Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 23:18:54 (CST)
From: CuD Moderators <tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu)
Subject: File 4--A Case for Electronic Publishing

Kurt Guntheroth makes several legitimate points in criticizing the
problems of electronic publishing. Yes, there is much chaff amidst the
wheat. Yes, everybody who writes (obviously) thinks that they have
something worth reading. Yes, there is much value in the gate-keeping
processes of the publishing business.  Yes, the advent of electronic
publishing could flood cyberspace with near-infinite bytes of
nonsense. But, while agreeing on those points, let's take a second
look at the implications of Phil Shapiro's post in CuD 5.15 to which
Kurt responds ("Something's not quite right," File 4).

The original poster made two main points: Conventional publishing,
whether books or peer-reviewed journal articles, is an arduous task,
far more difficult than non-writers recognize.  Publishers may reject
books because of quality or because the manuscript, while worthy, does
not fall within a topical theme that many publishers, especially
academic ones, put together as a specialty for marketing purposes.
Although writers with a demonstrable track record of successful
publishing often need only provide a short prospectus and perhaps a
first chapter to entice a publisher to offer a contract, most writers
must provide more.  It is expensive and time consuming to identify and
contact appropriate publishers, which dissuades many from publishing.
Rejections are generally discouraging, and only with experience (and
some previous publishing success) does an author realize that
rejection is built into the publishing game.  Writing and publishing
are both psychologically and physically hard work.

Second, the original poster correctly identified the potential of
electronic media as a possible alternative that would supplement,
*not* replace, conventional publishing.  I agree with the spirit of
Kurt's criticisms--the potential for expanded access to ideas and
information carries with it the risk of inundation with banal
self-indulgence.  However, the value of the former considerably
outweighs the risks of the latter.

Let's compare a few features of print with electronic media.

1. Book publishing is market driven. This is not necessarily bad, but
it does mean that if an insufficient audience exists to purchase the
book, it will likely not be published.

2. Book publication is slow. The core ideas of most scholarly works
are at least two years old when a book hits the streets.  For example,
a book written in 1986-87 that is submitted to the publisher in 1988
would undergo editing, minor revisions, and galley proofing, and hit
the streets in 1989.

3. Books are generally limited by a production format that conforms to
preferred length and style. This can impose arbitrary restrictions of
ideas presented in chapters, shape the organization of the ideas and
discourse, and artificially truncate the development of crucial ideas.

None of these disadvantages are prohibitive. Authors and publishers
have worked around them for centuries. But, electronic publishing
offers something more. What does it offer?

1. Electronic publishing is fairly immediate. One can "publish" as
soon as the text has been typed in (and hopefully edited and
spell-checked). For scholarly works, this dramatically updates data,
disseminates ideas and scholarship, and keeps others abreast of
research and bibliographies in a timely fashion.

2. Electronic publishing is, for the end user, nearly free.
Newsletters such as Telecom Digest, EFFector, People's Tribune,
Cu-Digest, or the E-Journal need not recoup postage, publication
costs, or salaries for the masochistic folk who put them out.

3. Electronic publishing is able to effectively and economically
target and reach a fairly specialized audience and fill a vacuum
untouched by print media. There is no hard-copy counterpart to CuD,
PHRACK, the cDc publications, Activist Times Inc., and some of the
other successful journal/newsletters.

4. Electronic publishing is effective. Readers can judge for
themselves the value of CuD, but it's undeniable that the pioneering
efforts of PHRACK, LOD/TJ, P/hun, PIRATE, and similar publications
were critical to shaping one slice of the computer culture of the
1980s. Comparable hardcopy publications would unlikely have been as
effective or as widely distributed.

That said, some critics identify potential problems. The drawbacks of
electronic publishing derive in part from its strengths.  The ease of
publication reduces quality control; Some doubt that the review
process for scholarly journals would be as rigorous (although there is
certainly no reason inherent in the medium for this to be so);
Gresham's law might apply--schlock will drive out the quality works;
nobody will read it.

I have more faith in cybernauts than the critics. A few examples might
illustrate my point.

1. Most end-users possess a delete function (or, at worst,
ctl/alt/del). One isn't forced to read a 500K tome if it is dull, and
poor works will remain confined to a space in a directory corner and
eventually be copied over with something more pleasing.

2. Current forms of electronic communication provide hints for the
fate of works in which there is no interest. Electronic newsletters
come and go, Usenet and other discussion groups emerge and if they are
popular, they thrive. If they are unpopular, they languish and stay
dormant. Telecom Digest has been in existance for over a decade, and
PHRACK for almost as long. Even CuD is entering its fourth year. They
have not been driven out by the explosion of other publications, and
their readership steadily increases. If electronic publications
attempt to remain sensitive to the audience and attempt--as Pat
Townson has done with Telecom Digest--to keep on the cutting edge of
timely issues, they will continue to provide a valuable supplement to
print media.

3. Electronic publications are often ad hoc and unsupervised.  For
media intending to establish credibility as scholarly outlets, this
can be a problem. Electronic publications are rarely peer reviewed,
publications generally do not count toward the tenure sheet, and
without some quality control, the "findings" of studies may lack
legitimacy. The way around this simple: Professional associations can
more aggressively sponsor electronic media in the same way that many
sponsor their journals. If, for example, the Midwest Sociology Society
began an electronic journal, it could have the same quality controls,
the same editorial guidance, and the same procedure it uses for its
hardcopy quartly (The Sociological Quarterly).  The same could apply
to monographs, whether fiction or non-fiction.

4.1 If everybody who thought they could write a book actually wrote
one, the nets would be inundated. This possibility, though, is
unlikely. Not everybody who thinks they can write a book is actually
capable of doing so, and many a work lies uncompleted because the
author lost steam, ideas, or motivation to continue. Books are also
difficult to read on-line, and printing them off can be more of a
bother than it's worth. Even hypertext (or the equivalents) requires
considerable perseverance by the reader to wade through a long tome.
It is unlikely that books will flood the nets.

5) How do we respond to "trash?" Even recent participants in Usenet
newsgroups are aware of the high signal-to-noise ratio in most groups.
Delete keys and kill files work quite well.  Or, in the worst cases,
one simply unsubscribes, and Voila! No more trash.

A few examples from my own experience illustrate some of the potential
of electronic publishing. In teaching criminal justice courses, I'm
often unable to find appropriate texts. It's possible to pull together
papers from journals and use Kinko's to reproduce them. This, however,
can be expensive and the problems of copyright must be overcome.
Colleagues with works-in-progress, unpublished papers, or book
chapters in draft form share the electronic versions which I print out
for a fraction of conventional publishing (or even Kinko) costs, and
they become the classroom resource.  Texts are thereby tailored to a
specific course with a specific instructor's style, students save
money, and life is good.  In a second example, I finished a draft
chapter for a book. The draft was several hundred pages long, and it
had to be reduced to about 35 pages. The full text, although
book-length, was a bit too narrow for a conventional book market.
Through the marvels of electronic publishing, I was able to tailor it
to a course I periodically teach, revise it each time the course is
taught, and use it in place of a text. It's quick, cheap, makes
lecturing much easier, the students are happy, the instructor is
happy, and life is good. Could this manuscript be revised into a
conventional book? Sure. But time constraints and changing interests
make it unlikely that I ever will. I'm quite content to limit it to
friends' and classroom use. Here, Kurt is again correct--this is a
work that isn't appropriate in its present form for a book. But, Phil,
too, is correct--conventional publishers have left a gap, and the
value of electronic publishing is the ability to fill it.

The publishing industry is lagging behind to the extent that it is not
developing innovative ways of plugging into the electronic age to take
advantage of the accessibility and economy of a potential market.
Especially in times of economic crunch, many of us are cutting back on
books and journals and relying more on less conventional media for
professional development. As the price of books increases, many of us
are simply priced out of the market. We are not priced out of the net.

It bears repeating that I am not arguing for a replacement for
conventional publications, but for a supplement to them.  As one who
publishes extensively in conventional outlets, I fully recognize
their value.  The way to publish electronically is to...is to..well,
is to publish electronically. The outlets are growing, as illustrated
by those on Arachnet, a Bitnet discussion group devoted to addressing
these issues. The E-Journal provides a model for how an electronic
medium can establish an editorial board and a peer review process.
Telecom Digest and Risks Digest are nifty examples of accurate and
up-to-date information being spread, debated, and refined. Cu-Digest
is an example of how USA Today might look if it went electronic with
an open forum (according to one observer, although I'm not sure if
that's an insult or a compliment).

In short, I agree with Kurt, but I also agree with Phil Shapiro.
Electronic publishing possesses risks, but it also possesses a
potential whose value has barely been recognized. Those who have read
to this line are on the cutting edge of it all, and the way to develop
it is to submit articles, subscribe to newsgroups, and continue to
participate in carving out a niche on the frontier.

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253