N 162

As a result of its listing with the Library of Congress National Referral Center for Science and Technology, requests for in- formation on the history of biochemistry and molecular biology are routed to the ‘Survey’ where the staff, with the assis- tance of its advisory committee of histor- ians and scientists, reply to any inquiries on the activities of the ‘Survey’ or its his- torical resources.

Visitors at the ‘Survey’ qffices are welcome and may make appointments in advance by lc,ri/ing to David Bearmen, Secretary 10 ihe Committee, American Phi- losophical Society Library. 105 South Fifih Street, Philadelphia 19104 U.S.A.

References

Keilin, D. (1966) History qf Cell Respiration and Cytochrome, Cambridge University Press Needham, D. (1971) Machina Carni.s: The Bio- chemistry of Muscular Contraction in its Historical Development, Cambridge University Press Watson, J.D. (1968) The Double Helix, Ath- eneum, New York Fruton, J.S. (1972) Moleculesand Lifr: Historical Essays on the Interplay of ChemDtry and Biology, Wiley Interscience, New York

5 Florkin, M. (1972) A History of Bioc~lzemistry. Elsevier, Amsterdam

6 Leicester, H. (1974) The Developmen/ of Biochc,- mic,al Concepts fi-om Ancient to Modern Times. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Olby. R. (1974) The Path to the Double Helix, University of Washington Press

I Edsall, J.T., ed. (1970) Proceedingofa Cotzference on the History of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; May 21-23, 1970, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Boston

8 Edsall, J.T., ed. (1975) Proceedings of the Confer- ence on the Historical Development of Bioenerge- tics, October I l-13, 1973, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Boston

9 Fruton, J. S. (1974) Selected Bibliography of Bio- logical Data,for the History of’ Biochemistry since 1800, Publ. 6, American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia

IO Kohler, R. E. (1975) .I. Hist. Biol. Winter I1 The membership of the advisory committee in-

cludes members of the American Academy Com- mittee, other historians and archivists. They are: John T. Edsall, Chairman; Whitfield J. Bell, Jr; CarlF.Cori;JosephS. Fruton; Gerald L. Geison; A. Baird Hastings; and Robert E. Kohler

Updating scientific publication Amiran D. Landman and C. L. B. Lavelle

Amidst an ever-expanding spiral of pub- lished scientific information the time for reassessment of publication procedures seems long overdue. Publication proce- dures in science are intrinsically conserva- tive, in that recent papers and journals appear in a form which has been estab- lished for many decades. This contrasts sharply with the enormous changes which are rapidly engulfing every aspect of science and to the channels of communica- tions available due to present-day techno- logy. These channels enable instantaneous transmission of verbal or printed data accurately and conveniently by highly sophisticated communication networks. Is it not time to consider integrating this communication technology with scientific publication?

The limitations of present-day publica- tion policies are all too apparent. The lag period before publication varies from a few months to about a year. During this time, research groups working in the same field may strive on a similar project to achieve the same results and the effects of unnecessary duplication of research need not be emphasized. Paradoxically, journals with a high scientific reputation, which are supposed to publish data of greater significance, require longer lag per-

iods, although logically this data should be the fastest published.

The proliferation in the number of jour- nals presents another serious inadequacy of the publication policies. It has become increasingly difficult for a person to remain current in articles appearing in his own field, not to mention articles on topics which border on his general interests. It is also apparent that many issues of a jour- nal related to one’s research often fail to contain articles which deserve detailed reading.

Questions may also be raised regarding the refereeing system. Refereeing if often crucial for the presentation of data in an organized and comprehensible form. The contribution of the referees to the sub- stance of a manuscript is debatable, as (and let us be blunt about it) it is not fea- sible for referees to validate data. Also, the significance and possible impact of a scientific report can only be examined by subsequent research based on the informa- tion submitted. Is the endorsement given to a manuscript by a referee or editor abso- lutely essential or is it one of science’s per- petuated conventions?

It has to be admitted that the present- day publication system functions smoothly by its own momentum. The

TIBS - July 1976

question is raised, however, as to whether with today’s technology better alternatives can be achieved. Indexing and literature retrieval services along with the increase in number of rapid publication journals certainly answer some of today’s chal- lenges. Radical changes in the publication system would have a profound impact on many aspects of academic life. With recent trends in this system, however, we may inevitably reach a time in the near future when radical changes must be considered. Ideas which raise eyebrows today may determine the norms of reality of tomorrow.

One idea, which is as good as any, is that the major scientific societies, such as The Royal Society and The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, might issue weekly journals in the major tields of the biochemical sciences, each journal comprising abstracts with a limited number of ‘highlight’ figures. The abstracts would be backed up by detailed manuscripts microfilmed and stored in special deposits sponsored by these socie- ties. An investigator, finding an abstract of interest, would be able to get the fully documented data from these deposits transcribed and teletyped within a short period. Such a centralized system would expedite the dissemination of data, facili- tate more efficient literature indexing and retrieval and economize on library expenses.

When the idea was raised among collea- gues it was argued that this proposal would spoil at least one universal habit of scien- tists, that is to occasionally stop by the library and browse in current journals. This may not be necessarily so, however, since with the elimination of journals in a form which we are used to, there will be an increase in the number of those which would publish reviews and articles of an inter-disciplinary nature, through which ideas would be fertilized by exchange and discussion rather than by experimentation. A tendency towards these types of publications has been expressed by the new editor of Science who made clear his intention to stop the publi- cation of pure research papers (particu- larly in biology) and will instead publish mainly articles which will appeal to a broader spectrum of readers [l].

Reference

1 McElroy, W.D. (1976) ‘Science to be Reorganized’, New York Times, 2 Jan. (cited in Cwrent Contents (1976) 19(5)9).

Amiram D. Landman and C. L. B. Luvelle are members of the Department of Oral Biology in the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.