4 ms·

What to do about the entrenched scientific publishing-funding complex has been a concern since the first full text of journal articles started appearing in the

by apo 8y ago

What to do about the entrenched scientific publishing-funding complex has been a concern since the first full text of journal articles started appearing in the 1990s. The response to date has been for funding agencies (nonprofits and governments) to require publication in open access journals as a condition of funding research. This has happened in both the US and EU. However, I'm pessimistic this approach will address the problem, and it could well create a number of unintended consequences. For one, publishers that have introduced OA models can charge thousands of dollars to the research teams publishing the work. That could mean fewer publications, and more information silos. The article hints at, but doesn't fully describe another, more pressing problem. Peer review is in trouble. The number of papers the average researcher is being asked to review is increasing while the abundance of papers means the few bother to read them. I suspect the solution lies somewhere else entirely. Post-publication peer review is one option, and Fighare has built an interesting model that could be a component of a future system: https://figshare.com https://figshare.com Regardless, the problem is cultural, not technical. The crazy economic incentives described in the article work because everyone involved has a (sometimes perverse) incentive to keep it in place. Until that changes, it will be mostly status quo ante.

buboard 8y ago
> the number of papers the average researcher is being asked to review is increasing The quality of review becomes proportional to the impact factor of the journal. And given that the high impact journals have not substantially expanded the number of articles they publish, it might mean that there are now more candidate reviewers. What has become substantially more burdensome is the number of funding applications that (esp. young) investigators have to submit per year. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/313 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/313 > Post-publication peer review is one option, and Fighare There are interesting proposals. E.g. elifesciences proposes to publish everything, under the condition that the reviews will be published eponymously along with the paper
- lsh 8y ago
  no proposals, the review feedback and author response to the review are published. Here is an example: https://elifesciences.org/articles/35082#SA2 https://elifesciences.org/articles/35082#SA2 Peer review at elife works slightly differently. The author(s) are not subjected to multiple rounds with multiple reviewers, instead the review feedback from the peer reviewers is aggregated by the editorial staff before being sent back to the author. There may be multiple rounds of this however.
Vinnl 8y ago
I think the OA requirement is a good step but, as you mention, not enough to get us the entire way there. The EU and several European funding bodies have made the next step [1], which is to require funded researchers to only publish in journals in which all research is Open Access, pressuring journals to flip their models, and by putting a cap on the publishing fees those journals are allowed to ask. That said, that still doesn't get us all the way there. Firstly, it remains to be seen how publishers will deal with that - for all we know, they'll set up sibling journals for European researchers. More importantly, though, is that they haven't specified yet how they will decide who gets funded, if the name of the journals one has published can no longer be a factor. Then again, I'm hopeful that this drastic plan will shake things up enough for a solution to arise eventually. Disclaimer: I'm part of a just-launched project that aims to provide a solution for this. [1] https://www.scienceeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Plan_S.pdf https://www.scienceeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Pla...
08-15 8y ago
> The number of papers the average researcher is being asked to review is increasing. "No" isn't just a word, it's a full sentence. Just refuse to review for free, demand an appropriate consultation fee instead. If the journal actually pays you---good. If it doesn't, you did your part to make their exploitative business model unattractive.

by apo 8y ago

buboard 8y ago

> the number of papers the average researcher is being asked to review is increasing The quality of review becomes proportional to the impact factor of the journal. And given that the high impact journals have not substantially expanded the number of articles they publish, it might mean that there are now more candidate reviewers. What has become substantially more burdensome is the number of funding applications that (esp. young) investigators have to submit per year. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/313 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/313 > Post-publication peer review is one option, and Fighare There are interesting proposals. E.g. elifesciences proposes to publish everything, under the condition that the reviews will be published eponymously along with the paper

lsh 8y ago
no proposals, the review feedback and author response to the review are published. Here is an example: https://elifesciences.org/articles/35082#SA2 https://elifesciences.org/articles/35082#SA2 Peer review at elife works slightly differently. The author(s) are not subjected to multiple rounds with multiple reviewers, instead the review feedback from the peer reviewers is aggregated by the editorial staff before being sent back to the author. There may be multiple rounds of this however.

Vinnl 8y ago

I think the OA requirement is a good step but, as you mention, not enough to get us the entire way there. The EU and several European funding bodies have made the next step [1], which is to require funded researchers to only publish in journals in which all research is Open Access, pressuring journals to flip their models, and by putting a cap on the publishing fees those journals are allowed to ask. That said, that still doesn't get us all the way there. Firstly, it remains to be seen how publishers will deal with that - for all we know, they'll set up sibling journals for European researchers. More importantly, though, is that they haven't specified yet how they will decide who gets funded, if the name of the journals one has published can no longer be a factor. Then again, I'm hopeful that this drastic plan will shake things up enough for a solution to arise eventually. Disclaimer: I'm part of a just-launched project that aims to provide a solution for this. [1] https://www.scienceeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Plan_S.pdf https://www.scienceeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Pla...

08-15 8y ago

> The number of papers the average researcher is being asked to review is increasing. "No" isn't just a word, it's a full sentence. Just refuse to review for free, demand an appropriate consultation fee instead. If the journal actually pays you---good. If it doesn't, you did your part to make their exploitative business model unattractive.