Online Journals and Lost Serendipity
By Ali Rastegarpour, MD, Assistant Professor of Radiology, University of Southern California, Department of Radiology
The End of an Era
Very recently, we experienced the end of an era so quietly that I do not recall hearing anyone talking about it: no fanfare, no protests, no rants. So quietly, I had to double-check whether it happened, despite the physical evidence, or lack thereof, on my bookshelf.
This year, in my field, radiology, the most prominent societies discontinued the print versions of some of the most influential journals, including, Radiology, Radiographics, and the American Journal of Roentgenology. The decision to discontinue print versions was neither unexpected nor unreasonable. Much of the hassle of a journal comes from printing it. With the availability of free online versions, fewer and fewer people subscribe to the print versions, which usually cost extra. Institutions really do not need physical journal archives anymore. Gone are the days when research required you to find all the papers containing certain keywords in the most recent Index Medicus and scramble to collect the issues you needed among the library book stacks to read the most recent literature on that subject. Online-only editions adequately perform the main functions of a journal. The internet is extremely efficient for finding what we are looking for. This efficiency has revolutionized the way we do research. However, it does come at a cost: we are finding less of what we are not looking for.
In time, a larger proportion of journals will move toward the online-only model, and fewer print journals will remain. There is likely no way back from that.
On Serendipity
Serendipity is a term coined by Horace Walpole in 1754 in reference to an old Persian fairy tale named The Three Princes of Serendip. In Walpole’s retelling, “as their highnesses traveled, they were always making discoveries, by accident or sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of.” [1]
In science, most scholars use the term in relation to discoveries made as the result of an unexpected occurrence. This discovery may be aligned with the scientist’s initial intent (some have called this pseudo serendipity or, in other taxonomies, Mertonian serendipity, after Robert Merton, who asserted that insistence that the term be limited to discoveries that were not the target of the quest, was too restrictive a definition for serendipity in science [2]), or may be a completely unrelated discovery.
Serendipity is frequently mentioned in passing as a synonym for words like chance, luck, or accident. Serendipity is, however, more complex, especially since the origin of the term included a component of sagacity. In this context, in a serendipitous discovery, in addition to the fortuitous event, two additional components should be acknowledged. The first is that chance discovery occurs more readily in certain settings. This reflects both the inquisitive state of mind of the scientist and the conditions under which the chance event occurs, which may be due to random variation or an unintended consequence of the study design. [3] The second is the deduction that takes place after an accidental observation. [4] In both components, as Louis Pasteur famously said, “chance favors the prepared mind” [5], and thus, serendipity is no accident [6].
Journals and Serendipity
Browsing a physical journal allowed us to look through information that may not have been pertinent to our subspecialty or interest but sometimes would pique our interest to look a little longer for different reasons: maybe the authors were people we knew, or the diagrams were clear and interesting.
We often think of serendipity as the etiology for large groundbreaking discoveries, likely because of the famous examples we know of in science, specifically in medicine, and particularly in radiology, but that is clearly not the case when you look at the origins of the term: “…discoveries, by accident or sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of.” The small discoveries, the things we find and engage with every day -the ones we were not particularly seeking- are also manifestations of serendipity, and they set the stage for larger serendipitous discoveries. This small dose of serendipity may not have been the center of attention so far, but it is no less important.
The transition to online-only versions still allows us to find what we are looking for and perhaps has improved the experience by far, but the browsing component is lacking. Some serendipity is lost.
Future Directions
In time, a larger proportion of journals will move toward the online-only model, and fewer print journals will remain. There is likely no way back from that. The online-only model is more cost-effective, which will drive the transition. Hidden within the cost are the limitations of print journals. Because the price per issue would increase with page counts and images, most journals had limits for length and images, especially color images. These limitations can be removed with online-only editions. An online-only journal can display more images with better resolution without incurring much extra cost, as well as more pages and tables, and supplementary material such as data sets and videos, or even interactive media. So, this is the direction we are headed.
What must be considered here is to find what is lost in the transition and, if need be, preserve it in some way or another. Exposure to things we are not looking for and the impact of such a phenomenon is a difficult thing to quantify, but possibly just being cognizant that journals have a function other than hosting papers for readers to find when looking for them may affect how online-only journals are configured. Possibly, there may be some focus dedicated to improving the reading experience, not in lieu of, but in addition to readily measurable outcomes such as citations. Applications could be developed to mimic the browsing experience with highly visible excerpts and, diagrams and key information. Such apps could function as platforms for multiple journals, obviating the need for multiple log-ins / sign-ins for each journal, as this small inconvenience may prove a barrier to the casual readership.
The answer might be complex and multifaceted, as is the answer to many other questions arising from the increasing influence of the internet. It is in some ways similar to the problem of social media (as well as non-social media these days): how would we curate the content we are exposed to in order to minimize negative unintended consequences when there is little incentive to do so, and algorithms are designed to increase profit by increasing engagement? My hope is that if we still have some way to go before we find an answer, at least we have identified a question.
References
- Meyers MA. Glen W. Hartman lecture. Science, creativity, and serendipity. AJR. American Journal of roentgenology. 1995 Oct;165(4):755-64.
- Yaqub O. Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy. 2018 Feb 1;47(1):169-79.
- Pear BL. Discovered by chance?. AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 1996 Jan;166(1):214.
- Mirvahedi S, Morrish S. The role of serendipity in opportunity exploration. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship. 2017 Oct 16;19(2):182-200.
- De Rond M. The structure of serendipity. Culture and Organization. 2014 Oct 20;20(5):342-58.
- Friedel R. Serendipity is no accident. The Kenyon Review. 2001 Apr 1;23(2):36-47.