Annals of Library Science and Documentation 1986, 33(4), 150-155

INFORMATION INDISCIPLINE

Information is being produced at an everincreasing rate. Out of this enormous abund-ance of information production, roughly 50per cent is redundant. There is pollution ofinformation due to uncontrolled starting ofnew publications. Publication of "rejectedpapers" through monopoly journals has createdimbalances and indiscipline. Duplication, debase-ment of quality, restriction of documents,misleading titles, unplanned and uncoordi-nated and piecemeal growth of secondaryperiodicals are the major factors leading toinformation indiscipline. The rapid growth ofpage charge' system and enforcement of con-dition of membership to publish. articles insome journals are leading to the emergence of asingle body of contributors, irrespective of themerit of the papers.

PRELUDE

Information is a large and imprecise concept,and one that is almost impossible to define.Every innovation, in fact every new conditionor situation, can originate scientific/business/administration/technical activity, and hence theneed for information. Communication ofinformation is a noble profession and as philo-sophically expressed by Manu, a great thinkerof India, is a great service too. From timeimmemorial this process is being continued,but with a degree and difference of time andspeed. Although the progress of science wasslow in the beginning, it accelerated consider-ably with the invention of papermaking in theyear 105 A.D. The spread of this knowledge toCentral Asia and Europe by 750 A.D. is con-sidered a landmark and during 750 A.D. to

ISO

M.B. BAN KAPURIndian Institute of HorticulturalResearch (ICAR)LakeB.P.O.HessaraghattaBangalore

1450 A.D. there was a substantial increase inthe number of significant contributions.

The invention of printing machine usingmovable metallic types in the mid-fifteenthcentury and the establishment of the papermill had a tremendous impact on the publi-cation of literature in general. The positionimproved further with the emergence of learn-ed societies and periodicals in the second halfof the eighteenth century. The development ofnewer bibliographic techniques and tools in thelast quarter of the 19th century resulted infurther increase in the number of contributionsin a short span of time. It is a great task toassess the value of information without losingthe spirit of knowledge and distributing thebalance of discipline in the flow of informa-tion. The objective of this article is to pinpointthe indiscipline in the production of informa-tion and not in the discipline of informationscience, as such.

INFORMATION FLOW

In recent years there has been a very largeincrease in the output of both scientific andnon-scientific knowledge. The increase has out-stripped the retrieval capacity of even thescholars in their own fields of study. There areat present fifty to sixty thousand currentscientific/technical journals. Three new onesappear and one disappears every day. Pro-duction per scientist for each country andthrough time is fairly constant. Most of thepapers are transient and about a quarter of themare never cited; about 98 per cent are com-pletely forgotten after 10 years. A small numberof journals in a particular discipline contain

Ann Lib Sci Doc

INFORMATION INDISCIPUNE

the most relevant articles on a subject. It isestimated that there are about 12 millionresearch workers in the world and they pro-duce about 2 million papers per year[2]. Itis, therefore, realised that 20% of scientistsinduce 80 'per cent of all papers in general aswell as in particular disciplines.

There is evidence that scientists spend asmuch as one-third of their working lives inscientific communication, half of which is oraland the rest written. A part of the writtencommunication is in the form of unpublishedmaterial. There is need for extensive evaluation,before original ideas are published.

EFFICACY

With rapid accumulation of knowledge (wantedand not wanted) comes greater responsibility ofchoosing disciplined information for applica-tion. Approximately fifty per cent of theknowledge produced, at the global level, isredundant. It is indeed the task of the re-viewer and the editor to eliminate whatever isnot relevant or accurate so that the reader getsonly what he needs. Apart from the estab-lished disciplines, there is an indiscriminate flowof information in multi-disciplinary techno-logies. This makes it difficult to take care ofoverlapping disciplinary interests. It is interest-ing that the established discplines do not remainstatic and there is certain to be a continuousflow of new materials not wholly relevant to thepresent framework of publications. Undersuch circumstances, the flow of information islikely to become indisciplined. Some of thefactors responsible for causing informationindiscipline are discussed in this paper.

MONOPOLY JOURNALS

In the domain of scientific communication, theprimary function of an ordinary scientific paperis to bring into the public domain an explicitaccount of some new scientific development ordiscovery. It is a rather contrived document,very conventional in form and style, whosepurpose is to convince the general scientificcommunity that the author's new observationsor arguments are of interest, significance and

Vol 33 No 4 December 1986

permanent validity. The whole activity ofscience is dependent upon the publication ofsuch documents and their subsequent criticism,revaluation and eventual acceptance of rejec-tion as parts of the consensus of "public know-ledgeJ'[6] .

The aim of all this is to ensure that thereis some sort of discipline in the production ofinformation. However, the actual situation israther unsatisfactory. There are a number ofjournals which are the monopoly of certainassociations controlled by individuals who treattheir vested interest as more important than thepurpose of science. Thus, when many of thearticles of some authors are rejected by emi-nent and critical editors or reviewers, this istaken as a matter of prestige by the concernedauthors and they insist on publishing the samearticles by creating separate journals throughsome association or by a band of supporters,friends or subordinates dictating their positions.Such flow of information, indicative of pseudo-reflection of their position in the scientific com-munity, finds its way into secondary periodicals.Accumulation of such pseudoinformation hast-ens the growth of the reservoirs of information.This practice of running monopoly journals iscreating indiscipline in the flow of information,and it is not easy to control it; it functions as avicious circle. Such journals are being patronisedby a few individuals who manage positions.Attempts to establish credibility for biasedresearch is the major consequence of this indis-cipline.

QUALITY OF PUBLICATIONS

Because of scientific advancement, an enormousvolume of information flows through variousmedia, such as reprints, reviews, advisory publi-cations, technical notes, technical reports,monographs, theses, reports, proceedings etc.Ephemeral literature, though appearing to beof transitory value needs to be preserved forsome time till the value of the findings is dis-proved or approved or brought into a soundtechnical write-up or in book form. This is atime-consuming affair. Nobody can fix up atime limit for the taking the form of an endprodr ct. It flows till it is accepted or rejected,

ISI

BANKAPUR

enlarging the scope for the production ofpseudoinformation. Some sort of ambiguitycreeps in during information flow causing in-discipline.

Unmanageable growth of science tooresults in the debasement of the critieria forquality publication. Along with scientific workof merit, some pseudo-scientific results arealso obtained and attempt is made to get suchwork recognised through its publication. Unlessthe work is published in quality journals, itspublication is meaningless. Any other mode ofpublication except in a quality journal, meansa second rate publication. Such second ratepublications may get printed or duplicated as"technical report", or "pre-prints" and may getinto circulation. This affects the referee system,however hard the editors may try to keep theirstandard and esteem high. As a result, a vastsea of semi-scientific, half-baked and trivialmaterial creeps in creating indisciplines.

AMBIGUITY

Striking a philosophic note, Lewis Thomasmakes the following point in his essay entitledLanguage and human communication [4] .

Ambiguity is an indispensable element forthe transfer of information from one point toanother where matters of real value are con-cerned. For meaning to come through, therehas to be a vague sense of strangeness and askew-ness ... When a bee is tracing sugar by polarisedlight, observing the sun as though consultingits watch, it does ',It veer away to discover anexciting marvel of ...lower, only the human isdesigned to work this way, programmes todrift away in the presence of locked-on informa-tion, straying from each point in a hunt for abetter, different point. Till the cream of inno-vation is established, its peripheral explanationpersists with supporting ideas making theinformation to flow whether it is needed or not.

RESTRICTION OF DOCUMENTS

Some developed countries are treating specificimportant information as their personal pro-perty, it is published in documents with res-tricted circulation. Mostly such information as is

lS2

old and obsolete is released as "information foruse' . This monopolistic attitude has created ananarchy in the information field and led toindiscipline of information. Many internationalorganisations like UNISIST and COSTED aretrying their best to explore the possibility ofmaking information as liberated as possibleand available for universal access, without muchsuccess. Certain developed countries are treat-ing information as the "material art" of theirown. "Information is, but not available forcommon use" has become the slogan of theday.

DUPLICATION

A major problem is associated with the dupli-cation of information. It is the major hurdlein most of the LDCs (=Less Developing Coun-tries) for want of systematic communicationchannels or lack of organisational set-up. Man-power, money and time are being spent withpainful results. The problems are largely mattersof communication, failure in which is at the besttiresome and at worst dangerous. Particularlythe information found in foreign languages otherthan English is a matter of great concern.

MISLEADING TITLES

A large quantity of literature, particularly inagricultural sciences, is being published underobscure or misleading titles which do not seethe light of the day even though they constitutefirst rate information. This adds to the indis-cipline in production of information.

CONVENTIONAL COMMUNICATION

One of the primary functions of the conven-tional system of science is losing weight. Thenecessity of maintaining an open market for thecreation of the individual scholar, as objectiveevidence of achievement and promise, is nolonger evident. The tendency towards teamwork is growing fast. The impact of industrial-ization on information production has changedthe outlook of research. The discovery thatarises from it, is not a product of the ingenuityof a single mind, but of a large group, whose

Ann Lib Sci Doc

INFORMATION INDISCIPLINE

members specialise in different aspects andfinally interpret the results. The evidence forthis multiple effort is the multiple authorshipof the paper; the results are reported with adozen names appended to the publication. Theindividual skills required may be of the highestorder, but the "productivity' or "creativity"of each participant is merged into the collectivemind of the team.

PROLIFERATION OF SECONDARY PERIODI-CALS

According to Line[2] , "the number of indexingand abstracting journals or journals containingindex or abstracts sections is now about 3,000 -this was the number of primary journals 100years ago. The expansion of recorded knowledgeon the one hand and increasing pressures on thetime of users on the other, have stimulated thegrowth of secondary tools - an almost totallyunplanned, uncoordinated and piecemeal growthwhich institutions and governments have foster-ed for the best of reasons, and publishers forless altruistic, reasons". The growth of second-ary tools has solved nothing at all except servingthe needs of a small group of people. They donot even attempt to supersede or compete withthe earlier system. They have added to thenumber of systems to be used by the individual.But if he uses several, he will find a lot ofsame references cropping up in all of them,so that each additional one he uses brings lessreward for his effort. Moreover, even if he usesten or even more references, he will still misssomething. On the other hand, if he acts as ifthe new system does supersede others, he willmiss a great deal, perhaps more than 50% ofrelevant material.

Even the modem "current awareness"services are not very well-organized and nor-mally a journal has to be read right through tomake sure that one has not lost anything. Ifthere is any delay, catching up is laborious. Inthe case of inter-disciplinary subjects, one hasto make use of 2-3 current contents journals.So the indiscipline encountered in secondaryperiodicals too needs thorough examination.

Vol 33 No 4 December 1986

INFORMATION CRISIS

The scientific community has seldom recognisedthe crisis of information production caused byrapid structural changes in it. Before the indus-trialisation of science, the bulk of the scientificresearch was done by university teachers, not asan explicit part of their employment, but as asemi-independent, personally directed activity,motivated by the desire for further prefermentas a reward for scholarly prowess. But recentlythe outlook of scientific research has changedwith major shift in emphssis from solo researchto team research.

The discovery that arises is not a productof ingenuity of a single mind, but of a largegroup, whose members specialize in differentaspects. This is the result of inter-mixing ofdifferent achievements of subjects creating asort of indiscipline of information in the pro-cess.

CLEAN INFORMATION

A scientific publication is an evidence of re-gistration of priority of discovery. Such type ofinformation needs to be clean, in standard form,well-filtered, safely worded and ready for use.As a matter of routine vast quantities of un-wanted information are resulting from scientificexperimentation. It requires filtering and purifi-cation before the information can be put to use!

BUREAUCRACY OF SCIENCE

A parallel development is the rapid growth ofthe page-charge system or the condition ofmembership for accepting research articles injournals of repute. Publication is part of theoverall research activity and such conditionsimposed on the scientific activity are highlydeplorable. Particularly they impose a greatburden on the Less Developing Countries. Thisbureaucratic attitude on the part of the de-veloped countries is another form of indisciplineof information.

The argument given for the imposition orsuch conditions is that it is done to get qualitypapers. But very often it prevents good papersfrom seeing the light of the day and results

BANKAPUR

in tneir getting squeezed out. ThIS clearlyamounts to a sort of monopoly of some richcountribu tors.

MONOPOLY OF PUBLISHERS

The decision to support publications rests withthe higher authorities rather than the personswho really do research! Good financial positionseems inevitable when the condition of page-charge is imposed; as a result, only the work ofthe people who have become members of thesociety or who are able to pay the page charge,will be accepted. The institution from whichresearch papers emanate must fully controlthe purity of such publications.

The position and the role of referee as aprofessional critic is most important. It isassumed by many that the review of the publi-cation should be performed mainly within theproducing laboratories, or even within the re-search team itself. The job of the referee is toconfirm that the work is scientifically interest-ing, original, reasonably well-expressed and notvitiated by obvious errors. One should not becarried away with the notion that it is the func-tion of the editor alone to guarantee completescientific validity of every paper that getspublished.

There are instances where, pressure is ex-erted by the leader of the research group to puttheir names to the work which they are quiteunaware of. There are some example whereinthe name of some famous scholars is sufficientto blind the anonymous refereess to the weak-ness of his argument. In this way also, informa-tion indiscipline is diffused into the networkof production of information. A "house jour-nal" edited internally is another example ofmonopoly of publication.

As per general principles, science is publicknowledge and the activity of the reviewer isquite as important to the scientific communityas the making of "original discoveries".

REPORT LITERATURE

The growth of report literature and the numberof agencies involved in their publication haveforced the scientist to pay for reading the same

1:')4

article once again only a few months later in aregular journal. The pressure to publish morein number, for professional prestige and pre-ferment, is creating a sort of information in-discipline, which is highly deleterious to thescientific community, in as much as multiplepublication of the same basic research is leadingto degradation of standards and clogging ofinformation channels.

Some of the conventional abstracting jour-nals, such as Chemical Abstracts, MetallurgicalAbstracts, etc., now include a limited numberof reports, unfortunately the references are notalways complete and this can create problems.For examples, DMTC reviews of recent develop-ment, regularly listed there, has a limited dis-tribution and is not available to the generalpublic. This is not mentioned in the abstract.

PARAMETERS FOR DISCIPLINING INFOR-MATION

With all the observations made and surveyedregarding the indiscipline in information it canbe said that a great deal of scientific literatureneeds value judgement rather than basic data.The only reply to this question is skilled editingplus the direction and advice of '! board madeup of the most knowledgeable individuals in thefield. To a certain extent, authors are also tobe blamed; they must avoid giving misleadingtitles and also keep up the standard of thepublication with due regard to science.

ETHICS

The pursuit of understanding and the advocacyof information-promoting activity will notsolve the vexing ethical questions unless self-discipline is exhibited by the individual con-cerned; this will benefit information productionas a whole. A commitment of scientists to pre-vent unhealthy traditions, would help to con-vince the public that they are not catering tojust a few and to their own ego but they followa code of conduct in the scientific communityat large. Strict adherence to ethics can preventthis indiscipline; otherwise the process is goingto distort the entire concept of information. In-difference on the part of scientists (producers

Ann Lib Sci Doc

INFORMATION INDISCIPLINE

of information) towards observing a propercode of conductin publication leads to anarchyand the public loses confidence in the scientificcommunity. Self-consciousness is the onlyremedy and for this self-introspection by theindividual scientists is an absolute necessity.

REFERENCES

1. Koster, Lieuwien: Symposium on rationalization 6.in scientific information. PUDOC Bulletin 1978,18(1), 1-2.

2. Line, M B: On the design of information systemsfor human being. ASLIB Proceedings 1970,22(7),320-33.

Vol 33 No 4 December 1986

3. Line, M B: The half-life of periodical literature -apparent and real obsolescence. Journal of Docu-mentation 1976, 26(1),46-54.

4. Sampath, S: Information Science Today. ISISBulletin 1976, 1(1),2-12.

5. Smailes, A A: The future of scientific and techno-logical publications. ASLIB Proceedings 1970,22(2),48-52.

Zirnan, J M: Information, communication know-ledge. nature 1969, 224, 318.

1 :"i.)