Read on Twitter
Really fantastic article on an uncomfortable topic within the publishing world of "prestige" journals authored by Bård Smedsrød & @LeifLongva #openaccess
Thread highlighting what I think are the important parts.
https://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/Ravne/article/view/5507
Thread highlighting what I think are the important parts.
https://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/Ravne/article/view/5507
Part 1 - Major Loss of Efficiency & Productivity
Unless desk rejected instantly the article will proceed through a typically long review & editing process requiring much work on the author.
During this time the article is completely hidden from the research community
Unless desk rejected instantly the article will proceed through a typically long review & editing process requiring much work on the author.
During this time the article is completely hidden from the research community
"[This] represents a major loss of efficiency & productivity and thus represents an economic cost to research &
society."
If rejected throughout this long process the article will be submitted elsewhere & this cycle restarts. I think "journal shopping" is harmful to research.
society."
If rejected throughout this long process the article will be submitted elsewhere & this cycle restarts. I think "journal shopping" is harmful to research.
Why does this happen?
"Researchers get their pay-off from publishing in prestigious
journals. Hence, while the decreased research efficiency caused by the prestigious journals is a cost to society it is not perceived by the individual researcher as a cost."
"Researchers get their pay-off from publishing in prestigious
journals. Hence, while the decreased research efficiency caused by the prestigious journals is a cost to society it is not perceived by the individual researcher as a cost."
This is a fundamental schism between the mission of research & the actions of individual researchers.
"If pay-off wasn't tied to the prestige of the publishing channel, authors could choose publishing channels that are more efficient in disseminating their new research findings"
"If pay-off wasn't tied to the prestige of the publishing channel, authors could choose publishing channels that are more efficient in disseminating their new research findings"
Completely agree. This is what I see when authors try a new model like @GatesOpenRes where there is open post publication peer review & no journal shopping. Authors can control when new versions are posted as the article isn't hidden in the meantime. The time demand is shifted.
In the COVID-19 example:
"In this situation, it is obvious that publishing in prestige journals with a lengthy review process is not only counterproductive and inefficient use of public money. It is also unethical."
"In this situation, it is obvious that publishing in prestige journals with a lengthy review process is not only counterproductive and inefficient use of public money. It is also unethical."
Regarding Pre-Prints:
Readers need peer review themselves. Readers should always be critical of the research regardless of official peer review or not. The idea is instead of journals finding 3 or so experts to review a manuscript the research community can collectively review
Readers need peer review themselves. Readers should always be critical of the research regardless of official peer review or not. The idea is instead of journals finding 3 or so experts to review a manuscript the research community can collectively review
Regarding late adopters in a new publishing model:
"But can we afford to maintain the existing model,
which is both counterproductive to research & very costly to
society?"
My answer is a hard no & COVID-19 is making this very clear
"But can we afford to maintain the existing model,
which is both counterproductive to research & very costly to
society?"
My answer is a hard no & COVID-19 is making this very clear
Part 2 Journal hierarchy helps readers, right?
It's become impossible for humans to keep up with all the literature being published - even in niche topics. So popular titles could can help readers direct their attention. But the authors challenge this idea
It's become impossible for humans to keep up with all the literature being published - even in niche topics. So popular titles could can help readers direct their attention. But the authors challenge this idea
"Articles with the most sensational findings are preferred, since these help maintaining a high journal impact factor. These articles are not necessarily the ones most useful to the research of peers & colleagues."
Another schism between journal & researcher
Another schism between journal & researcher
This is an important point that I don't think is widely discussed. As I have spent years now discussing publishing needs with grantees I see that aside from prestigious labs most grantee researchers want to quickly & easily share info to their community
This info would not be seen as interesting/novel enough to publish in traditional setting. Most are case studies, implementation guides, reflections on what has worked & what has not - value info for practitioners or those directly leading the work
And if the role of publishers is to be a service provider to the research community - this is a major gap. Rejecting works based not on quality but on branding needs of the journal/publisher is not fulfilling the mission that these entities should have to serve research
Part 3 - Evaluation of the Research
Journals have become over time a proxy for quality of researchers."Researchers are thus evaluated not based on what they have accomplished in their research, but rather on where they have published."
Journals have become over time a proxy for quality of researchers."Researchers are thus evaluated not based on what they have accomplished in their research, but rather on where they have published."
As the article points out this type of assessment (think of the limited space of publishing in highly selective journals) promotes competition instead of collaboration. I think in the past it could be argued that competition helped shape innovation.
However, I think in the past decade or so this argument no longer stands with the limited funding availability & technology allowing for global collaboration. I think that COVID-19 will demonstrate that collaboration is a better strategy than competition.
"This competition may drive the researchers to work hard. But it also adds to the loss of efficiency & productivity by keeping the findings hidden for a lengthy period & forcing researchers to keep kneading their papers instead of moving on with their research..."
Part 4 - Peer review
The current idea is that prestigious journals will attract the experts to conduct peer review for these journals. The authors rightfully point out these experts will exist regardless of journals. They will still be active members of the research ecosystem.
The current idea is that prestigious journals will attract the experts to conduct peer review for these journals. The authors rightfully point out these experts will exist regardless of journals. They will still be active members of the research ecosystem.
As they are already conducting these reviews for free & are not publicly given credit for this work (this is improving through various platforms) there is little disincentive to not continue to provide these reviews.
Conclusion - A need for Change
It is noted that libraries & funders have recently begun to push heavily towards #openaccess.
An interesting suggestion "the university sector takes control over the review activities performed by their employed researchers."
It is noted that libraries & funders have recently begun to push heavily towards #openaccess.
An interesting suggestion "the university sector takes control over the review activities performed by their employed researchers."
I feel there would be push back via academic freedom but there is something to be said about journals building a brand & business off academics employed by universities. A corpus of advocates are already arguing for publishing to revert to the research community control.
"By controlling this the universities will take back the control of the publishing, enabling new & more healthy goals to be specified for the publishing policy of the future."
I find it interesting that the authors nod to a period of these actions being uncomfortable for a limited time until a full transition is made. This is a brilliant point that should not be brushed off. With funders signalling change in the incentive system for funding
authors should mirror this signal with a change in publishing & reviewing practices. And many are doing this which should be highlighted, lauded, & further incentivized.
I would like to see these conversations talk more about young people & the future they see for academia
I would like to see these conversations talk more about young people & the future they see for academia
"The present system of scholarly publishing, designed for Gutenberg’s 500 yrs old technology, is more than ready for a major revision. The big international publishers aren't the prime movers here. They have no wish to change the system that so far has given them enormous profit"
"So, our claim is that academia does have the means to improve the publishing model. The benefits include reduced costs for academia & the society at large, and, not less important, a possibility to move towards a more productive research." #openaccess
