Stephen Cooke (p)

Sabine Sedlacek

Type I output multipliers summarize the results of an inverse matrix. An inverse matrix transforms of the present into the past. An economic explanation of an output multiplier as “the thing that takes you back” is difficult. A complete economic interpretation must explain the economics within the mathematics within the inverse matrix.
At a minimum, the interpretation must clarify the roles of output (Q), exports (X), imports (M) and the interplay of domestic intermediate inputs (Z) in ways that are both internally consistent and externally correspondent. These criteria will require going beyond multipliers as an inverse matrix or a power series algorithm of round-by-rounds mapped into vague notions of “direct and indirect effects.” Rather, it is shown that within the mathematical complexity a sector’s output multiplier “simply” equals one plus the ratio of its domestic (Z) to imported (M) inputs.
The “off-diagonal” interactions between sectors make calculating the output multipliers for even a two-sector economy complex. The mathematical complexities are enough to lead to economic misinterpretation. In a multi-sector input-output model, the co-factors are coefficients that sort out the information provided by the off-diagonal elements. They do this by an exact accounting of all domestic intermediate supply by sector used to meet a sector’s initial derived demand.
The exterior product approach to calculating inverse matrices, i.e., multipliers, is well known in mathematics but seldom discussed by economists studying multipliers. The benefit of understanding exterior products is the insights they provide into the roles different sets of coefficients play in reallocating and multiplying within multipliers.

Gunther Maier (p), Francisco Rowe (p)

Sabine Sedlacek

In this paper we discuss the impact digitalization has had on scientific publishing. In recent decades digitalization has revolutionized publishing in general and scientific publishing across three main domains. First, digitalization changed the production process of scientific output. Nowadays, researchers use digital instruments in the research analysis as well as in the final product - usually a "paper" - that they submit for publishing. Second, digitalization changed the publishing industry and the business models of established publishing companies. Today, the whole production process of the publishing industry is digital. But while physical books, magazines, and newspapers are still important end products, scientific publications has become increasingly available in digital form. This augmented availability has led to increased commercial benefits through greater geographical reach, publishing speed and significant cost reductions, as well as facilitating entrance to the market and creation of new services.
The third aspect is the development of new forms of scientific output. Until today, also in the digital world most scientific output is published in the form of papers and books. As was the case with the invention of the printing press in the 15th century, where printers sought to make their books look like handwritten, scientific publishing today mimics the physical products from the past. This, however, limits the ways how knowledge can be communicated. Digital media allow for much more illustrative and much more interactive ways of communication, offering a unique opportunity to communicate scientific knowledge in a more rapid, engaging and easy way. Utilizing these options, however, requires the development of tools and standards and is much more challenging than converting a book or article into digital format.
In our paper, we will briefly discuss the first two aspects, but mainly concentrate on the third. We will describe recent attempts in this field and discuss their relation to the already established instruments of digital scientific publishing. We will discuss the pros and cons of such standards and developments and speculate about the impact they may have on scientific publishing and the publishing industry.

In this panel discussion, which is part of Special Session S53, we want to raise the question, whether it is sufficient for regional scientists to present their research results in articles and conference presentations. With the panelists and with the audience we want to discuss questions like “What is our social responsibility as researchers?”, “Are we required to deliver the results of our research to policy makers and interested citizens?”, “What opportunities do new electronic media provide for such a form of dissemination?”, “What is the experience with such forms of communication and dissemination?”