WALKOWSKI SCHOLARLY FLOW BEYOND THE PUBLICATIONS DIGITAL Beyond the Flow Beyond the Flow: Scholarly Publications During and After the Digital Niels-Oliver Walkowski Bibliographical Information of the German National Library The German National Library lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie(GermanNationalBibliography);detailed bibliographicinformationisavailableonlineathttp://dnb.d-nb.de Publishedin2019bymesonpress,Lüneburg. www.meson.press Designconcept:TorstenKöchlin,SilkeKrieg Coverimage:YuichiroHaga(www.flickr.com/photos/infinity-d/6781064978) TheprinteditionofthisbookisprintedbyBookson Demand, Norderstedt ISBN(Print): 978-3-95796-160-0 ISBN(PDF): 978-3-95796-161-7 ISBN(EPUB): 978-3-95796-162-4 DOI:10.14619/1600 Thedigitaleditionsofthispublicationcanbedownloadedfreelyat: www.meson.press ThispublicationislicensedunterCCBY-SA4.0(CreativeCommons Attribution-ShareAlike4.0International).Toviewacopyofthislicense, visit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Contents Introduction 11 [ 1 ] Cyberpublishing 27 TheACMPublishingPlan 27 TheRoaring90s 29 TheModularArticle 33 PublicationFormatsAlongthePathofModularArticles 40 [ 2 ] World Wide Publishing 45 PositionofPointsinInfrastructureandVirtual PublishingEnvironments 45 ProgrammaticFramingandOrganisationalSelf-Awareness 48 EarlyTheoreticalEvaluationsofDigitalPublications 49 [ 3 ] Publishing 3.0 53 TheOpenLaboratoryBook 54 Aggregations 62 WorkflowPublications 65 SemanticPublications 79 LiquidPublications 95 EnhancedPublications 103 Nano-Publications 117 AutomatedPublications 128 UnboundBooks 130 Single-Resource Publications 138 TransmediaPublications 143 [ 4 ] Publishing-Com Bubble 159 HybridPublications 160 ScalingDigitalPublicationConcepts 168 DataPapers 180 Self-ContainedPublications 191 PuttingDigitalPublicationsIntoContext 204 [ 5 ] Post-Digital ... 209 ALessRandomDefinitionoftheDigital 209 Topological,TypologicalandMathematicalKnowledge 216 RepresentationStrategies,IntermedialityandTheir Relationships 224 RepresentinginTimesofCalculatedCalculation 230 TheThreeEpistemologicalEffectsofCalculatedCalculation 238 PublicationsBeyondColdTechnologyandPureTheory 245 [ 6 ] ... Publishing 251 ConceptsofSocialAspectsinDigitalPublicationsandWhat TheyMiss 251 TheAmbiguousIssueofHeterogeneity 267 PublicationFormatsasDomainDrivenDiscourseObjects 274 FundamentalTensionsbetweenPublicationand Communication 290 PublicationsinTermsofCommunication 306 Conclusion 333 A P P E N D I X Acronyms 349 References 351 DIGITAL PUBLISHING MODELING MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS POST-DIGITALIT Y For the last twenty-five years, research on so-called digital publications was aimed at reconfiguring established modes of scholarly communication. Interest in the field is driven by the idea that the advent of digital technologies can solve a variety of past problems of scholarly publications, thereby constructing a conceptual space for negotiation of past and future. Issues at stake are epistemological commitments to strategies of production and representation of knowledge, as well as different understandings of the impacts of technology. The field thus shapes how we refer to scientific knowledge in the light of digital technologies. The present contribution examines how related research developed scenarios of the past and future of scholarly communications. Built on this enquiry, an alternative, more ecologically informed approach to understanding the changing landscape of scholarly publications is proposed. An attempt is thus made to put new light on a variety of conflicts that have dominated this research field throughout its existence. Introduction Intheyear2006,Owenpublished The Scientific Article in the Age of Digitization .Thegoalofthisworkwastofindanswerstothequestionof “howtheongoingprocessofdigitizationhasimpactedonthesubstanceof formalscientificcommunicationasreflectedinthescientificarticle”(15). Thereareseveralelementsinthisquotethatareworthdiscussing.Tobegin with,itdrawsattentiontothefactthatanideaexistswhichpresumesthat thedigitalrepresentationofthemainmethodofcommunicationinscience —scholarlypublications—couldhaveagreaterimpactonsuchmethods, beyondjustrepresentingthem.Whilethetermdigitizationsuggeststhat articlesaremerelydigitized,thewholeofthesentencerevealsapos - sibility for the representation to apply its own set of changes to the thing represented.Theprocessofdigitizationisnolongeraone-wayrelation - ship,andthedigitalformmorethanjustacontainer.Anotherinteresting aspectistheveryrelationshipbetweenthescientificarticleasanobject andscientificcommunicationasapractice.Thequotecallstomindthat theobjecthappenstobenotjustanobjectwithinthispractice,butthat the shape of the article is an expression of the regularities of scholarly communication,inthesamewayasthequalitiesofarticlesfacilitateand shapespecificformsofscholarlycommunication.Thisrelationshipmakes itpossibletorespondtothequestionofpotentialchangesinscholarly communication,byhavingalookatwhathappenedtothearticleformafter articlesweredigitized.Thefinalfacettobehighlightedisanassumption thatseemsreasonableundertheaforementionedcircumstances:if digitizationchangedthesubstanceofscientificcommunication,wouldsuch changesreflectacertainsubstanceofthedigitalform? IntheabovediscussionofthedimensionsofOwen’squote,thebasicshape ofaresearchfieldwasoutlinedthatformednearlytwenty-fiveyearsago underthenotionof digital scholarly publishing or digital scholarly pub - lications .Thereisalwaysalotofcontingencyintheattempttosetastarting pointforaslowtransition.However,thisstimulatesthedebate,andforthe abovementionedcontextthereareabunchofreasonstodefinetheyear 1995asacrucialyearforsomethingthatcouldbecalledthetransitionfrom Electronic Publications to Digital Publications ElectronicpublishingwasprimarilyaboutburningarticlesonCD-ROMs andputtingprintversionsofarticlesonline.Theformofthearticle,its mainfeatures,hadnotbeenmodified.Neitherdidthosedigitalcopies makeuseofmoreadvancedpossibilitiesofdigitaltechnologies,ascom - prehensivelydiscussedbyHitchcock,Carr,andHall(1996),Alsop,Tompsett, 12 Beyond the Flow andWisdom(1997),aswellasPeekandPomerantz(1998).Inthissense, Hitchcockdescribesthetimebefore1995as“thecalmbeforethestorm,” with the term storm referring to more serious attempts of completely rethinkingwhatapublicationmaybeinthelightofdigitaltechnology.Thus, theshiftbetweenElectronicPublishingandDigitalPublishingwastheshift fromtryingtorepresentsomethingundernewconditionstoanattempt toletthesenewconditionschangethethingitself.Inotherwords,itrefers preciselytothephenomenonOwenintendedtoevaluateyearslater. Besidesthislineofarguments,thereisalsoaquantitativemeasuresup - portingtheclaimofashiftinthisperiod.Alookatthe Google Ngram 1 resultsfortheuseoftheterms“electronicpublishing”and“digitalpub - lishing,”forinstance,showsadeclineforthefirsttermafter1995,whilethe secondtermreceivesinitialattentionbetween1994and1996. Finally,thereisanincidentthatwellservesthepurposeofhaving somethinglikeasymboliceventmarkingthisshift.1995wastheyearin whichDenningandRouspublishedtheirwell-citedpaperon“TheACM ElectronicPublishingPlan.”Besidesitsnumberofcitations,thispaperis significantbecauseitcallsforaradicalrethinkingoftheextentuptowhich digital technologies should renew publications. It proclaims that “publishing hasreachedahistoricdivide”(69),demandingthatpublishersseriously considerthesechanges“ifthesystemistosurvive”(72). DenningandRousmadesomeveryprecisesuggestionshowthestructure andformofpublicationsmaychangeifdigitalscholarlypublishingis understoodassomethingmorethanmovinghistoricalpublicationsinto anewtechnologicalenvironment.Oneofthemostconcisestatements, however,canbefoundinNentwich’s2003work Cyberscience ,inwhichhe arguesthat“hypertextandhypermediawillgraduallybecomethestandard waysofrepresentingacademicknowledge”(270).Thisgeneralclaimisa verygoodexamplefortheissueOwenwantedtoputtothetest.Itstresses keyfeaturesofdigitaltechnologies,andassumesthatthesefeatureswill providethenewdominantstructureforscholarlypublications. Theideathatthemaintopicofacademicpublishingshouldbethemod - ificationofthepublicationformatandstructure,sothattheyareinline withthedemandsandopportunitiesofdigitaltechnologies,startedamas - sivediscourseonforthcomingrevolutionarychanges.Intheintroductionto hisstudy,Owen(2006,5–7)offersanimpressivesummaryofnearlytwenty statementsfromalloverthefieldofscholarlypublishing,proclaiming 1 The Google Ngram Viewer canbeaccessedat:books.google.com/ngrams. Introduction 13 “theelectronicpublishingrevolution”(Hunter2001),“arevolutioninthe communicationofresearch”(Friend1998,163).Treloar(1999,25)detected “revolutionized...attitudestowardscommunicationaswellasourabilityto communicateideasandresearchresults.” FourteenyearshavegonebysinceOwen’sanalysisofthediscourse accompanyingthe“digitization”ofpublications.Itdoesnotcomeasasur - prisethatduringthattimealotofnewdevelopmentstookplacearound thenotionofdigitalscholarlypublications.Thesedevelopmentshave, nonetheless,notchangedanythingaboutthegeneralimpressioninthe fieldthattheabovementionedrevolutionarychangesareyettocome. RemarkssuchasthosegatheredbyOwencontinuetoframeresearchand developmentsuntiltoday.Accordingly,Shotton(2009)giveshisaccount ofthetopicundertheheadlineofa“ComingRevolutioninScientific JournalPublishing.”Peroni(2014a,7)continuestoperceivein2014that “scholarlyauthoringandpublishingareundergoingarevolution.”Hall,Kuc, andZylinska(2015,3),infarmoregeneralterms,repeattheinsightthat the“digitalrevolutionhasfacilitatedthedevelopmentofnewmodesof knowledgedissemination...aswellasnewformsofcommunication.”Still, afterdecadesofinvestment,research,anddebate,Assanteetal.(2015)feel thatthe“timeforaChangeinScholarlyCommunication”hascome,while Sofronijević(2012,252)seeshimself“onthevergeofarevolution...inthe areaofcommunication.”BartlingandFriesike(2014)aim“TowardsAnother ScientificRevolution,”drivenmostlybyleavingbehindthetraditionalpub - licationmodel,andDeRoure(2014b,237)“callsforanovernightrevolution” thatshouldleadto“TheFutureofScholarlyCommunications.”Thecon - stellationofacomingrevolution,theoccurrenceofwhichmovesforward asnewstepstowardsdigitalpublicationsaretaken,thuscanbeseenasa constantfeatureofthefield. Incontrasttothissituation,peoplesuchasEsposito(2013)statethatthe “TheDigitalPublishingRevolutionIsOver.”Withthefocusonaspecific subtopicofdigitalscholarlypublishing,Herb(2017)writesin“OpenAccess BetweenRevolutionandCashCow”thatintheyear“2016itmustbe notedthatthehopesofopenaccessadvocatesforarevolutionwillbe disappointed.”Whatseemstobeamorerecentcriticalreactiontothe phenomenondescribedinthelastparagraphisinfactasimilarcon - comitantofthehistoryofdigitalpublishing.Astudyoftheimpressions andexpectationsofresearchersabouttheimpactofdigitaltechnologies onscholarlypublicationsconductedbyEasonetal.summarizedin1997 already: Thegrowthinacademic,refereedjournalsmaywellremainmodest ....Therealsoappearstobelittlereasontoexpectagrowthin 14 Beyond the Flow multi-mediacontent....Hypertextsarethepossibleexceptionbut therehasbeenlittleenthusiasmsofarfordevelopingthese....(Eason etal.1997,81) In1998,PeekandPomerantz(1998)publishedtheresultsofadetailed analysisofchangesscholarlyjournalshadundergoneintheprevious decade.Inquiteastrongstatementtheyconcludethat“atafirstglance,it mayappearthatthehistoryofelectronicscholarlypublishing...islittered withthecorpsesoffailedefforts”(339).WithrespecttoOwen’sownover - viewoftherevolutionaryexpectationsinthefieldofdigitalpublications,he remarksmoregenerallyattheendofhissurvey: The“revolution”inscientificcommunicationthatissupposedtobe causedbyinformationandcommunicationtechnologieshasoften beencomparedtotheso-called“Gutenbergrevolution.”Butaswe haveseen,thatrevolutionismoremyththanrealityasfarasscience andthemediaofscientificcommunicationareconcerned.(Owen2006, 210) MostrecentlyKadenandKleineberg(2017,1)summarizedtheresultsof aresearchprojectinvestigating Future Publications in the Humanities by remarkingthat“[es]lässtsichdiegrundsätzlicheErkenntnisfesthalten, dasseinekonsequenteDigitalisierungdesgeisteswissenschaftlichenPub - lizierens bisher ausbleibt.” 2 Tomakeapoint,itcouldbeemphasizedthatinthehistoryofdigital scholarlypublishing,anarrativethatalwaysseesarevolutioncominggoes alongwiththeproclamationofafailedrevolution,oronethatwillnever happen. The last three quotes all came from evaluations of certain states of scholarlypublicationsinthepast.Theauthorswerelessinvolvedinthe designortheimplementationofnewpublicationformsthanthe“rev - olutionaries”werebefore.Thereare,however,plentyofstatementsin thisresearchfieldresemblingtheobservationsofPeekandPomerantz, EspositoorHerbintheirownpeculiarway.Throughoutthewholehistory ofdigitalscholarlypublications,stakeholders,tryingtointroducesub - stantialchangestowhatscholarlypublicationslooklike,complainthat despitealltheseattempts,nostandardsfornewpublicationformats haveemerged.Thisdoesnotmeanthattheydonotrecognizetheirown contributions.Thesecontributions,however,haveproducedamessyand 2 “thegeneralfactcouldberecordedthataresolutedigitizationofpublishinginthe humanitiesfailstoappear”(author’stranslation) Introduction 15 heterogeneouslandscapeinsteadofnewreliableformationsinscholarly publishing,andtheonesthatappearmostfrustratedaboutthisfactare thesespecificstakeholdersthemselves.Castelli,Manghi,andThanos (2013)remarkthatinnovativeapproachestoscholarlypublicationsare “poorlyintegrated”(155)becausestakeholdersdonotwanttofocuson commonsolutions(167).Itisnotsurprisingthatin2003,Kennedy(2003) regretsthatthereisnostandardizedwaytoproducedigitalpublications. Thesameregret,however,appearsagainandagain,uptothepresent. Hence,AdriaansenandHooft(2010)expresstheirunhappinesswiththe factthatnosupportingtoolsfordigitalpublicationsexist—becausethere isnocommonprocedurefortheircreation.Thissituationisconsidered aconsequenceofthefactthat,moregenerally,thereisnostandardfor digitalpublicationsinacademia(8).Inasimilarfashion,BardiandManghi (2015a)lamentthelackofanystandardizedframeworkfortheinstallation ofnewpublicationformsinscholarlypublishing.BardiandManghi(2014, 265)remarkthatdigitalpublicationsare“arichbutfoundationlessrealm” thatfinallyneeds“somekindofcommonunderstanding”(240).Infact,five yearsearlier,Sierman,Schmidt,andLudwig(2009)alreadyworkedonsuch anunderstanding.Theyevencalledfortheuseofaspecificstandardwhich wouldsupportallaspectsofthisunderstanding.Butastheyannouncethis standard,theyundermineitinanalmostfatalisticremark,asking:“butwho knowsifthisstandardisthewayofthefuture”(160).Candelaetal.(2015, 1760)assertthat“journaleditorsdonotyethaveasharedandconsolidated strategy”regardingcoreelementsofdigitalpublicationsformats.“Asacon - sequenceofthisstateofaffairsandthelackofstandardsinthisarea,there isgreatheterogeneity”(1752). Alltheabovementionedauthors,andotherstoo,havetriedtointroduce orsupportthestandardizationprocessofdigitalpublicationsthatis supposedlythekeyfactorinbroaderadoption.Eachnewattempt,never - theless,referstothegeneralsituationofdigitalpublications.Thispattern hasbeenthereforaconsiderableamountoftime,suggestingthatitisa constantofthehistoryofdigitalpublicationssofar. Asmentionedabove,thereisnotjustregretbutalsofrustration.Thisfrus - tration might not come as a surprise in a situation where revolutionary eventsareexpectedbutdonotseemtooccur,atleastnotintheway theyareexpected.Itisarticulatedincomplaintsabouthowmuchcurrent scholarlypublicationsavailableindigitalenvironmentsareallegedlyacopy ofpublicationsfromtheeraoftheprintingpress.In1998,Singhetal.(1998, sec. OnlineJournalsToday)writethat“mostofthem[digitalscholarlypub - lications]areessentiallyastaticvisualformoftheircounterparthard-copy 16 Beyond the Flow journal”andpublishing“hasnotkeptpacewiththechangingresearch technology”(sec. TheNeed).Still,in2014,DeRoure(2014b,233)assertsthat nosignificantchangeshavebeenmadetotheformatofthejournalarticle sinceitsintroductionin1665. 3 In2009,Hogenaar(2009)launchesacritique towardsanewdigitalpublicationformat,sayingthat“itsend-productisstill apublicationratherthanacommunicationobject.”Twoyearslater,Bourne (2011)outlinestheprospectsofdigitalpublicationsandcontraststhem withthesituationatthattime.Thebottomlineofthiscomparisonissum - marizedquiteconciselybythetitle“DigitalResearch/AnalogPublishing.” Xu(2011,i)createsthesamedichotomy.Consequently,“ahighlysemantic enrichedpublicationalwaysmakesitsinformationanddatamucheasier tosearch,navigate,disseminateandreuse,whereasmostonlinearticles todayarestillelectronicfacsimilesoflinearstructuredpapers.”Marcondes, Malheiros,anddaCosta(2014)claimthat“despitenumerousadvancements ininformationtechnology,electronicpublishingisstillbasedontheprint textmodel.”Theannouncementofapanelonpublishingin2017,organized by the Institute of Network Cultures 4 reads:althoughdigitaltechnologies promisedarenaissanceinthepublishingindustries,publishersstill strugglewithdigitalinnovationsandtrytoholdontotraditionalworkflows, production,formandbusinessmodels”(InstituteofNetworkCultures 2017).Consequently, these complaints show that what was presented as the maindistinctionbetweenelectronicpublicationsanddigitalpublications neverreallydeveloped. Themainobjectcriticizedisthe PDF format,widelyknowninsideandout - sideofacademiaasthemostcommonformatforthedistributionofdigital documents.Owen(2006,146)hadremarkedalreadyin2006that“perhaps themostconspicuousfindingisthefrequentuseofpdfasadistribution format.”Accordingtohisanalysis,morethantwo-thirdsoftheinvestigated digitalpublicationsprimarilyusedthisformatduringthatepoch.In2018 Garciaetal.(2018,2/26)statethat“publishedpapersareprimarilyavailable asHTMLandPDF.”Owenfurtherfindsthisconspicuous,becausethePDF, “inspiteofitshypermediumandmultimediaproperties,ispredominantly aprint-documentbasedformat.”ForOwen,thisconspicuousnessmainly representsagoodreasontoreflectmorebroadlyoncertainelements inthediscourseofthefieldofdigitalpublications.Forthefielditself, observationssuchasthoseareafundamentalnuisance.In2010,advocates for new publication formats thus began planning a conference with the title 3 DeRourereferstothe Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society launchedthat year by The Royal Society of London. 4 http://networkcultures.org/ Introduction 17 “BeyondthePDF.”Acallforpreparations,launchedontheblogssectionof thenon-profitpublisher PLOS ,reads: PDFhasbecomethestandardwayweconsumescientificpapers,but infactisnotagoodformatforthispurposeatall.... PDF is an insult to science. (Fenner2010) Inthesamefashion,Lord,Cockell,andStevens(2012,1004)statethat despitealltheadvantagesforfuturepublicationsthatgoalongwithdigital technologies,digitalscholarlypublicationstodayinfact“culminateina lumpenPDF.”Pettiferetal.(2011,213)giveanoverviewofsomeofthe critiquesinwhichPDFsareseenas“antitheticaltothespiritoftheweb” andcomparedwiththeactofinventingatelephoneandusingitformorse code.Andstill,theauthorsassertthatalthoughmuchbetterchoicesare available,eightypercentofdigitalpublicationsarepublishedinPDFformat. ItstandstoreasontoassumethatthePDFmightalsohavebeenextended tomakeuseofcertaincapabilitiesofdigitaltechnologies,andinfactsuch developments towards interactive PDFs andmultimediaPDFshavetaken placeinthelastyears.TheseattemptstomodernizethePDF,nonetheless, donottonedownthecritique.Bourne(2010,1)oncecommentedwithmuch polemic: “these pioneering publishers are now experimenting with inter - activePDFs,‘articlesofthefuture,’...butthenwhat?” Itisindeedintheevaluationofthecomportmentofstakeholdersinvolved inscholarlypublishingwherethefrustrationbehindresearchondigital publicationformatsismostrecognizable.Bourne,BuckinghamShumetal. remark: Producersandconsumersremainweddedtoformatsdevelopedin theeraofprintpublication,andtherewardsystemsforresearchers remaintiedtothosedeliverymechanisms.(Bourne,BuckinghamShum etal.2012) Oftmentionedreasonsincludethatresearchersbehaveselfishly (Markowetz2015;Nüstetal.2017),orthinkintermsoftheirself-interest (CribbandHartomo2010),orientedtowardsthecreationofcompetitive advantages(Borgman,Wallis,andEnyedy2007).Publishersaredis - tinguishedbytheiroccasionalreluctancetoevenpublishdigitalbooks (Humphreysetal.2017)orthinkaboutmakingallegedlybeneficialchanges towhatapublicationis.Fromtimetotime,frustrationalsoturnsintoopen aggression,ofwhichNeylongivesanilluminatingexample.Hewrites: Someoneoncesaidtomethatthebestwaytogetresearcherstobe seriousabouttheissueofmodernizingscholarlycommunicationswas 18 Beyond the Flow toletthescholarlymonographbusinessgotothewallasanobject lessontoeveryoneelse.AfterthelastcoupleofweeksI’mbeginningto thinkthesamemightbesaidoftheUKHumanitiesandSocialSciences literature....theproblemisthatpeoplearefocusingonthewrong problemsandmissingthesignificantopportunitiestorejuvenateH&SS intheUK.(Neylon2012) Ifuptothispointonethingisabsolutelyclear,thenitisthefactthat thetopicofdigitalpublicationsinacademiaisfullofemotions.Init,the parallelityoffascinationandresignation,betweenhopeandfrustration, formaweirdbutvibrantmixture.Ontheonehand,thismixturehasbeen veryproductiveinsofarasatremendouswealthofprojects,initiatives, technologies,andmodelscametolight.Ontheotherhand,ithasalso shownitselftobeextremelydestructive,becauseresourcesandvigor oftenhavebeenspentfornothing,whileresearchers,publishers,andother stakeholdersareconfrontedwithagrowingamountofuncertaintyabout thepublishingenvironmentthatshouldsustaintheircareers. AsHall(2013,497)putsit,today“allpublishingisdestinedtobecome vanitypublishing.”Thelastparagraphshaveshownthatthismightnot onlyapplytoconcretepublications,butsimilarlytonewformsormodels ofpublications.Ofthemorethantwentypublicationconceptsanalyzedin thestudyathand,manybecamerelativelyinsignificantafterfundinghad stopped.Othersonlysurviveinasmallnicheofexpertsandenthusiasts, ofwhichmanyweredirectlyinvolvedinitsdevelopment.WhileforHall, vanitypublishingconstitutesthenew,digitalconditionforpublishing assuch,itisnotsurprisingthatnoteveryoneembracesthisprospect asmuchashedoes.Thecomplaintsaboutmissingstandardizationand vastheterogeneityintheworldofdigitalpublicationsshowedthatthere ismuchdesireformoresustainablesolutions,solutionsthatwouldbe acceptedbyabroadacademicaudienceandthatcouldbesustainedby bundlingeffortsandresources. Theinsightthattheimminentrevolutionandtherevolution-postponed- until-further-noticearepartofthesameprocessandconfronteachother inaconstantrelationshipwithinthisprocess,putsaparticularlyinter - estinglightonthequestionofwhatthereasonbehindallthismightbe. Inbrief,whydoesthisrelationshipappeartobeconstant,andwhyhave digitalpublicationmodelsnotbeenmoresuccessfulovertheyears? Missingstandardsandtoomanynewpublicationformatsseemtobemore asymptomofaproblemthatisnotimmediatelydefinable.Theissueof heterogeneity,togetherwiththenearlytwenty-fiveyearsofdevelopments,