Creating knowledge is a researcher's primary goal, with
publications being the vehicle for dissemination. However, manuscripts
are no invention of modern times. The earliest evidence of written
records comes from clay tablets in Mesopotamia, and didn't change much
until Johannes Gutenberg's revolutionary printing press in1450. This new
technique brought us a huge step closer to mass-produced scientific
publishing as we know it today. In 1665, the first scientific journal
was founded: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Big titles of today, i.e. Nature and Science, only started in the 19th century [1].
In the very beginning, scholarly publishing was rather an expensive investment than a source of money, however, more recently publishers' business models were based on subscriptions and fees to finance processing, printing and shipping of their paper-based products [2,3].
The current process of scientific publishing works by selling access to journals that feature articles that have been submitted by authors for free and have been reviewed by peers for free as well. In contrast, open access journals and platforms, such as PLoS (Public Library of Science), levy a publication fee from authors, but make their articles available to everyone.
The Rise of Open Access
Despite an increasing variety of open access online journals classical publisher-controlled academic journals are not in decline. The (hotly debated) impact factor of a published paper still determines a good part of the reputation of scientists, tempting many to still prefer established classical journals over new open-access channels argues Michael Eisen, geneticist at Berkeley and one of the PLoS' founders [3]. However, nowadays several open-access titles are already high ranked, like Translational Psychiatry or PLoS One Medicine, rendering these concerns increasingly obsolete.
Only since 2008, when the NIH implemented open access rules in its funding policy [4], has the general attitude of the scientific community towards alternative journals changed. Consequently, the online journal PLoS One avoided producing classical print publications altogether and therefore rejection or delay in publication of articles due to space limitation of their (print) issue. The online only open access journal selects manuscripts only for their scientific quality, possibly ending the cherry-picking by the journal and subsequent delay of otherwise accepted work. Such a simple, but fundamental change in publishing policy has dramatically shortened the time until novel research enters public knowledge [3,5].
This is very important as only free access to research conclusions allows objectively informed and thus truly democratic processes. The control of knowledge via pay walls by very few publishing companies has inevitably led to formation of resistance: see an article on page 11 detailing the rise of data piracy in academic publishing.
Even Hotter Than Off The Presses
Another new approach to disseminate research independently from the publisher companies is provided by platforms like arXiv.org. They allow researchers to publish their work as preprints and have it critically reviewed by colleagues long before being submitted to classical scientific journals, a route of publishing common for mathematicians and physicists [6]. A similar approach was taken by the Registered Reports of the Journal of European Psychology Students, which allows publishing the work before any data was collected. Based on the scientific quality of the proposal, but independently of the results to be achieved, the submissions might be accepted to peer-review and publication afterwards [1].
Digitalization also changed the medium of publication from printed journal "papers", over to PDF files to alternative formats like ReadCube. Also, not only do publication databases enable fast searches for relevant literature, but newly established scientific social networks (like ResearchGate, Academia.edu or Mendeley by Elsevier) allow easy access to individual researchers and their work. Nowadays, this often includes "non-traditional" formats such as blogs or podcasts [7,3].
New technologies and digital tools have also influenced the kind of published data itself: Original studies can now easily include raw experimental data as supplemental files or freely available databases for other researchers to inspect. Web-based journals also allow easy embedding of various multimedia files as realized in the Journal of Visualized Experiments, a methodology-oriented online journal which publishes video files with accompanying manuscripts. Digital tools have generally sped up the generation of data and graphics, but made the publishing process prone to manipulation of images and data, thus contributing to the “irreproducibility crisis” [8].
In summary, digitalization made our primary goal of creation and distribution of knowledge faster, more flexible and versatile.
[1] http://bit.ly/2pkm4GY
[2] http://bit.ly/2qv8wNo
[3] http://bit.ly/2q5YZuK
[4] http://bit.ly/2r5lVZA
[5] http://tcrn.ch/2qLVmIA
[6] http://bit.ly/2pQuV6w
[7] http://bit.ly/2pR8Jah
[8] http://go.nature.com/2qNHzAh
by Bettina Schmerl, PhD Student AG Shoichet
this article originally appeared June 2017 in CNS Volume 10, Issue 2, Digital Health and Big Data
In the very beginning, scholarly publishing was rather an expensive investment than a source of money, however, more recently publishers' business models were based on subscriptions and fees to finance processing, printing and shipping of their paper-based products [2,3].
The current process of scientific publishing works by selling access to journals that feature articles that have been submitted by authors for free and have been reviewed by peers for free as well. In contrast, open access journals and platforms, such as PLoS (Public Library of Science), levy a publication fee from authors, but make their articles available to everyone.
 |
| via Wikipedia |
The Rise of Open Access
Despite an increasing variety of open access online journals classical publisher-controlled academic journals are not in decline. The (hotly debated) impact factor of a published paper still determines a good part of the reputation of scientists, tempting many to still prefer established classical journals over new open-access channels argues Michael Eisen, geneticist at Berkeley and one of the PLoS' founders [3]. However, nowadays several open-access titles are already high ranked, like Translational Psychiatry or PLoS One Medicine, rendering these concerns increasingly obsolete.
Only since 2008, when the NIH implemented open access rules in its funding policy [4], has the general attitude of the scientific community towards alternative journals changed. Consequently, the online journal PLoS One avoided producing classical print publications altogether and therefore rejection or delay in publication of articles due to space limitation of their (print) issue. The online only open access journal selects manuscripts only for their scientific quality, possibly ending the cherry-picking by the journal and subsequent delay of otherwise accepted work. Such a simple, but fundamental change in publishing policy has dramatically shortened the time until novel research enters public knowledge [3,5].
This is very important as only free access to research conclusions allows objectively informed and thus truly democratic processes. The control of knowledge via pay walls by very few publishing companies has inevitably led to formation of resistance: see an article on page 11 detailing the rise of data piracy in academic publishing.
Even Hotter Than Off The Presses
Another new approach to disseminate research independently from the publisher companies is provided by platforms like arXiv.org. They allow researchers to publish their work as preprints and have it critically reviewed by colleagues long before being submitted to classical scientific journals, a route of publishing common for mathematicians and physicists [6]. A similar approach was taken by the Registered Reports of the Journal of European Psychology Students, which allows publishing the work before any data was collected. Based on the scientific quality of the proposal, but independently of the results to be achieved, the submissions might be accepted to peer-review and publication afterwards [1].
DIGITALIZATION PERMITS
FREE ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE
Digitalization also changed the medium of publication from printed journal "papers", over to PDF files to alternative formats like ReadCube. Also, not only do publication databases enable fast searches for relevant literature, but newly established scientific social networks (like ResearchGate, Academia.edu or Mendeley by Elsevier) allow easy access to individual researchers and their work. Nowadays, this often includes "non-traditional" formats such as blogs or podcasts [7,3].
New technologies and digital tools have also influenced the kind of published data itself: Original studies can now easily include raw experimental data as supplemental files or freely available databases for other researchers to inspect. Web-based journals also allow easy embedding of various multimedia files as realized in the Journal of Visualized Experiments, a methodology-oriented online journal which publishes video files with accompanying manuscripts. Digital tools have generally sped up the generation of data and graphics, but made the publishing process prone to manipulation of images and data, thus contributing to the “irreproducibility crisis” [8].
In summary, digitalization made our primary goal of creation and distribution of knowledge faster, more flexible and versatile.
[1] http://bit.ly/2pkm4GY
[2] http://bit.ly/2qv8wNo
[3] http://bit.ly/2q5YZuK
[4] http://bit.ly/2r5lVZA
[5] http://tcrn.ch/2qLVmIA
[6] http://bit.ly/2pQuV6w
[7] http://bit.ly/2pR8Jah
[8] http://go.nature.com/2qNHzAh
by Bettina Schmerl, PhD Student AG Shoichet
this article originally appeared June 2017 in CNS Volume 10, Issue 2, Digital Health and Big Data
No comments:
Post a Comment