Paper vs. electrons. Epidemiologic publishing in a changing world.
PURPOSE: To present the parallel histories of epidemiologic and electronic publishing and consider positive and negative factors that might affect their amalgam.METHODS: We performed a quantitative assessment of the arc of epidemiologic publication from 1966-1999, using major self-designated epidemiologic journals as a sample, and of scholarly electronic publication from 1991-1997, based on current literature review. We use an online, paperless journal as a case study, and review selected information-technology opinion in the area.RESULTS: By traditional standards, growth in epidemiologic publication has been considerable, with the addition of six new journals since 1966. In contrast, scholarly electronic publication for the period 1991-1997 grew from 27 to 2459 journals (not all exclusively online). Positive features of electronic publishing include flexibility, shortened time to publication, freedom from fixed publication date, diversity in presentation, and instant linkage to relevant material. A case study of a new online journal illustrates the substantive power of the medium. Negative factors include restriction (or unrestricted expansion) of the audience, the potential for hasty peer review, pitfalls in establishing credibility, an emphasis on style over content, technologic dependence, and additions to the information explosion. Relative cost and archiving are still debated. In assessing the pros and cons, it is important to distinguish electronic mechanisms that facilitate publication from electronic publishing, and to appreciate the difference between moving an existing journal to the electronic medium, and creating a new online journal.CONCLUSIONS: The movement from print to internet is probably inexorable, but a headlong rush may be ill-advised. Several models for dual publishing now exist, with the expectation that many, including the journals that serve epidemiology, will do so. The ultimate configuration is difficult to predict, but likely to be shaped in large measure by market forces, technologic advances and to a lesser extent, by habit and aesthetics.
Rothenberg
R
Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
Frank
E
Fitzmaurice
D