1. A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences
- Author
-
Erin K. O'Shea and Bodo M. Stern
- Subjects
0301 basic medicine ,Science and Technology Workforce ,Careers in Research ,0302 clinical medicine ,Citation analysis ,Open publishing ,Biology (General) ,Computer Networks ,Publication ,General Neuroscience ,Publications ,Public relations ,Research Assessment ,Research Personnel ,Professions ,Publishing ,Perspective ,Citation Analysis ,Engineering and Technology ,The Internet ,Journal Impact Factor ,Periodicals as Topic ,General Agricultural and Biological Sciences ,Quality Control ,Computer and Information Sciences ,QH301-705.5 ,Science Policy ,Bibliometrics ,Biology ,Research and Analysis Methods ,Research Funding ,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology ,Biological Science Disciplines ,03 medical and health sciences ,Industrial Engineering ,Scientific Publishing ,Internet ,General Immunology and Microbiology ,business.industry ,Transparency (behavior) ,Authorship ,030104 developmental biology ,People and Places ,Scientists ,Population Groupings ,business ,Paywall ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery - Abstract
Science advances through rich, scholarly discussion. More than ever before, digital tools allow us to take that dialogue online. To chart a new future for open publishing, we must consider alternatives to the core features of the legacy print publishing system, such as an access paywall and editorial selection before publication. Although journals have their strengths, the traditional approach of selecting articles before publication (“curate first, publish second”) forces a focus on “getting into the right journals,” which can delay dissemination of scientific work, create opportunity costs for pushing science forward, and promote undesirable behaviors among scientists and the institutions that evaluate them. We believe that a “publish first, curate second” approach with the following features would be a strong alternative: authors decide when and what to publish; peer review reports are published, either anonymously or with attribution; and curation occurs after publication, incorporating community feedback and expert judgment to select articles for target audiences and to evaluate whether scientific work has stood the test of time. These proposed changes could optimize publishing practices for the digital age, emphasizing transparency, peer-mediated improvement, and post-publication appraisal of scientific articles., This Perspective article proposes new practices for scientific publishing that align better with today's digital environment than do legacy practices.
- Published
- 2019