In this post on Nascent, NPG’s web publishing and science blog, Timo Hannay provides a draft of his recent article in STM news : Nascent: Foo and beyond. The whole section is worth reading (and there is a good graphic of the opportunities provided by the “scientific web”), but here is an excerpt:

“The idea that everyone can now do their own publishing, making publishers superfluous, is misguided. But publishers do need to adapt. Online communities don’t just happen, they require initiators, motivators, organisers, moderators, summarisers and guides. They also need trust systems based on user identification and reputation. In many ways, these, too, are traditional publishing roles, but they require new skills. Writers and editors now need to double as moderators and hosts. Publishers need to become adept at mitigating gaming and spamming of their systems, and at monetizing web traffic rather than selling subscriptions. On top of that, they need to become better at cooperating — with each other and with other organisations outside the industry. This particularly applies to online interoperability (even horror of horrors, with competitors), which is a positive-sum game that can benefit all participants. CrossRef has blazed a trail in this area, and we should build in its success.

Above all, publishers need to be leading the online charge, not following the scientists we serve. We are the information dissemination experts, so if we aren’t pushing the boundaries and testing what’s possible in this new world then we’re not merely missing out, we’re also not doing our jobs. Cynics will point out that most apparent ‘opportunities’ are a long way from turning a profit, and many probably never will. They’re right. Do any of the STM projects I’ve mentioned above make a lot of money? No. But are they representative of the future of scientific communication, and do they provide a platform on which to build information businesses of the future? You’d better believe it.”

In a similar vein, Alex Palazzo of The Daily Transcript blog wrote about Nature Publishing Group’s “game plan” as he calls it, regarding science publishing and web “2.0” (the social, interactive web). The post arose from Alex’s attendance at Nature Network Boston’s pub night. This post, and the lively set of comments accompanying it, range over the the topic of the value of publishing in a journal, “open access” publication, and whether the unit of publication will become the paper itself rather than the journal in which it is published.