E-biosci: a proposal for electronic publishing.

Abstract

Free and fast access to the entire biomedical literature is what the director of the National Institutes for Health (NIH) in the United States of America, Dr. Harold Varmus, envisioned when he announced plans for an NIH-sponsored web site that would publish all new biomedical research papers (Science 1999;284:718). The site, initially called E-biomed, would provide rapid delivery of new discoveries to researchers in an electronic format. The single searchable site would contain hyperlinked footnotes, provide for rapid feedback from readers, and permit novel ways to present methods and data. Dr. Varmus proposed that the site be funded and maintained by the NIH under the guidance of an independent board of governors. Authors could submit papers into one of two tracks. In the first pathway, the editorial board of a selected journal would review the paper, much as is done now, and the final version would be posted immediately on E-biomed and later in the printed version of the journal. In a second pathway, two reviewers selected by the board of governors would screen a paper for gross abuses of scientific and social conduct before rapid publication of the submission. In both pathways, the authors of the manuscript would retain the copyright. As soon as the proposal was announced, it was attacked. Objections mainly came from scientific societies, from private industry publishers, and from the editors of biomedical journals (CMAJ 1999;161:41–4). Most felt the proposal was overly ambitious and missing critical details. Although the NIH was to fund the project, the funding mechanism was considered too vague and estimates of the costs varied widely (Nature 1999;400:200). Also left for discussion were the credentials and guidelines for appointment to the governing board. Another common objection was that the organization of the review process was not described. Many wrote that the process would necessarily be unwieldy, given the magnitude of the venture. Some worried that papers, which would have been rejected by the present peer review system, would be distributed more easily. Poorly done clinical studies might have a negative impact on medical practice and patient safety (NEJM 1999; 340:1828–1829). Finally, others argued that the site would undermine an important source of revenue for scientific societies and threaten their survival. Various counter-proposals suggested that the resources of the NIH would be better used by digitizing biomedical literature published before 1995, by developing software for online submissions of manuscripts to journals, or by providing a common search engine for existing online journals. These pressures forced the NIH to modify the original plan considerably. Even the name was changed. It is now called E-biosci to avoid copyright infringement of a title already in use (Science 1999;285:810–811). More importantly, the NIH has abandoned the concept of a depository for new papers and has proposed to develop a server that will provide access to papers already published in established journals. Furthermore, the NIH will not insist on authors retaining the copyright for their work, leaving the issue to individual journals. Whether or not journal publishers will agree to this format is still under discussion. One unsolved hurdle is to determine how to pay for publishing papers in print if they are freely available on a server. Some prefer that the NIH site publish abstracts and provide digital links to the journal's web site where readers would access full-text papers for a fee. Like the original proposal, the new offering still has many details to be argued and resolved before its final, and perhaps drastically different, form appears online. Even though the concept of a publishing site has been dropped, the need remains. The discussion about the proposed site was not all negative. Proponents, mostly individual scientists, pointed out that paper journals also have drawbacks that will not be easily solved (Nature 1999;399:623). For instance, the high cost of journals has forced libraries to limit subscriptions and has hampered access to the scientific literature in poorer countries. The proliferation of subspecialty journals has added to these costs. Researchers often can find relevant articles in these journals through online literature searches, but may not have easy and rapid access to the printed article. Authors can also be frustrated by reviewer and editor biases, by the slow pace of the peer review process, and by long delays from the time of acceptance to publication. The distribution of scientific information in a digital format would solve many of these problems. The NIH initiative has provided a start to developing web-based literature access. The pediatric gastroenterology community should be aware of this rapidly evolving technology and be poised to influence the development of electronic journals, a medium which will greatly impact our access to information in the future.