Bias, Controversy, and Abuse in the Study of the Scientific Publication System

Journal publications constitute one of the most public and powerful dimensions of the multifaceted "exchange system" in science, and that exchange lies at the heart of its vitality in the pursuit of knowledge (Mahoney 1985). Technically speaking, then, science is inherently dialectical, rhetorical, and hermeneutic (Weimer 1977, 1979). The promise of science lies in its perpetual openness, its dynamic "essential tensions," and in the opportunities that professional exchanges may create for novel conjectures and bold endeavors. The study reported by Dr. Epstein was clearly a bold endeavor, but, in my opinion, it may have done more harm than good to our attempts to understand and refine scientific communication practices. As histories of scientific publication have noted, the professional "exchanges" that now fill our journals were originally transmitted by means of vicarious observation, word of mouth, and written correspondence (Mahoney 1987). Books came later and, ironically, scientific journals began in 1665 as a solution to the surfeit of books. Our modern, computerized "search and retrieval" services are now struggling with the surfeit of both. There is, I believe, little debate about the fact that scientific publication has become as much a tyrant as a servant, and it is curious that it has taken us almost three centuries to realize the potential costs of our continuing ignorance about the whole process.