By Bodo M. Stern and Erin K. Life scientists feel increasing pressure to publish in high-profile journals as they compete for jobs and funding. While academic institutions and funders are often complicit in equating journal placement with impact as they make hiring and funding decisions, we argue that one of the root causes of this practice is the very structure of scientific publishing. First, publish peer reviews, whether anonymously or with attribution, to make the publishing process more transparent.
If journal rank matters less after the topthe publisher might matter more, particularly in its approach to embargos, open access levels, and financial contributions from the authors toward publication. All publications go through the same peer-review, quality control, editing and formatting. Promoting your published work Publication should be the start of the next important phase in communicating your research: promoting your paper. At the same time, when this issue has been raised with respect to NIH funding, Academic publishing journal model authors NIH grantees have objected to such a proposal if it were to come at the expense of a 1 percent cut in research funding. Recommendations We propose three changes to address the shortcomings described in the previous sections. Users are citing evidence of an inability to really control the content, to navigate it well, or to deal with the myriad different platforms and channels that it comes through.
Myspace skinny layoutsw. Article tools
The death of the authors of death - Prestige and creativity among nuclear weapons scientists. The World View. Many authors - especially those in the middle of the byline - do not fulfill these authorship criteria. Investment analysts, however, have been skeptical of the value added by for-profit publishers, as exemplified by a Deutsche Bank analysis which stated Academic publishing journal model authors "we believe the publisher adds relatively little value to the publishing process While the technology proved acceptable, the business model failed to provide a viable long-term revenue base built upon logical and scalable options. The proposers of the Amanda nims fucked stated that it would "ensure the continued publication and integrity of peer-reviewed research works by the private Academic publishing journal model authors. Large authors lists have attracted some criticism. Although the large majority of scientific output and academic documents are produced in developed countries, the rate of growth in these countries has stabilized and is much smaller than the growth rate in some of the developing countries. Current Science. Access2Research is a United States-based campaign in which open access advocates appealed to the United States government to require that taxpayer-funded research be made available to the public under open licensing. Oxford Academic Journals. As scholars, we strive to do high-quality research that will advance science. Retrieved 16 December The Scholarly Kitchen. It also remains unclear whether this is practical in fields outside the sciences, where there is much less availability of outside funding.
The existing academic publishing model is broken, with traditional commercial publishers charging excessive prices for books or ridiculous book publishing charges to publish Open Access books.
- As scholars, we strive to do high-quality research that will advance science.
- Academic authorship of journal articles , books, and other original works is a means by which academics communicate the results of their scholarly work , establish priority for their discoveries, and build their reputation among their peers.
- Patrick Burns does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
- Motivation for Establishing Academic Journals.
- In the past few months there have been two instances of highly controversial -- some would say offensive -- pieces being published in academic journals.
- Academic journal publishing reform is the advocacy for changes in the way academic journals are created and distributed in the age of the Internet and the advent of electronic publishing.
The model needs to be further analysed before it can be used as an instrument to implement and increase Open Access. This workshop was as organised to trigger further expert discussions on the current business models and consider the available alternatives.
So far, much of the focus of the transition towards Open Access has been on scholarly and scientific articles. However, a significant number of disciplines, notably — but not only — within the Social Sciences, the Arts, and the Humanities produce and heavily use books. This briefing paper identifies the key issues at stake in implementing a policy of Open Access to academic books, and outlines recommendations for different stakeholder groups to facilitate and accelerate such a policy.
Open Access greatly improves the pace, efficiency, and efficacy of research. This report highlights the efforts made by public research organisations in Europe to develop and implement Open Access policies and addresses the challenges faced by different actors in order to facilitate and accelerate the transition towards full Open Access for all scholarly publications by Decisive action is needed to transition towards more effectively and efficiently towards an Open Access publishing system.
This paper presents some of the recent trends and developments in the transition to Open Access, as well as various business models currently in use which aim to facilitate this transition. It also highlights expected benefits and underlines remaining challenges.
Open Access, as defined in the Berlin Declaration, means unrestricted, online access to peer-reviewed, scholarly research papers for reading and productive re-use, not impeded by any financial, organisational, legal or technical barriers.
Ideally, the only restriction on use is an obligation to attribute the work to the author. Science Europe Member Organisation are committed to a shared set of principles on Open Access to ensure consistency and coherence in their efforts and activities. It acts as a framework for voluntary collective activity, providing a long-term strategy for the association. Published on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Berlin Declaration, this paper encourages the humanities research community to engage with the new possibilities that Open Access can offer.
It also calls on research funding and performing organisations to work together to tackle the specificities and remaining potential obstacles. Our resources Previous Next. Related content. Briefing Paper Open Access. Share Share on. Position Statement Open Access. Survey Report Open Access. What's going on Our resources.
A crisis in academic publishing is "widely perceived";  the apparent crisis has to do with the combined pressure of budget cuts at universities and increased costs for journals the serials crisis. He has authored and co-authored several academic and opinion articles, a book and two patents. New Scientist. Academic journal publishing reform is the advocacy for changes in the way academic journals are created and distributed in the age of the Internet and the advent of electronic publishing. Retrieved 27 February Before submitting a manuscript for publication, it is highly advisable to have a professional editing firm copy-edit your manuscript.
Academic publishing journal model authors. Before you hit “submit,” here’s a checklist (and pitfalls to avoid)
Open access: The true cost of science publishing : Nature News & Comment
By Bodo M. Stern and Erin K. Life scientists feel increasing pressure to publish in high-profile journals as they compete for jobs and funding. While academic institutions and funders are often complicit in equating journal placement with impact as they make hiring and funding decisions, we argue that one of the root causes of this practice is the very structure of scientific publishing.
First, publish peer reviews, whether anonymously or with attribution, to make the publishing process more transparent. Second, transfer the publishing decision from the editor to the author, removing the notion that publication itself is a quality-defining step. And third, attach robust post-publication evaluations to papers to create proxies for quality that are article-specific, that capture long-term impact, and that are more meaningful than current journal-based metrics.
These proposed changes would replace publishing practices developed for the print era, when quality control and publication needed to be integrated, with digital-era practices whose goal is transparent, peer-mediated improvement and post-publication appraisal of scientific articles. Scientific publishing in the life sciences is going through a period of experimentation and questioning not seen since the appearance of open access in the early s, when new online-only and open access journals challenged the traditional model of print distribution and subscription fees.
More recent experiments in scientific publishing include preprints, open models of peer review, and micro-publications the publication of smaller units, such as individual observations. Yet most scientific work in the life sciences is still disseminated following a process inaugurated by the Royal Society in the 17th century. This process Fig. If it is rejected, the author starts all over again at a different journal, typically until the paper gets accepted for publication somewhere.
Subscription fees in the form of single user licenses and institutional site licenses and open access fees are the two prevailing payment options to compensate publishers for their services.
It made sense for publishers to charge consumers subscription fees in exchange for hard copies of journals and to establish editors as the gatekeepers of publishing, when printing and distributing scientific articles was expensive and logistically challenging. These limitations no longer apply. We propose here to reconsider hallmarks of this traditional publishing process — the subscription business model and the roles of journal editors, reviewers and authors — with the goal to better align scientific publishing with a digital environment and with a scientist-driven research workflow.
Advocates of open access have long noted problems with the subscription model, including the following:. Our arguments here extend beyond open access, however. The rise of so-called predatory open access journals, with fake editorial boards and fake peer review, is evidence that this risk is already becoming reality.
The best insurance against open access fees compromising quality control at journals would be to make the quality control process itself transparent.
Increased transparency in the publishing process is a recurring theme in this perspective and will reappear as a proposed solution to challenges with the current journal-based publishing process, which we describe next.
Scientific articles are a major intellectual output of the research enterprise and an important basis for evaluating the productivity and impact of individual scientists. Expert evaluation is and will remain the gold standard for judging scientists and their output. However, we recognize that additional indicators of research quality and impact are necessary and useful; a shorthand gauge of quality helps scientists and nonscientists alike to identify high-quality scientific work amid the vast sea of published manuscripts.
At the moment, the journal name is used as such an indicator of quality: the assumption is that articles are of high quality and impact if they are published in journals that are perceived as prestigious. Journal editors set standards for their journals and choose what to publish accordingly. Journals like Cell , Science, and Nature, which are considered the most prestigious journals in the life sciences, aim to publish the most highly citable articles in each field, since the number of citations of an article is a measure of its influence.
The journal metric that is most widely used to signal this prestige is the journal impact factor — the average of citations in a given year garnered by all articles published in the journal over the two previous years. The impact factor has become such a predominant metric because it discriminates well among journals.
Journals like Cell , Science, and Nature publish, on average, more highly cited papers and thus have a higher impact factor. But like any metric that relies on the mean, this one is easily skewed by outliers, such as heavily cited papers. The distribution of article citations actually overlaps significantly between journals that have markedly different impact factors Lariviere et al.
Why do all journals publish articles of varying influence? There are three reasons. First, citation rates differ significantly among fields, with the number of scientists in a field and its translational potential typically increasing citation rates. Second, the opinions of the chosen two to four peer reviewers for a given paper may, by chance, not be representative and thus may lead to an erroneous publishing decision.
In the end, only time, replication, and extension of the research data can truly validate experimental findings and conclusions and determine their long-term impact.
These inherent limitations explain why scientific journals will always publish papers that vary in influence, despite efforts by their editors to try to ensure consistency. The variability in the influence of the articles in a given journal does not cause damage per se. Journals promote their impact factor, and many academic institutions and funders are, unfortunately, complicit in using it for hiring and funding decisions. The combination of long term growth of the biomedical research enterprise and recent stagnation in federal funding has fueled hyper-competition for research funding, jobs, and publication in high-impact-factor journals and has rendered the impact factor an even more corrosive indicator of research quality and impact.
It is particularly alarming that the next generation of scientists perceives a need to publish in Cell , Science, and Nature to be competitive for faculty positions. Evaluating scientists based on where they publish, rather than what they publish, weakens important elements of the biomedical research enterprise, including integrity, collaboration, and acceleration of progress.
Why does the academic incentive system rely on journal-based metrics like the impact factor when those metrics are inherently limited in their ability to evaluate the contributions of individual scientists? One major reason is the very structure of the publishing process, in particular the nontransparent integration of peer review with the publishing decision. Most journals keep peer reviews a confidential exchange among editors, reviewers, and authors, which gives editors flexibility to use their own judgment in deciding what to publish.
It leaves their decision to publish as the only visible outcome of the evaluation process and hence the journal name and its impact factor as the only evident indicators of quality. In addition to encouraging the widespread use of impact factor in the evaluation of scientists, the tight and nontransparent linkage between peer review and the editorial decision contributes to other serious problems in publishing:.
In summary, the current journal-based publishing system drives the use of the impact factor in the evaluation of scientists, it renders the peer review process more adversarial than it needs to be, it delays dissemination of research findings, and it fails to capture the long-term impact of scientific articles. We propose three changes to address the shortcomings described in the previous sections. While these changes could be implemented independently, together they promise to significantly increase transparency and efficiency in scientific publishing:.
Make peer review transparent: Currently, the publishing decision itself is the quality proxy for scientific articles. Publishing the peer review reports on a manuscript, anonymously or with attribution, would change that. As pointed out above, transparent peer review could also address the serious risk that open access publications become paid advertisements.
Ensure higher-quality peer reviews: Publishing peer reviews would likely motivate peer reviewers to more consistently execute their role well. Two other measures would further improve the quality of peer reviews. First, consultations among peer reviewers — a practice pioneered by journals such as the EMBO Journal and eLife — could effectively eliminate unreasonable reviewer demands.
It is also an ideal vehicle to introduce early-career scientists to the art of peer reviewing — what better way to learn than by consulting with a seasoned peer reviewer?
Second, peer reviews should focus on the technical quality and scientific background of the submitted work. By sidestepping the suitability of the work for a particular journal, peer review would become more constructive and, in principle, transferrable among journals. Give recognition for peer review: We recognize that many scientists are concerned that peer reviewers would not be as forthcoming with their critiques if signing reviews becomes compulsory. However, we hope that over time, reviewers will increasingly opt to sign their reviews.
Signing of peer reviews aligns better with the notion that peer review is a scholarly activity that deserves credit. Considering that peer review is such a labor-intensive activity and a cornerstone of the scientific enterprise, we need to devise better ways to recognize scientists who contribute outstanding peer review services to the scientific community. Widespread signing of peer reviews would also enable a community-wide analysis of peer review patterns, informing future suggestions for peer review improvements.
Funders entrust scientists with the execution of research. This trust in the creativity and independent judgment of individual scientists or groups of scientists is at the heart of the research enterprise. The research article is a major output, and often the culmination, of this research. Curiously, the trust in the researcher breaks down at the point of dissemination, since we have transferred the decision to publish to editors. Why do we trust scientists in the design and the execution of their research yet insist that editors should decide when this research is ready to be published?
If we agree to trust scientists to do research, then we should also trust them to decide when to publish that research. Making authors the publishers of their own work has additional benefits.
This stamp of quality has to come from elsewhere, including the published peer reviews and post-publication evaluations described below. In addition, the peer reviewers would direct their comments to the authors focusing their peer reviews on improving the manuscript as opposed to advising the editor on suitability for a journal. The overall publishing experience for authors would improve significantly, since they would publish when they considered the work to be ready.
A major concern with this model is that an author is not as impartial as an editor. Few authors will knowingly want to put out poor-quality work.
Sometimes authors may want to rush publication of a competitive story, but preprint servers can now disseminate papers so much faster that there may be less pressure to rush publication after peer review. The peer reviews themselves will be a powerful restraint on the author, since they will be published together with the paper see above. An author may, for example, prefer to withdraw a paper submitted to a journal if the reviews reveal fundamental flaws that cannot be addressed with revisions.
This is arguably better than the situation today, in which authors can publish any work somewhere though not necessarily in the journal of their choice , typically without critical reviews that might highlight potential shortcomings.
Author-driven publishing is already practiced at preprint servers and publishing platforms such as FResearch. The difference between a publishing platform and a journal is that the author replaces the editor in all major gatekeeper roles Fig.
All versions and all peer reviews are available under an open access license. Future experiments with publishing platform models may differ in important ways — such as how they select articles for peer review will every submission be reviewed? Publishing platforms, where authors replace editors as gatekeepers, are an exciting model for scientific publishing in the future because they provide an efficient and fully transparent completion of the research workflow and best satisfy requirements for the open sharing of research outputs.
Where does this leave journals and editors? We envision that journals can transition toward a publishing platform without giving up all editorial gatekeeper roles at once. For example, journal editors could retain the first editorial gatekeeper function of selecting articles for journal-orchestrated peer review editorial triage , but relinquish the publishing decision to authors on the condition that the peer reviews and any author responses will be published as well Fig.
Journals would basically commit to the publication of all peer reviewed articles. In rare cases, editors may need to step in and stop publication of an article when the peer review process reveals that publication would be inappropriate — for example, in cases of plagiarism, data fabrication, violation of the law, or reliance on nonscientific methods. The editorial triage step serves the purpose of allocating peer review resources wisely. Rigorous peer review is time-consuming and particularly important for scientific articles that could have a broad impact, because validation from experts allows scientists from other fields to build on the data and conclusions.
More specialized research articles may not need the same level of peer review, since they are mostly read by experts who can evaluate the work themselves. Editorial triage at prestigious journals is the traditional method that ensures that reviewer resources are used only for scientific work that is of sufficiently broad interest. Directing peer reviewer resources to broad-interest articles that need them most is currently not addressed at publishing platforms where all papers are reviewed equally.
It may be possible over the long term to replace this editorial gatekeeper role if it becomes feasible and culturally acceptable to use community approaches to select works of broad impact for detailed review. At that point, the journal would transition to a full-fledged publishing platform.