The Internet is rapidly changing the way that we communicate. Going is the telephone, which is particularly good because there will no longer be answering machines and multiple-choice questionnaires for locating someone (how many times have you taken a circular route back to the original message?). Going is the letter, or, as it is known now, the ‘hard copy’. This is a pity. There is something personal about a hand-written letter – an unedited transcript of someone’s thoughts, without deletions, revisions or retyping. Going are libraries with their stacks of journals (why is it that I always want the volume of a journal that is missing?). Going are hard-copy print versions of scientific journals (I give them a few more years). The Internet is replacing all of them through e-mail, electronic journals and web sites.
E-mail is quick and efficient. However, there are two problems with e-mail. First, I seem to get many more messages than I ever did by telephone or regular mail. Actually, none of this extra contact is spam, which indicates that e-mail is less of a barrier to contact than the telephone (should I or shouldn't I leave a message?) or letters (do I really want to take time to format the letter, run spell-check and print out an envelope?). Second, there should be a warning message after you tap ‘send’ to stop messages written in the heat of anger, frustration or indignation -something like “Are you sure that you want to send this message? If so, tap this combination of three keys.” Perhaps Bill Gates can develop a sub-routine for Microsoft Word that detects combinations of inappropriate words and phrasing, and then warns the writer of their impending doom at the hands of the recipient of their diatribe!
The Internet is also the replacement for libraries and print journals. Out with the dinosaurs, and in with the mammals! Actually, this journal was one of the first sleek new ‘mammals’ of the electronic age of journals. If your laboratory is anything like mine, your postdocs and students (and PI!) browse journals on the Internet, download papers as PDF files and print them out on a local laser printer, which generates a hard copy that is superior in quality to a Xerox copy from the journal. I think that our record is <10 seconds from opening up an Internet server to having the PDF file printing out! Electronic journals also make literature searches easier and more convenient than before, because the reference list is linked to journals directly or to medline. Why would you go to the library to do this the old fashioned way?
Electronic journals have several other advantages over the print product. They should be less expensive than the print version (cheaper subscription rates to journals?). Papers can be posted electronically before the print version is produced, bound, mailed and delivered (faster publication times?). Videos and 3D images can be included (finally, somewhere to publish those gigabytes of data!). No need to pay for and send out reprints (does anyone do this any more?). Of course, publishers then have a few problems because reduced subscription rates, fewer reprint orders, etc. cut into profits.
So far so good, but what is the next step up the evolutionary ladder of publishing scientific information? The Physics community is already on the next rung. They have created web sites where original (raw) data can be posted with minimal, if any, ‘peer-review’. Already, proposals for a web site for publishing in the life sciences is under way (PubMed Central). Electronically published data can be made accessible to the community to use, criticize or ignore. What are the advantages? One phrase − quick dissemination of up-to- date information. Disadvantages? In theory, none, if everyone acts as a ‘community’. But, there lies the rub. Would we be swamped with trivia and just plain ‘bad science’? What if the posted data is poorly controlled or, at worse, faked (am I too suspicious?). I assume that bad science would be found out as the experiments are repeated and that then the name of the offending group would be posted on the web site (Caution. Data from XXXX could be bad for your science!). Would the quality of the information be high? By this I mean, if you made an important breakthrough, would you share this with everyone or wait, as now, to publish it? That is sometimes necessary to stay ahead of the competition. What about promotion criteria – will publication in PubMed Central be held up as equivalent to a paper in Cell, Nature or The EMBO Journal? Whatever your viewpoint is, the internet is here.
