To explain my point: newsgroups, where the blogs of their time. Someone started a thought stream, others would comment on it. The problem with newsgroups was it knowledge barrier. If you did not know how to use a newsreader or you knew nobody that could give you the address of the group you could not participate. But newsgroups where the system of the late eighties and begin nineties to share information and ideas. They still exist, but because of their incredible difficult use, compared to e-mail and blog software, few people know of their existence.

Also e-mail is an example of a product that made sharing of ideas possible. In the nineties of the last century it was completely normal for a researcher to be member of several mailing-lists on his research subject to keep abreast of what happened in his field. And some of those groups have gone online and created the first websites, where others just withered away because they did not get new members, as there seemed to be easier ways to share information.

If however you are talking about dissemination of ideas outside the academic domain your are absolutely correct. The selling of articles and their rights to publishers who after that sell a publication for prices, that no normal human being would pay for any publication with a specific subject (how successful would Playboy have been if it charged the same prices you pay for most scientific publications), does stand in the way of the dissemination of ideas among a brother public then the academic libraries.

So the dissemination beyond the academic world is our problem. But that is not hindered by the system chosen to determine credit. That is hindered by the language used in scientific publications. And it is hindered by the fact that large amounts of academic trained professionals do not like to read scientific publications. Partly because they understood the rules of scientific writing just enough to pass the courses they had to follow in them. And when they got their first job, discovered that their bosses did not like scientific writing at all. But also because they read publications written by journalists for a brother public, with often a combination of scientific fact and every day practices. And the scientific facts are often so distorted that the professional can not use the information to create ideas, expect if the idea available from the scientific facts are so clear and concise that they are usable without translation in the practice of the professional.

That is also probably the reason why e-learning is so widely used, it is practical, not scientific. Even though much of its basic structure comes from scientific research over several decades and combines two scientific disciplines, educational science and information technology. But e-learning was first developed in the scientific community, and used by professionals who later disseminated it in their professional life.

So if you really want to start a revolution in the exchange of ideas, you should change the working life of professionals. They need more time to keep up with what is happening in the academic world. They also would need a different academic training, in which sharing ideas is more important than getting grades. Their rewards should not be based solely at getting every project done on time, within budget, but also on creating and sharing ideas.

And off course this reaction is incomplete, but then it is not an scientific answer. I would really like to hear what needs to be added to make this reaction more complete and scientific, and where I follow crooked or wrong thoughts and ideas. Another thing that hinders the dissemination of ideas. Most people do not like being confronted with their mistakes.

I admit that my views on academia are too much on the extreme side – depending where you are things might not be that bad and this world is definitely changing. In a couple of months I’m participating in Berlin 6 Open Access Conference (http://www.berlin6.org) – that’s one of the signs that eventually things will be different.

Academic Productivity did a good “science 2.0″ post a few weeks back, that did a good job of summarizing where we are along the road to a more open, relevant publishing system and what’s holding us back. The fact remains that despite the goofiness of the current publishing system (taxpayers fund the research, the journals get it for free, and then…off to the walled garden, 25 bucks-an-article please), it’s what the whole system is built upon; these things don’t change fast, especially in the relatively conservative culture of academia.

However, on the good side, I think that interest in different, more open models is growing; the Academy is finally starting–starting!–to realize that this whole “internet” thing can and should change the way we communicate research. I think–well, hope–that the vast, current difference between publication and blogging will begin to blur in the near future. As scholarship becomes more accessible–both in style and distribution–a career in the Academy may become more meaningful. I think that academics like you, who make an effort to infuse their blogging with their scholarship (and vice versa) are helping to bring that about.

Ismael, not sure how many people would want to read a book-length PDF :) Ideally, PhD research should be reported in some other format, but actually my comment was more on the post-PhD life in academia…

I’ve been having lately an open debate with some colleagues of mine about PhD dissertations having to be adapted and then published as a (paper) book, or just uploaded to a web server and spread all around.

The book provides credits… and a reach of 1,000 people in the best of scenarios (the number issued of copies + some people at some library). What’s the reach of a free PDF diffused in the appropriate community?

Oh, and thanks for the link!