Read on Twitter
Since the dawn of the Internet, it has been clear that we need and have the opportunity to build a system of scholarly communication free of limitations of print: a system freely accessible to all authors and readers with a new model of peer review optimized for a digital age
The ideal system would feature: 1) universal author-driven publication (currently known as preprints) as the primary means of communication, 2) robust and multi-faceted post-publication peer review and curation, and 3) direct funding to eliminate all paywalls & transaction costs
This is, and has been, technologically feasible for a quarter century. There has been progress towards this goal in various places - expansion of preprint servers, growth of #openaccess, funder mandates, creation of overlay journals. But progress has been frustratingly slow.
The primary reasons for this stasis are and always have been: 1) academic careers are built largely on where rather than what you publish and changing this is hard, and 2) publishing is a lucrative business aligning many powerful forces (companies & societies) against change.
There is also significant institutional inertia to fight, as well as a profound fecklessness from most of the people with power to affect change (especially university administrators).
But the various efforts to change the system have suffered from a lack of coordinated strategy and long-term vision, as well as an excessive focus on well-funded science in wealthy countries that has excluded and left alienated many of our natural allies.
There has also, until recently, been too little focus on the many other pathologies in science and science publishing - especially structural racism, sexism and other biases - and the development of clear plans to ensure that new systems don't reify and exacerbate these issues.
However, I feel we are now at a crucial moment. Awareness of the issues and desire for change has never been stronger. Key global funders are now, finally, using their influence and control of purse-strings to push for real and often radical change.
The rise of @biorxivpreprint and @medrxivpreprint is challenging the status quo in the well-funded and highly lucrative biomedical publishing universe - creating both momentum for change and a foundation on which to build a new system.
But, as always, success is far from guaranteed. There is both intense pushback and efforts from powerful players in publishing to coopt, control and degrade preprints and the potential system that can be built around them.
So if you want this system to change - now is the time to take action wherever you can and feel comfortable doing so. Take advantage of preprint servers to share your work. Participate in experiments in preprint review (I'll highlight as many as I can later).
Support funder efforts to experiment with new publishing models. And put pressure on the places you work and the societies or communities you are member of to have them stop being obstacles to change and start leading it.
I realize not everyone feels they can do things that might harm their careers - and that's ok. I am confident that if people do what they can, where they can - and if those of us with stability and power use it appropriately - this time things will really change.
Some great experiments in pre-print review to use and participate in: @PREreview_ @PeerCommunityIn @PreprintReview @ReviewCommons @preLights (I'm sure I'm forgetting many - please chime in)
Also see https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/ and https://gatesopenresearch.org/ and https://f1000research.com/ which do fully open publishing and peer review
