Recent advances in information technology have enabled new ways of communicating research reports. A significant innovation in this area is that of ‘eprint’ archives: online repositories in which researchers make their papers freely available to their colleagues. This practice, which is known as self-archiving, poses a serious challenge to traditional academic journals. Publishers have responded with several strategies for remodelling journals in order to make them more attractive to authors and readers. New services, products and initiatives are constantly being launched in this market, and the outcome of the present disruption is uncertain. The present paper employs the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) methodology to analyse the current transformation in scholarly communication. The analysis defines the functions long served by academic publishing, examines the extent to which newly introduced technologies fulfil these functions and explains the dynamics of the stabilization process now underway. A key element of the analysis is the principle of interpretative flexibility. In the present case, interpretative flexibility brings into relief disciplinary variation in the needs and interests of potential users.
Bijker, Wiebe
(1995a) Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
2.
Bijker, Wiebe
(1995b) ‘Sociohistorical Technology Studies’, in S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Peterson & T. Pinch (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (London: SAGE Publications): 229-256.
3.
Bijker, Wiebe
(2001) ‘Technology, Social Construction of’, in N.J. Smelser & P.B. Baltes (eds), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Science (Amsterdam: Elsevier): 15522-15527.
4.
Bingham, Craig
(1999) ‘Peer Review on the Internet: Are There Faster, Fairer, More Effective Methods of Peer Review?’, in F. Godlee & T. Jefferson (eds), Peer Review in the Health Sciences (London: BMJ Books): 205-223.
5.
Bloor, David
(1999) ‘Anti-Latour’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science30: 81-112.
6.
Bohlin, Ingemar (1998) Sken och verklighet: kvalitet inom universitetsvärlden i relativistisk belysning (Stockholm: Byggforskningsrådets vetenskapliga nämnds skriftserie 1).
7.
Bohlin, Ingemar
(2000) ‘A Social Understanding of Delegation’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science31: 731-750.
8.
Brown, Cecilia
(2003) ‘The Role of Electronic Preprints in Chemical Communication: Analysis of Citation, Usage, and Acceptance in the Journal Literature’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology54: 362-371.
9.
Burnham, John C.
(1990) ‘The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review’, Journal of the American Medical Association263 (9 March): 1323-1329.
10.
Butler, Declan
(1999) ‘The Writing is on the Web for Science Journals in Print’, Nature397 (21 January): 195-200.
11.
Chubin, Daryl E.
& Edward J. Hackett (1990) Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).
12.
Collins, Harry
(1975) ‘The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics’, Sociology9: 205-224.
13.
Collins, Harry
(1992) Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice, 2nd edn (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
14.
Collins, Harry
& Martin Kusch (1998) The Shape of Actions: What Humans and Machines Can Do (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
15.
Eisenstein, Elizabeth
(1979) The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe, 2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
16.
Fontanarosa, Phil B.
, Annette Flanagin & Catherine D. DeAngelis (2000) ‘The Journal’s Policy Regarding Release of Information to the Public’, Journal of the American Medical Association284 (13 December): 2929-2931.
17.
Garvey, William D.
(1979) Communication: The Essence of Science (Oxford: Pergamon Press).
18.
Garvey, William D.
& Belver C. Griffith (1967) ‘Scientific Communication as a Social System’, Science157 (1 September): 1011-1016.
19.
Garvey, William D.
, Nan Lin & Kazuo Tomita (1972) ‘Research Studies in Patterns of Scientific Communication: III. Information-Exchange Processes Associated with the Production of Journal Articles’, Information Storage and Retrieval8: 207-221.
20.
Ginsparg, Paul
(1994) ‘First Steps Towards Electronic Research Communication’, Computers in Physics8: 390-396.
21.
Ginsparg, Paul
(1998) ‘Electronic Research Archives for Physics’, in I. Butterworth (ed.), The Impact of Electronic Publishing on the Academic Community (London: Portland Press): 32-43.
22.
Gordon, Michael D.
(1978) ‘Disciplinary Differences, Editorial Practices and the Patterning of Rejection Rates for UK Research Journals’, Journal of Research Communication Studies1: 139-159.
23.
Grint, Keith
& Steve Woolgar (1997) The Machine at Work: Technology, Work and Organization (Cambridge: Polity Press).
24.
Hagstrom, Warren O.
(1970) ‘Factors Related to the Use of Different Modes of Publishing Research in Four Scientific Fields’, in C.E. Nelson & D.K. Pollock (eds), Communication Among Scientists and Engineers (Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington Books): 85-124.
25.
Halliday, Leah
& Charles Oppenheim (2001) ‘Developments in Digital Journals’, Journal of Documentation57: 260-283.
26.
Hargens, Lowell L.
(1988) ‘Scholarly Consensus and Journal Rejection Rates’, American Sociological Review53: 139-151.
27.
Hargens, Lowell L.
(1990) ‘Variation in Journal Peer Review Systems: Possible Causes and Consequences’, Journal of the American Medical Association263 (9 March): 1348.
28.
Harnad, Stevan
(1996) ‘Implementing Peer Review on the Net: Scientific Quality Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals’, in R.P. Peek & G.B. Newby (eds), Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press): 103-118.
Hemlin, Sven
(1996) ‘Research on Research Evaluation’, Social Epistemology10: 209-250.
31.
Hilgartner, Stephen
(1995) ‘Biomolecular Databases — New Communication Regimes for Biology’, Science Communication17: 240-263.
32.
Johns, Adrian
(1998) The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
33.
Kassirer, Jerome P.
& Marcia Angell (1995) ‘The Internet and the Journal’, New England Journal of Medicine332 (22 June): 1709-1710.
34.
Kline, Ronald
& Trevor Pinch (1996) ‘Users as Agents of Technological Change: The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States’, Technology and Culture37: 763-795.
35.
Kling, Rob
& Geoffrey McKim (1999) ‘Scholarly Communication and the Continuum of Electronic Publishing’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology50: 890-906.
36.
Kling, Rob
& Geoffrey McKim (2000) ‘Not Just a Matter of Time: Field Differences and the Shaping of Electronic Media in Supporting Scientific Communication’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology51: 1306-1320.
37.
Kling, Rob
, Geoffrey McKim & Adam King (2003) ‘A Bit More to It: Scholarly Communication Forums as Socio-Technical Interaction Networks’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology54: 47-67.
38.
Knorr Cetina, Karin
(1995) ‘Laboratory Studies: The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science’, in S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Peterson & T. Pinch (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (London: SAGE Publications): 140-166.
39.
Kronick, David A.
(1976) A History of Scientific and Technical Periodicals: The Origins and Development of the Scientific and Technical Press, 2nd edn (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press): 1665-1790.
40.
Latour, Bruno
(1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
41.
Latour, Bruno
(1996) Aramis, or The Love of Technology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
42.
Latour, Bruno
(1999) Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
43.
Lock, Stephen
(1985) A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine (London: The Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust).
44.
McConnell, John
& Richard Horton (1998) ‘Having Electronic Preprints Is Logical’, British Medical Journal316 (20 June): 1907.
45.
McConnell, John
& Richard Horton (1999) ‘Lancet Electronic Research Archive in International Health and Eprint Server’, Lancet354 (3 July): 2-3.
46.
Mackay, Hughie
& Gareth Gillespie (1992) ‘Extending the Social Shaping of Technology Approach: Ideology and Appropriation’, Social Studies of Science22: 685-716.
47.
MacKenzie, Donald
(1990) Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
48.
McKie, Douglas
(1948) ‘The Scientific Periodical from 1665 to 1798’, Philosophical Magazine, Commemoration Number: 122-132.
Meadows, Jack
(1998) Communicating Research (San Diego, CA: Academic Press).
51.
Niiniluoto, Ilkka
(1987) ‘Peer Review: Problems and Prospects’, in B. Ståhle (ed.), Evaluation of Research: Nordic Experiences (Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers): 7-29.
52.
Oblad, Alex G.
(1963) ‘From the Division of Petroleum Chemistry Preprints to a Journal’, Journal of Chemical Documentation3: 71-73.
53.
Odlyzko, Andrew M.
(1995) ‘Tragic Loss or Good Riddance? The Impending Demise of Traditional Scholarly Journals’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies42: 71-122.
54.
Odlyzko, Andrew M.
(1999) ‘Competition and Cooperation: Libraries and Publishers in the Transition to Electronic Scholarly Journals’, Journal of Scholarly Publishing30: 163-185.
55.
Okerson, Ann Shumelda
& James J. O’Donnell (eds) (1995) Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal (Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries).
56.
Pinch, Trevor
(1996) ‘The Social Construction of Technology: A Review’, in R. Fox (ed.), Technological Change: Methods and Themes in the History of Technology (Amsterdam: Harwood): 17-35.
57.
Pinch, Trevor
& Wiebe Bijker (1984) ‘The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other’, Social Studies of Science14: 399-440.
58.
Rosenfeld A.
, R.K. Wakerling, L. Addis, R. Gex & R.J. Taylor (1970) ‘Preprints in Particles and Fields’, in Handling of Nuclear Information (Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency): 405-416.
59.
Rowland, Fytton
(1997) ‘Print Journals: Fit for the Future?’, Ariadne, No. 7.
60.
Rowland, Fytton
(1999) ‘Methods and Motives for Publishing Original Work in Science’, in E. Scanlon, R. Hill & K. Junker (eds), Communicating Science: Professional Contexts (London: Routledge): 61-71.
61.
Russell, Stewart
(1986) ‘The Social Construction of Artefacts: A Response to Pinch and Bijker’, Social Studies of Science16: 331-346.
62.
Smith, Richard
(1999) ‘What is Publication?’, British Medical Journal318 (16 January): 142.
63.
Snowhill, Lucia
(2001) ‘E-books and Their Future in Academic Libraries: An Overview’, D-Lib Magazine7, No. 7/8.
64.
Taubes, Gary
(1993) ‘Publication by Electronic Mail Takes Physics by Storm’, Science259 (26 February): 1246-1248.
65.
Walsh, John P.
& Todd Bayma (1996) ‘Computer Networks and Scientific Work’, Social Studies of Science26: 661-703.
66.
Weller, Ann C.
(2001) Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses (Medford, NJ: Information Today).
67.
Woolgar, Steve
(1991) ‘Beyond the Citation Debate: Towards a Sociology of Measurement Technologies and Their Use in Science Policy’, Science and Public Policy18: 319-326.
68.
Ziman, John
(1968) Public Knowledge: An Essay Concerning the Social Dimension of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
69.
Zuckerman, Harriet
& Robert K. Merton (1971) ‘Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalisation, Structure and Functions of the Referee System’, Minerva9: 66-100.
