activities help to "translate", in the literal sense of the term, specialized discourse into a language accessible to the uninitiated. But is this really achieved? It is doubtful since scientific language has become so conceptually complex as to defy any attempt at translation. We know, too, that popularization and communication also serve the purpose of "marketing" scientific knowledge, the aim being less to transfer knowledge than to present a good image and gain public approval. Finally, those scientists who take part in such activities are suspected, not of helping to reduce the distance – in terms of knowledge – between them and the public, but, on the contrary, of increasing it by clearly marking the dividing-line that separates those regarded as knowledgeable from those described as ignorant.

In this respect, the conclusions of the national symposium on research and technology held here in Paris from 13 to 16 January 1982 have now been completely overtaken:

"Only through a huge effort to disseminate knowledge […] will we be able to drive back certain prejudices against science and technology, sideline anti-science movements and give citizens a greater grasp of scientific and technological issues."

Those good intentions and salutary initiatives should not, however, give the impression that the question is settled since, despite the evident goodwill, action taken could easily misfire. Indeed, as they are generally formulated, measures to stimulate activities to educate the public about science are liable to have undesirable effects. There is first the risk of seeing research activity shifted towards subjects that come across particularly well in the media and, by favouring the communication aspects, fall into a sort of great publicity bluff. But there is also the fact that, more fundamentally, the measures put forward above all concern information, whereas they should have more to do with communication. The prevailing idea is that the general level of scientific knowledge will be raised if scientists spend more time writing popularizing articles, giving lectures, etc., but can the problem of general scientific knowledge be reduced to a simple quantitative aspect, a lack of information and space in the media? It seems more important to me to explain to the public how technoscience today is experienced, practised and shared so as to enable it to be more broadly thought about, discussed and – why not? – criticized. Because those without specialized knowledge have only a vague idea about what science is and what it can do and, more important still, what it is not and what it cannot do. This lack of knowledge, which is exploited by some scientists to justify their research funds, also leads the public to overestimate, or at least be mistaken about, the capabilities of "technoscience" and to expect prowess or even miracles that will never be achieved. In their own interest and in that of science, scientists should therefore seek to develop not so much information proper as the conditions for genuine public communication. Can a science deprived of discussion about itself be aware of its role in society? The issue is simply to contribute to the emergence of what René Lenoir called "a science for the people of our time": a more rounded, more socially aware science. In doing this, the aim should be to put science "where it belongs".

Knowledge is probably one of the major issues of the new century. At a time when modern technologies, particularly in information and communication, are networking an increasing number of machines, instruments, and so on, the spheres going to make up tomorrow’s world are increasingly compartmentalized. On the one hand, we see increasingly interconnected technologies, on the other, ever more fragmented sciences. Knowledge should make it possible to lend consistency and meaning to all these developments. It should also enable society as a whole collectively to take on board the uncertainty and risk inherent in any technological option.

In such conditions, the contribution of the sciences, however indispensable, can also be only modest. Let us remember what Karl Popper wrote in 1963:

"What are the sources of our knowledge? It seems to me that the answer is this: there are many kinds of sources, but none of them is authoritative".

This is a message that scientists should, in their own interests, remember more often and more clearly so as not to raise unrealistic expectations and hopes and not to appear, above all in cases where there are no explanations or information, to be responsible for, if not guilty of, anything that may currently be going wrong.

Opening Address - Developments since the 1996 Conference and the aims of this meeting
Sir Roger Elliott, Chairman ICSU Press

The 1996 Conference of Experts on "Electronic Publishing in Science" was convened by ICSU and UNESCO to discuss the broad range of problems and opportunities presented by the new technologies for the dissemination of scientific information, and to advise the scientific community in general about the range of options available for the future. This partnership is highly appropriate since ICSU has direct links to learned societies and national academies and through them to the scientific community world-wide while UNESCO can communicate directly with national Governments and their agencies who determine scientific policies. The participants were drawn not only from the scientific community but included others directly involved in the provision of scientific information such as publishers and librarians. The Conference also involved participants from a broad geographical constituency including many from developing countries who brought direct experience of the impact of these new technologies on their scientific communities.

That Conference was widely regarded as a success in part because of the wide range of stockholders it brought together in constructive discussion. It made a number of recommendations which have been followed up in the intervening period by meetings and workshops sponsored by ICSU Press and other members of the ICSU family, CODATA and ICSTI, by UNESCO, and by the representative bodies of the librarians IFLA and the publishers STM. And, of course, much has happened in the community as the technologies have developed and new methods of working have taken a firmer hold. It therefore seemed to the principal parties supported by these sister organisations and the STM Publishers, that, after five years (almost to the day) it was appropriate to review the current situation and reconsider how best to try and focus the scientific community on these issues.

The free flow of research information is fundamental to science which is an international cooperative enterprise which continually accretes new knowledge to the historic corpus. As Newton himself acknowledged "if I have seen further than other men it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". There is a fundamental need to communicate efficiently the results of scientific work within the loop from the scientific author to the scientific user. Increasingly also, it is important to inform the general public and the political decision makers of the achievements and the needs of science.

An effective method of scientific communication also needs to be able to establish the priority in the discovery because it is on this that the reputation and career of individual scientists depend. The fact that the free flow of authenticated research information was fundamental to the scientific enterprise was recognised long ago by the learned societies. The Royal Society of London was careful to have built into its original charter the power to disseminate scientific information without censorship from the King. In order to achieve this and to establish priorities it began the oldest scientific journal which is still in existence after 350 years.

For a long period now we have had an established paradigm for scientific publication through learned journals which is thoroughly understood by all concerned. Its halcyon days stretch from the 1950's to the 1980's when research was well funded by the expectations of the time and libraries were separately endowed. The original learned society publishers had been somewhat overtaken by commercial houses which were able to offer a service to science which was in some ways more effective and flexible. The average scientist was not particularly concerned about the facilitators involved, as long as the job was done efficiently (and paid for) by someone else. The system has worked well for many years, science has prospered, and so have the publishers from both sectors. But the structure has weaknesses which have become increasingly apparent as the financial pressures have mounted. There has been a vast increase in the amount of publication, driven in part by the "publish or perish" syndrome since an academic Scientist's career depends largely on his output of publications. In addition there has been extensive twigging of scientific disciplines and small specialised communities have found it convenient to have their own specialised journals. This has led to a dramatic increase in costs although the author/user has been somewhat shielded by an illogical funding structure which derived the library support from other budgets and which has left the libraries dangerously exposed.

The reduced circulation and hence higher costs of individual titles has led to a spiral which has reduced the availability of much scientific material and has fallen particularly heavily on scientists working in poorer countries. Attention has become focused, particularly in the library community, on the profits made by publishers although this is only one component of the problem in the total costs structure. Nevertheless I believe its visibility has been driving change faster than might otherwise have occurred. On this issue the learned societies are in a particular dilemma since it is not clear whether their members would prefer cheaper publications at the expense of support for other society activities.

There is therefore no doubt that the scientific information chain has been in crisis for several years now. It is clear that the system must be modified and that electronic publishing provides a potential answer. But the community needs to ensure as far as possible that the new paradigm will meet the requirements of all scientists worldwide. Much has happened in the last five years and we shall see examples of these developments in the talks during this Conference. By now, almost every major journal appears in electronic as well as print on paper format and there are several experiments progressing with electronic journals. I think that all scientists now believe that the electronic format will gradually take over the bulk of journal publishing. It has so many advantages, speed, enhanced search and indexing, cross referencing, and downloading to name but a few. And there is a growing expectation amongst the younger generation of scientists who have grown up with IT as part of their normal life.

Electronic publishing has its own problems. It needs quality assurance through the equivalent of peer review; authentication, to make clear which is the definitive uncorrupted version; availability so that there is easy access for browsing; and finally archiving so that it is not lost to posterity. All of these things have to be done properly and well if the full value of electronic publishing is to be realised. While it is often argued that a simpler electronic product could be made available much more cheaply than the print version, there seems to be no doubt that the scientific community will want all the added value which the medium allows. This includes the inclusion of much extra material, such as the original data, moving pictures and sound. So it seems likely that the costs of a good electronic product will not differ greatly of those of print on paper although they will be differently spread. And it seems unlikely that the print on paper product will disappear in the short term because it too has many advantages; as a tangible fixed archivable object which is easily browsable and is in a form which has an aesthetic appeal.

Not only are the true costs of electronic publishing the subject of debate but it also raises the question of who should pay and how. There is as yet no established proven economic model although various methods of payment have been suggested and tried. These include submission or page charges where the cost falls on the author for essentially free distribution. The full costs here are likely to be a deterrent in the current financial climate unless this model is subsidised from central research funds as in the proposed PubMed Central, E-BioSci, or by sponsors. Site licences which are similar to current library use are presently favoured by a large range of publishers because they can be more easily provided in conjunction with the printed version which many still require. And there are various enhanced electronic forms of document delivery which allows the user to subscribe to individual articles rather than to the full publication. This issue of costs and economic models was discussed at the last Conference, by a subsequent workshop organised by ICSU Press, and will be a central issue at this meeting.

The issue of responsibility for archiving electronic material and its costs have also been addressed by ICSTI in the intervening period and will again be a topic for discussion here. There is now a much wider realisation of the necessity of confronting this problem and in the interim responsible publishers are making sure that such material is properly maintained in the short term. But in the longer term it may be necessary to turn to central funding agencies in an extension of the service traditionally provided by national libraries for the print on paper medium.

In addition to the developing new technologies the main changes in the scientific information chain are driven by market forces, in which I include the social pressures on scientists behaviour and the potential redistribution of funding arising from the economic issues already referred to. Such Normative issues have again been addressed by a workshop in the intervening period. One of the main topics discussed has been the way in which the community responds to the possibility of repeated publications of multiple versions. The individual scientist is torn between two requirements. First their desire to make their work immediately available to fellow workers and so establish their priority, a function which in many areas has traditionally been done through the preprint. This can now be more visibly achieved through an individuals web site, those of his institution, or those of his community (such as the Los Alamos Archive for Physics). But for future assessment of the value of the work and its proper authentication almost everyone is agreed that peer review is necessary to establish a definitive version. Such a version needs to be clearly identified and appropriate cross referenced. Again in the intervening period a group, partly supported by the STM Publishers and AAAS, examined and reported on the issue of "Defining a Publication". It identified "First Publication", and "Definitive Publication" as key milestones but its recommendations have provoked some controversy. These issues, together with the progress made in establishing a framework for identification and cross reference will be further discussed in detail here.

Turning to market forces it is important to remember that the author always holds the original rights and as a user is the ultimate market. As such they are being forced to become more pro-active as the financial issues come more to the fore. Funding agencies are beginning to realise that they must pay for the efficient dissemination of research results as part of the research project but in exchange they wish to exert more control. Employers in universities are joining those in the private sector by trying to exert a proprietary right over research material. So it seems clear that the scientist/author/user must become much more involved in determining publishing patterns and their financing.

It is very important in this situation to understand the legal framework in which information dissemination takes place. Copyright has maintained a balance between the interests of author, facilitator, and user, for the printed medium in a well-established and accepted pattern. But this has needed modification to cover the possibilities offered by the electronic medium and almost all jurisdictions have introduced new legislation to address this problem. In much of this the rights holders, driven by perceived threats from the ease of freeloading on electronic material (as for example in the recent Napster case) have pressed for much tighter controls. These, inter alia, have sought to restrict the "Fair Use" provisions which are widely established and on which the scientific community has largely relied for copying and re-using research material. A particular example of this is the recent European Union Database Legislation which was drafted without scientific data in mind but tailored to the needs of other media or more transitory databases such as those involving financial information. In these the costs of compilation are relatively more important while that of the content is less so. In science it is the content which is the essential component. The new law gives separate protection to the content and to the compilation. But scientists on the whole do not want copyright in their content because the normal pattern for scientific research is based on the fact that the laws of nature are universal and experimental data and theoretical ideas are not a matter for private ownership. So the new laws will restrict access to data which is traditionally free. And to make matters worse it encourages authors, and more significantly their funding agencies, to exert rights in the data which will certainly impede its availability to the scientific community and hence to scientific progress.

It is important to remember that while the lists of information and hence the investment made by publishers in the scientific information chain is significant and needs an appropriate reward, it must be kept in context. Real figures are difficult to agree but here are some broad estimates:-

For the printed journal a publisher spends say $2500 to create an article including the overheads of editorial salaries and other costs. But the library infrastructure for the other part of the facilitator chain costs probably twice that sum. The employer, who pays the scientists salary and provides buildings and facilities is investing probably as much as ten times that amount in the material for the article. And then finally the cost of the research itself which, if it involves large machines like CERN or the Hubble Telescope, can be a thousand times greater. I trust everyone will agree that it would be entirely unacceptable for such a small though central player to hold the enterprise to ransom.

My main fear is that through the tightening of the legislation, scientists and their employers will become much more restrictive in making material available to publishers and database producers. The number of permissions then required to create useful compilations would be prohibitive and the whole enterprise would suffer. It is important that we all press for national legislation that achieves an acceptable balance. The key things the scientific community needs are

(i) access to data and information on reasonable terms(ii) unrestricted use of that data and information for education and research purposes, and,(iii) freedom from contractual and technical interference with that use.

The European Database Legislation certainly does not provide this balance, and we have yet to see the details of the new EU Copyright Directive which was passed by the Parliament last week. While there have been several attempts to clarify legislation in the USA to date no database laws have been enacted. One of the important missions of ICSU and CODATA over the last few years has been to lobby at WIPO and individual governments via national representatives to try and achieve a fairer balance in the legislative arrangements.

One of the central issues which this group can consider, because of its composition, is the way in which the new paradigms of electronic publishing are being used to assist research in less scientifically developed countries. The system certainly has the potential to provide readier access to the world scientific literature in all countries, provided the communications infrastructure is in place. The remote holdings so available will surely far exceed anything that could be found in local libraries. The main issue will be one of cost and while there are a number of individual initiatives, some sponsored by INASP an associated partner of ICSU Press, this has not been resolved in most parts of the world. The other side of the coin is the potentially improved visibility of scientific research material created in these countries. Local journals tend to have a limited distribution and hence low impact factors, driving their authors to strive to publish in one of the northern journals. But if this material were electronically available and readily indexed through some central service such as Crossref and/or PubMed Central it would make the scientific world more readily aware of the progress being made by their colleagues elsewhere. Again, through INASP, we have been trying to assist this process by the creation of African Journals On Lines which provides electronic access to a number of African journals. We will also hear about the responses on the Latin American scientific community to these issues. Through INASP several workshops to enhance local publishing skills, including one to help share experience, South to South, have been promoted since the last Conference.

As scientists we are increasingly aware of the importance of keeping the public and the political decision makers well informed about scientific issues. We are all only too well aware of the bad publicity which is unfairly received over issues where the public has been inadequately informed and often is led by special interests groups. With this in mind ICSU and UNESCO organised the World Science Conference in Budapest in 1999. Scientific information was one of the topics discussed there. The electronic medium provides a new method of reaching out to the public and trying to inform them of the scientific issues and their ethical and legal implications. This is a very important matter for science, and I hope you will give it appropriate attention both through the invited papers and possibly at the Break-out Sessions.

So while none of the issues raised five years ago has been finally resolved electronic publishing in science has made enormous progress. The input of the scientific community is becoming more informed and effective and our primary task here is to understand the changes that are taking place and try to guide them in a way which seizes the opportunities of electronic publishing for the benefit of the scientific enterprise. The main issues will be addressed in a number of invited papers which will be seen from the point of view of the scientist, the publisher both commercial and learned society, and librarians and other facilitators.

The plan is that each talk will be followed by a brief period for questions directly relevant to the matter presented. The main discussion will take place in the break-out sessions which will also include some short informal presentations. I urge you all to take an active part in these discussions. Their Chairs and Rapporteurs have the very difficult task of summarising the key points and trying to reach a consensus on the key issues. In particular we have asked them to come forward with specific recommendations when this seems appropriate which can be aimed broadly at the community or more narrowly at specific parts of the information chain. These reports will be presented, debated and I hope accepted in the final session on Friday morning. We will also then confront the question of whether or not electronic publishing is being used in the best interests of science and how it might be improved.

I hope you will all play an active part in the discussions and that we will have an interesting week.

Is electronic publishing being used in the best interests of science? The scientist's view Steve Berry