Kircz Rosendal Science Comm

Joint ICSU Press/UNESCO Expert Conference on

ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING IN SCIENCE

UNESCO, Paris, 19-23 February 1996

Understanding and Shaping Scienti�c

Information Transfer

Joost G. Kircz1;2 and Hans E. Roosendaal1

1 Elsevier Science, 1055 KV Amsterdam2 Communication in Physics Project, WINS Faculty, University of Amsterdam.

1. Introduction

In this presentation, we report a two fold approach tothe issues and opportunities modern electronic mediapose for scienti�c information.

The �rst part of this paper addresses a number ofelements in the process of information: needs, transfer,and disclosure in academic environments and discussesresults of in-depth interviews with a number of scientistsfrom various �elds.

In the second part, we discuss the changes electronicpublishing will induce in scienti�c information handling.We try to analyse the di�erent cognitive componentsleading to a variety of ways in which information is pre-sented, and we brie y discuss recent research towards abetter understanding of the fundamental changes elec-tronic publishing will introduce.

2. Process and needs

2.1 The science process

The main issue to be addressed in the context of elec-tronic publishing is:

How can it support and enhance the science process?

Communication is the essence of science, and moreparticularly, it is the engine of the whole science process[Garvey, 1979; Roosendaal and de Ruiter, 1990]. Thescienti�c communication process is an object of inves-tigation and it provides data for research programmesin a variety of science studies [Garvey, 1979; Gholson et

c 1995{1996 ISCU Press and individual authors.All rights reserved.

al., 1989; Gross, 1990; van Hezewijk, in press; Jasano�et al., 1995; Kuhn, 1970; Lakatos, 1970, 1978; Merton,

1973].

It would go well beyond the scope of this contribu-tion to describe the science process even in some detail.We will assume here that the science process consistsof a system of related, mostly competing research pro-grammes [Gholson et al., 1989; van Hezewijk, in press;Jasano� et al., 1995; Lakatos, 1978].

On this basis a number of di�erent stages in the re-search process from conceptionalisation of problems, totheory, to hypotheses, to predictions and testing, and �-nally interpretation of research outcomes can be distin-guished [van Hezewijk, in press; Lakatos, 1978]. Whilewe realise that there is no consensus on the above, thesedi�erent stages lead to a number of main communi-cation needs as experienced by researchers in di�erent�elds (see below).

This structure of the science process has a numberof social consequences, which are discipline dependent.Most important are common standards, resulting in spe-ci�c rules and ethics. Furthermore, each scientist hasto establish his own position, and this is mainly donethrough recognition of his contributions to science inthe research process. These contributions can be infor-mal and formal and are to a large extent manifested inpublications [Gross, 1990; Merton, 1973].

2.2 Communication needs

Generally, the communication needs result from re-search needs in the di�erent stages of the science pro-cess. Analysis [van Rooy, 1995] indicates the followingneeds:

105

106 kircz and roosendaal:scientific information transfer

� awareness of knowledge, both in the researcher'sown research domain, as well as in other (mostlyrelated) research domains. Though of particularimportance in the earlier stages of the science pro-cess, it is a conditio sine qua non throughout allstages.

� awareness of new research outcomes: new devel-opments have to be followed closely and need tobe accounted for in the research process at theearliest possible stage.

� speci�c information: this means relevant theories,and detailed information on research design, in-strumentation, and methodologies.

and also:

� scienti�c standards: scienti�c standards are grad-ually being developed within a research program-me and are an important element in the socialstructure of the science process.

� platform for communication: the researchershould have at his disposal a fully- edged com-munication platform satisfying his needs, from thevery informal, private discussions to convenient,formal interactions with colleagues.

� ownership protection: throughout the entire re-search process the researcher wants to claim pri-ority of his contribution to the research �elds, andneeds protection, at a variable degree, dependingon the stage, of this ownership; this ownershipextends to how the information is communicatedand disseminated.

2.3 Developments

It is inherent to science, and to the science process,that both are in constant ux or growth. In this contri-bution, two aspects of this constant growth are worthmentioning:

� despite the fact that science has been growing ata rather constant pace for more than 300 years[Schauder, 1994], there is the general feeling thatthis accumulated growth has lead to an unman-ageable pile of information and that the growthof information leads to less e�ective and e�cientcommunication, threatening in turn the e�ective-ness and the e�ciency of the science process itself.Recent publications of Maddox and Bell [Nature,376] address this issue, but in 1979, William D.

Garvey already stated:

... in some disciplines, it is easier to repeat an experimentthan it is to determine that the experiment has alreadybeen done.

This is pure destruction of invested capital, and asresearch funding becomes more and more an issue tothe political agenda in many countries, the e�ectivenessand e�ciency of scienti�c communication is becomingcrucial. The ine�ciency is partly due to the fragmentedinformation over the many di�erent information sourceswe have.

� at the same time there exists an increasing com-petition in science: not only competition arisingfrom the dynamics of the competing research pro-grammes, but also for economic and funding rea-sons; this competition leads in turn to upwardpressure on the communication and informationsystem.

3. Research

In the previous section, we have formulated a numberof theses on the communication process as an importantengine for the science process. Communication needsare seen to be related to, and have di�erent impact on,the di�erent stages in every research process. The mainquestion then is: how can we increase the e�ectivenessand e�ciency of the communication process for the in-dividual researcher? What are the main elements, whatare the main expectations and desires a researcher has?

For our research we identify as key issues:

� The information needs: whereas the system is nowmore fragmented, and segmented, what expecta-tions do researchers have with respect to a moreintegrated system?

� The infrastructure of the system: are we movingfrom the present more closed system to an open,distributed and fully transparent system, wheretransparency is de�ned from the user's end?

3.1 Research design

The above-mentioned key issues are being addressedin �eld research comprising a number of in-depth inter-views with individual researchers.

In our heuristic model there is a tendency to an openinfrastructure and an integrated system. This model isbeing investigated on a strati�ed sample of individualresearchers in the following scienti�c disciplines:

� high-energy physics

kircz and roosendaal:scientific information transfer 107

Table 1.

When looking for speci�c information, researchers are not interested in the quality of the refereeing

process

Discipline Opinion Expectations on Desires on

infrastructure infrastructureAll 2.4 1.9 2.0Clinical medicine 2.3 (0) 1.7 (0) 2.1 (0)Neuroscience 2.1 (0) 2.1 (0) 2.5 (0)Organic chemistry 1.9 (- -) 1.6 (-) 1.5 (-)Mechanical engineering 2.9 (+) 1.9 (0) 1.8 (0)High energy physics 2.7 (+) 2.5 (+) 2.2 (0)

Researchers will more and more use on-line information services that select sources on the basis of

their own personal pro�le in order to ful�l their own speci�c information needs

Expect. on Desires on Expect. on Desires onDiscipline Opinion infrastructure infrastructure information information

needs needsAll 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.3Clinical medicine 4.7 (++) 4.6 (0) 4.7 (++) 4.6 (0) 4.7 (++)Neuroscience 4.5 (++) 4.8 (++) 4.6 (0) 4.8 (++) 4.6 (0)Organic chemistry 4.2 (0) 4.2 (0) 3.9 (0) 4.2 (0) 3.8 (-)Mechanical engineering 3.8 (-) 4.6 (0) 4.4 (0) 4.6 (0) 4.5 (0)High energy physics 3.7 (- -) 4.2 (0) 4.0 (0) 4.2 (0) 4.0 (0)

Numbers indicate agreement with statement and scale from 1 to 5 (1 is strong disagreement, 5 is strong agreement).Brackets denote di�erence of discipline from average ranging from signi�cant (++) to signi�cant (- -).

� organic chemistry

� mechanical engineering

� neuroscience

� clinical medicine

The objective of the research is to identify the ex-pectations and desires researchers have with respect tothe above themes. A number of pertinent themes isprobed on a structured way using so-called provocativestatements. Opinions of researchers are then furtherprobed, using expert interviewers from the publishingdepartments of Elsevier Science. In that way, we allowhypotheses and other issues to be put to test, and tobe criticised or falsi�ed. Motives for certain opinions,expectations and desires can then be identi�ed. A fulldescription of the research method is given in [Geurtsand Roosendaal, in press]. An example of a provocativestatement, and some results for the mentioned disci-plines, are given in Table 1.

4. Results and conclusions

For this contribution, we restrict ourselves to sum-marising the main overall results and conclusions fromour research. First we discuss the results in terms of thefour main functions in scienti�c communication (section4.1). Then we discuss more speci�c needs behind thesefunctions in detail (section 4.2).

4.1 Main functions

It is useful to distinguish four main functions in sci-enti�c communication.

� The certi�cation function concerns the validationof research quality and has to do with scienti�cstandards within a research programme.

� The registration function relates particular re-search to an individual scientist, who then claimspriority for the research. This function is closelyconnected to ownership protection, and the re-ward system, and to a large extent in uences thesocial dynamics within the system.


� A third function is the awareness function, whichleads to disclosure and search needs, such as, e.g.,browsing, of the researcher.

� The last function we mention is the archival func-tion, and this function relates to storage and ac-cessibility of information.

Technological dynamics will clearly in uence all thesefunctions, however, not conceptionally, but much morein the way these functions can be performed in the fu-ture. Recent technological developments allow novelways of access to stored information, and this again im-pacts on the way information needs to be structured(see below). Technological dynamics can then lead to anew architecture of scienti�c communication, providedthis architecture is accepted by the scienti�c commu-nity. This scienti�c community has in the past provento be rather conservative in its acceptance of new tech-nology, as is illustrated in the following quote [Garvey,1979]:

resistance to new media stems from scientists' concernthat the goals of the scienti�c system would not be ful�lledby these media.

4.2 Acquisition needs

The results of the survey show that researchers haverather well-de�ned expectations and desires with re-spect to acquisition needs. We can separate acquisitionneeds into two parts: demands with respect to the infor-mation proper and demands with respect to the processof acquiring information.

4.2.1 Information needs

� Reliability { is a conditio sine qua non for in-formation. Whereas some researchers may wantto rely on their own judgement, and then onlywhen they are highly familiar with the research re-ported, the overall majority of researchers wishesto rely on an independent quality check that meetsexternal, known and accepted standards. Themain reason is overall expediency and e�ciency inthe process, as well as convenience. At the sametime, the present refereeing system is sometimesquestioned. Smaller, highly formalised researchareas with a well-de�ned social structure, such ashigh-energy physics, tend to move more towardsself-evaluation.

� Relevance { related to subject, scope, and levelof research. Relevance can only be judged by theindividual researcher. Structuring of the informa-tion and linking of mutually relevant sources ofinformation facilitates this process.

� Timeliness { the desired time to access informa-tion depends very much on the dynamics of the re-search. Demands on timeliness therefore vary perresearch �eld. Dynamic, closed and formalised re-search �elds with a high demand for priority overcerti�cation lean towards self-publishing, either inan informal or formal way. Early access coupledto a proper refereeing system is however preferred.

� Presentation { is related to e�ciency of com-munication and convenience. Presentation on pa-per is still considered superior to screen presenta-tion; however this is not an impediment to accep-tance of the latter, as improvements are taken forgranted.

� Storage { this is probably the most importantissue to be addressed for all agents in the publish-ing chain. The scienti�c community at large hasstrong expectations with respect to the followingissues:

{ delocalisation of archives: world-wide acces-sibility irrespective of location of researcher.This is in particular an interesting optionfor those researchers who now have very re-stricted access. It is expected to open up newdimensions in the dynamics of research pro-grammes and will a�ect the social structuresof science.

{ transparency of the system { disclosureshould not be impeded or restricted to ar-ti�cial domains, such as: subject area, geog-raphy, time, collection, etc..

{ standards { standardisation is generally seenas an unresolved issue and beyond the realmof the researcher.

{ while maintaining their distinction, informaland formal communicationwill become muchmore intertwined. A division is likely to bebased more on the di�erent functions theyhave in the research process.

{ the archive should allow the reader to inte-grate all his information needs irrespective ofthe di�erent information sources.

{ responsibility for the archive is considered anopen question, beyond the realm of the re-searcher. The archive needs not only to bedesigned, but operated and maintained in aprofessional way.

4.2.2 Process of acquisition There are a num-ber of di�erent strategies to select, retrieve, and processinformation. The following main elements come to thefore:


� time to access { primarily an issue of e�ciencyand convenience.

� convenience { in particular, fragmentation of in-formation is found to be a main obstacle. Thestructure of information is important, in partic-ular for those searching activities that cannot beoutsourced to information specialists. The readi-ness to outsource to information specialists de-pends on the scienti�c discipline.

� personal adjustment { every researcher expects todevelop his own, individualised search pro�le.

� comprehensiveness { needs to be de�ned fromthe researcher's point of view, i.e., the reader in-tegrates the information. This requires an in-tegrated information structure covering di�erentsources (see also section 5).

� transportability { taken for granted.

� generative power { this relates to serendipity inthe acquisition as well as searching accuracy.

� transparency { research ethics require an open,transparent system. Open access to information isa main condition for progress in research. Trans-parency requires an open infrastructure for dis-semination. Whereas we now have fragmentationof needs, by segmentation in di�erent products,integration of needs with optimum migration be-tween products is being requested. Where increas-ing specialisation now leads to speci�city of in-formation, individuality of information that cancross borders and at the same time allows for theexisting di�erent communication cultures is beingrequested.

� costs { acquisition of information involves costs. Itinvolves costs for the creator of the information,as well as for the value added to the informationas supplied by the creator. Added value relatesto selection, processing, structuring, distributionand dissemination. This added value and resultingprice has to be o�set against the value informationhas for the research process. From a researcher'spoint of view, the price of information is not anissue, according to our research results.

4.3 Dissemination needs

Dissemination of information is seen to serve twomain goals [Schauder, 1994]:

� recognition

� feedback

The research indicates that the following familiar is-sues are considered as remaining important or to be-coming even more important:

� visibility

� retrievability

� time to reader

� convenience

� \impact"

� interaction { this is particularly important forfeedback.

In general, researchers have high expectations thatmore direct interaction using electronic facilities for in-formal and formal communication will increase feed-back, and therefore e�ectiveness and e�ciency of theresearch process.

4.4 Summary of our �rst results

In summary, the research allows us to conclude thefollowing:

� researchers expect and desire a communicationsystem allowing for the integration of needs, asde�ned from the reader's viewpoint. Integrationis not restricted to text, but includes also data,pictures, �lm, sound, etc.

� this requires an open infrastructure. This is notalways appreciated by individual researchers.

The agents in the publishing chain may well focus onthe following main aspects:

� content { there is, as before, a clearly de�ned,growing need for reliable information, that is eas-ily accessible. Improved standards of certi�ca-tion and preparation of information are being re-quested.

� structure { dissemination of information requiresstructuring, taking advantage of the modularity ofinformation.

� infrastructure { an open, sophisticated infrastruc-ture is in demand.

� information management { personal informationmanagement tools need to be developed. Thesecould be based on the internal structure of theinformation.


5. Design for the future

5.1 Introductory remarks

From the studies discussed in the �rst part of thispaper, it is clear that scienti�c information is contex-tual in a double sense. Firstly the type of informationis di�erent in di�erent �elds. A geological chart is a to-tally di�erent object from a histogram of radioactive de-cay rates, though both can be displayed as large colourposters. Secondly the usage of di�erent types of infor-mation (including the cutting and clipping) is di�erent.The emerging electronic tools already heavily in uencethe way scientists think and represent their thinkingand research results. These two contextual levels willbe expressed di�erently in di�erent media.

Present day digital information acquisition, storage,and handling techniques represent the apogee of the de-velopment which started with the possibility of usingelectrical devices for information handling. Given the exibility of these techniques, we see that reporting ofscienti�c research and its technical expressions will befurther entangled. All this is not new; in the early six-ties, Marshall McLuhan's famous book \UnderstandingMedia" [McLuhan, 1964] already heralded discussionson the deep in uences new technologies have in shap-ing culture. Most of these discussions, however, weredeveloped in departments of Mass Communication andMedia Studies. Within the sciences, we spent a lot oftime and energy in developing these new tools but wehardly analysed the decisive role new technologies havein reporting our own results. In order to be able to un-derstand, shape and use the new media proper, withoutlosing the essential objectives of scienti�c communica-tions discussed in section 4. of this paper, we have todissect the various interacting levels and their compo-nents.

5.2 Preparing a research programme

Within the context of our research programme whichaims at de�ning and developing the employment of thenew electronic media, we would like to discuss here twodi�erent but intertwined components:

� The research and development of di�erent ways ofpresenting, manipulating, and storing information(see section 5.2.1).

� The developments of methods and tools to en-hance the disclosure of information (see section5.2.2). Within the following, we take the burgeon-ing development of sheer storage and transport(bandwidth) capacity as given. These exploding

technologies provide the technological infrastruc-ture for novel methods. As interesting as theyare, as objects of scienti�c research per se, theyare, however, not critical of the conceptual de-velopments needed to address issues in scienti�cinformation handling as outlined in section 4.

5.2.1 Presenting and storing information. Overthe last years, we already saw a most promising develop-ment towards a better structuring of information. TheStandardised Markup Language (SGML), and Hyper-text Markup Language (HTML) are well known andaccepted working standards today [Furuta and Quint,

1989]. A quite di�erent approach than just loading clas-sical documents on electronic storage media, leads toresearch to reveal and structure the inherent modular-ity of information. Text, pictures, �lms, animation's,and sound are all separated and independent ways ofpresenting information. Until now, technology has con-�ned the bulk of information presentation to text withillustrations. At the moment we see an explosion oftechnical possibilities which make available in additionto texts, all non-textual forms of information. The pointis, however, that we do not need additions to texts, butthat we need integrated information systems (as alreadydiscussed in section 4).

Every kind of presentation of information has itsown character and is a di�erent expression of the re-ported object, phenomenon, or theory. If we reallywant to value the possibilities of including sound, colour,movies, etc., into regular scienti�c reporting, we have toanalyse their speci�c riles in the communication process(see section 4.3). Historically, communication is con-�ned to the printed journal, with the result that text isnow the most important ingredient. Pictures started asillustrations of the text: as extensions. In the course oftime, visual display of quantitative information becamea craft in itself: the picture expresses more than a thou-sand words can do [Tu�e, 1983, 1990]. In an electronicenvironment, the picture might become a similar primesource of information, whilst the text then becomes theexplanation to the �gure in complete symmetry withthe �gure as an illustration of the text. In the sameway, �lms, sounds, animation's, etc., will become fullexpressions of scienti�c results in their own right. Wewill deal with this point further on in the next section.

5.2.2 Disclosure. Within the Library Sciences, in-formation retrieval (IR) research is already a well estab-lished �eld. In this contribution, we will not spend muchtime on these aspects. At the moment, it is su�cient tolist the following fundamental problems IR research isfacing [Blair, 1990; Kircz, 1991; Tague-Sutcli�e, 1996]:


1. In systems where we use the full text of articles, socalled free text searching systems, the search pos-sibilities are con�ned to the words provided by theauthor. The manipulable information is restrictedto the work as provided by the author. As alreadyemphasised above, research and hence the authorslanguage is very contextual, full of jargon and verymuch the expression of more or less closed socialenvironments. For that reason free text search-ing systems are very di�cult to handle for read-ers who are not conversant with the jargon of theparticular �eld. This might be readers from other(adjacent) �elds, but also readers within the �eldbut reading from another perspective, be it ge-ographically (American scientist reading Russianscience), or temporally (today's scientists readingold work in their own �eld). From another pointof view, one can say that free text searching ap-proaches the problem from the author's point ofview.

2. In systems with controlled keyword lists and the-sauri (externally added keys), we are confrontedwith the almost impossibility of mapping contentonto a �xed list of concepts. Whilst in the case offree text systems, we are able to maximally ma-nipulate the texts as given, in the case of con-trolled keywords we reduce (or coalesce) languageinto �xed notions. However, to be useful, thesenotions need to be stable, at least for some time.Thus controlled keywords and thesauri always lagbehind the research language used. It is impor-tant to note that, opposite to free text terms, con-trolled terms express in a way the readers point ofview. Unfortunately, articles are now only indexedonce, and retrospective indexing of collections ofarticles in order to identify old work to new con-cepts, and vice versa, never happens.

3. In cases where we use references to disclose worksthat we need, we take the list of references astransmittal indicators. Not the works we haveaccessed, but the cited works are wanted. Theproblem is that the reason a reference is given bythe citing author is not always clear. Is it just toshow the author knows his �eld, is it to atter apossible referee, is the reference to the competi-tion deliberately left out, etc.? What is neededis a better link between the cited work and thecontext in which the citing author deems this ref-erence useful. Fortunately, due to the speed-up ofthe publication process by electronic means, thetime-lag inherent in the use of references as dis-closure tools will be reduced. The use of referencesas disclosure tools emphasise their context, or em-bedding, of the wanted information.

Thus the research programme that we propose entailsthe development of domain-speci�c information repre-sentating structures which link scienti�c or related in-formation concepts to the speci�c context in which theyare used. One way to do this is to create a collection of exible domain-speci�c thesauri. Even if terms in dif-ferent thesauri within a collection are literally the same,they do not necessarily represent the same concept. Ev-ery term which will be put into context in a speci�cdomain is therefore a much more powerful tool. If wenow allow the domains to overlap slightly, we will beable to generate a collection of thesauri which, like anatlas of road maps of di�erent scale and lay-out, guidethe searching researcher from one domain to another.A programme on overlapping thesauri in mathematicsand physics starts soon. Here we try to develop a math-ematical theory [Hazewinkel, 1995] to match overlap-ping terms (and there synonyms) extracted from a largeand coherent set of articles within well-de�ned �elds inmathematics and physics. The ultimate goal of this re-search programme is to develop techniques for the gen-eration of an Atlas of contextual scienti�c index terms.

6. First steps to a new architecture

Following the requirements and expectations on stor-age, retrieval, etc., as resulted from our investigations,reported in the beginning of this paper, and in orderto appreciate the new possibilities and �t them into theframework of conscientious scienti�c discourse, we haveto clarify and de�ne the various characteristics of thedi�erent kinds of information.

6.1. Texts

The essay form of scienti�c documents is a typical re-sult of the use of print on paper sheets. The portability,browsability and comprehensiveness of the paper prod-uct is the end of a century long historical developmentprocess. In an electronic environment the characteris-tics might well change. All components of the paperproduct which are repetitive can be deleted as recur-ring objects, as they are always retrievable from thearchive when needed for the integration of informationby the reader. For example, it is customary (or evenobligatory) to have an introduction which explains theauthors' goals and serves to embed the reported workinto a wider context. In an electronic environment, saya kind of hypertext structure, introductions might be re-duced to pointers which link reported work to a reviewarticle in which the whole context is fully explained.Furthermore repetitive reviews of one's own and otherresearchers' work can be reduced if the structure of thereporting has a more modular build-up instead of the


present linear story-telling structure. The aim then isto structure texts in di�erent types of modules, in sucha way that each kind of module has its own informa-tion value. It is important to note that scienti�c articlesare already well structured according to well establishedrules and have familiar headings such as: Introduction,Methods, Data, Results, Discussion, Conclusion. How-ever, this does not mean that all sentences dealing with,say, methods, can be found under that heading. Analy-sis shows that linear texts are generally much less struc-tured than section headings suggest.

In our research programme we analyse a coherent col-lection of scienti�c papers in two di�erent ways. Firstly,we analyse the di�erent types of information containedin the documents (e.g., Goal, Embedding, Tools &Methods, Results, Data-handling, Apparatus, Discus-sions) as a �rst break-up of the linear structure. Wetake this set of types as basic modules and try to �t theoriginal text therein. Of course such a simple linear setof modules is not su�cient. Within every module wemake a further subdivision which relates this module toothers. So, within the module \Apparatus" we can, e.g.,distinguish the description of the apparatus used, theapparatus in context to other machines (the embeddingof the experimental set-up), the apparatus in contrastto apparatus used by others (apparatus as part of thediscussion). The main goal here is to reveal a possiblemodularity of information by analysing existing articles,in order to come to a heuristic model for a non-linearmodular way of writing articles. This part of the analy-sis is augmented by a linguistic study where the same setof articles is analysed as argumentative texts. Accordingto well-established models of the Pragma-Dialectical ap-proach in argumentational theory [van Eemeren et al.,

1987, 1994], we try to reveal the line of reasoning ina scienti�c article with the aim to use it as a tool forbetter structuring. The goal here is to develop a modelfor the relationship between the above mentioned mod-ules. This way, we can assign to each module not onlya scienti�c tag, but also a rhetorical one, e.g., a mod-ule \Goal" has a completely di�erent character than amodule \Data-Handling". While in the \Goal" modulethe author can express all kinds of speculations freely,the value of the module \Data-Handling" demands verystrict adherence to well-established standards and pro-cedures. Integrating both approaches will result in amodel for a modular presentation of scienti�c texts,where each model has a well de�ned scienti�c as wellas contextual character. The advantage of such a struc-turing is clear for the following modes of use:

� Modularly structured information �ts the charac-teristics of electronic media which are intrinsicallymore than linear. Modules �t nicely in the hyper-

text philosophy and transcend the present use ofhypertext as a structuring on top of intrinsic lin-ear essay's.

� By putting the various components of scienti�cdiscourse in context, the refereeing standards canbe improved as they can be de�ned as a func-tion of the module (refereeing the module \Data-Handling" demands more rigorous standards incontrast to the module \Goal").

� In case of a modular build-up, the searching readercan con�ne the search to particular modules anddoes not need to retrieve the entire communica-tion as is the case with document retrieval; e.g., ifa researcher wants to know about the design of aparticular detector, only those parts of the workare of interest which deal with the detector, inde-pendent of how interesting and important the restof the communication is for the original author.

6.2. Active mathematics and simulations

Although text-based, mathematics represents a to-tally independent way of representing results. The re-search in this �eld is now aimed mainly at de�ning a(SGML) grammar for mathematics which will enablemanipulation of formulae and their use in calculation ofsymbolic manipulation packages.

Simulations contain again an independent way of com-municating scienti�c ideas. Here the reader has to havethe possibility to change the model and/or the parame-ters to develop one's own further research based on pub-lished research. The publication of computer programs,be it simulations or calculation packages, demands thedevelopment of one's own standards and rules. Someexperience is actually gained in the management of pro-gram libraries, such as the Computer Program Libraryfrom the Queens University of Belfast, which is inte-grated in the paper journal Computer Physics Commu-nications.

6.3 Still pictures

The analysis of potential applications of non-textualmaterial still has to start. Pictures will be more thanjust \illuminations" of the text. Pictures have their ownintrinsic value. At �rst sight, we can already appreci-ate the great di�erence between a graph (in any dimen-sion) and a colour picture of an aberration of an op-tical device. Interestingly, in the peer review process,no standards or rules are established to review picturesas independent objects. In the analyses of pictures andtheir roles, the results of textual studies will be helpful.Important items are:


� There are di�erences between data, data-handlingand data-presentation. One can imagine a hi-erarchy of modules: �rst raw data (a module areader cannot change, and which integrity is per-tinent); then a module data-reduction and han-dling (a module a reader can change and replace),and �nally a module data-representation (a readercertainly can change, use, and manipulate).

� Similarly, there are di�erences between picturesof immutable objects and pictures resulting from,e.g., calculations or recorded data. In the �rst casethe whole picture has to be preserved as well aspossible (e.g., a photograph of a phenomenon, orthe design of a chip). In cases where we deal witha digital picture (e.g. a CCD camera picture), thedata instead of the picture can be stored. In thesecond case, e.g., a non-linear map or other struc-ture which results from a calculation, it might beadvantageous to have the algorithm (and parame-ters) stored as well. With the rising speed of data-handling, a reader might want to redo instead ofview the picture.

6.4 Motion pictures

Apart from the items mentioned for still pictures thefollowing extra features have to be tackled. Film orvideo (a sequence of still pictures) di�ers from anima-tion. In the case of �lm and video we still have the dif-ference between immutable and re-creational pictures.In the case of animations, however, we can also think ofincluding a tool for the reader's adaptations and mod-elling.

6.5 Sound

The case of sound is special because digital sound isa very well developed �eld with an almost total manip-ulation capacity. Nevertheless, the use of sound as anindependent way of presenting scienti�c results is hardlyconsidered at present, except in speech research or gen-eral sound recording. The cognitive value of sound ob-jects is so di�erent fromvisible objects that a completelynew �eld can be opened up.

7. General conclusions

In this paper, we �rst try to de�ne the role of in-formation in the science process and describe investiga-tions where we try to explain the communication needsof researchers in di�erent �elds. This information pro-vides us with a backbone and yardstick for the devel-opment of new ways of organising the scienti�c com-

munication process. It clearly points to a greater in-tegration of various types of information as well as thecapacity of the reader to manipulate this freely. Thisway, social, cognitive and intellectual demands can bemet by the emerging technologies in a cross-fertilisingway. This \user" research is a starting point for ourcollaboration in various university projects under theumbrella programme \Communication in Physics". Inthis programme, we investigate the opportunities mod-ularity of scienti�c information o�ers, to make optimumuse of electronic media. We also research sophisticatedcombinatorial techniques to develop an Atlas of over-lapping controlled index term systems. Although theprogramme \Communication in Physics" is focused onphysics as main corpus of investigation, the results areexpected to be applicable to other research domains aswell. However, in line with our conclusions, speci�c cul-tural di�erences should then be taken into account. Ourmain message in all this is, that in order to go beyondthe \electroni�cation" of the classical publishing pro-cess, we need to have an in-depth knowledge of the use,needs and presentation requirements and possibilities ofscienti�c information.

Acknowledgments. The work described in this paperis a collaboration of the Faculties of Arts, and Mathematics,Informatics, Physics, and Astronomy (WINS) of the Uni-versity of Amsterdam, the National Research Institute forMathematics and Computer Science (CWI),and Elsevier Sci-ence. The work is partly �nancially supported by: Sticht-ing Physica, Royal Academy of Science and Arts (KNAW),Royal Library (KB), Shell Research Amsterdam (KSLA),Elsevier Science.

References

Andr�e J., R. Furuta, V. Quint (eds.). Structured Documents.Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Bell C., Nature, 376, p. 375.Blair D. C., Language and representation in information re-trieval. Elsevier, 1990.

Garvey. W. D., Communication: The essence of science.Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1979.

Geurts P. A. Th. M. and H. E. Roosendaal. Mixed marketresearch for strategic management. To be published.

Gholson B., W. R. Shadish Jr., R. A. Niemeyer, and A. C.Houts (eds.). The psychology of science. Cambridge Univ.Press., 1989.

Gross A. G., The rhetoric of science. Harvard Univ. Press,Cambridge 1990.

Hazewinkel M., Tree-tree matrices and other combinatorialproblems from taxonomy. CWI report AM-R9507, April1995.

Jasano� S., G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch(eds.). Handbook of science and technology studies. SagePubl. London, 1995.


Kircz J. G., Rhetorical structure of scienti�c articles: Thecase for argumentational analysis in information retrieval.Jnl. of Documentation, 47(4), pp. 354{372, 1991.

Kuhn T. S., The structure of scienti�c revolutions, 2nd en-larged edition. Chicago Univ. Press., 1970.

Lakatos I., Falsi�cation and the methodology of scienti�cresearch programmes. In: Criticism and the growth ofknowledge by I Lakatos and A. Musgrave, CambridgeUniv. Press., p.135, 1970.

Lakatos I., The methodology of scienti�c research program-mes. In: Philosophical papers, J. Worrall and G. Currie(eds.) vol. 1, Cambridge Univ. Press., 1978.

Maddox J., Nature, 376, p. 11, p. 113, and p. 385.McLuhan M., Understanding Media: The Extensions ofMan. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. London, 1964.

Merton R., The sociology of science: theoretical and empir-ical investigations. Univ. of Chicago Press. 1973.

Panhuijsen G. and R. van Hezewijk. To be published Univ.of Utrecht.

Roosendaal H. E. and A. P. de Ruiter, The Journal at thecross-roads of developments in scienti�c information and

information technology. Paper presented at Conference inHelsinki, 1990.

Schauder D., Electronic publishing of professional articles:

Attitudes of academics and the implications for the schol-

arly communication industry. JASIS, 45(2), 73{100, 1994.

Tague-Sutcli�e J. M., Editor. Special Topic Issue: Eval-

uation of Information Retrieval Systems, (collection of

overviews), JASIS, 47(1), January 1996.

Tufte E. R., The Visual Display of Quantitative Information,

Graphic Press, Cheshire, Conn. 1983

Tufte E. R., Envisioning Information, Graphic Press, Che-

shire, Conn. 1990.

van Eemeren F. H, Rob Grootendorst, and Tjark Kruiger.

Handbook of Argumentation Theory: A critical survey of

classical backgrounds and modern studies. Floris Publica-

tions, Dordrecht, 1987.

van Eemeren F. H. and Rob Grootendorst (eds.). Studies in

Pragma-Dialectics. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, 1994.

van Rooy F., The role of electronic media in scienti�c com-

munication. Thesis University of Utrecht, 1995.