Oh, the Vanity
03/05/10 12:39 Filed in: GenomeWeb Daily Scan
Submitted by S. Pelech - Kinexus on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 02:08.
I reject the notion that because twice as many industry-funded research papers compared to purely academic-sourced publications are available without subscription fees a pro-industry bias results.
Firstly, with the traditional journal subscription model, authors typically still have to pay page charges and reprint charges. Consequently, there has alway been an "author-pays' element to scientific publishing in most cases.
Secondly, independent peer of scientific papers is the first barrier to getting a manuscript published. While I am sure that politics plays a role in publication in some of the more popular journals that have a strong advertising base and the need to publish on hot topics, the submitted paper still has to pass scientific scrutiny from referees.
Thirdly, academic authors would be just as inclined to publish "favorable work" as industrial authors, because they are subjected to even more pressure to publish or perish that those in industry. It should be appreciated that the ultimate goal of industrial pursuits is the successful development of products, processes or services that permit profitability.
Publications with industrial input, especially from larger companies, benefit from the experience of highly trained teams of scientists with state of the art equipment and other resources. The problems that they tackle are often more challenging than those that can be taken on by an independent investigator in a university- or hospital-based lab. In my observations, a large amount of basic research publications also arises from industrial sources.
Government agencies such as the US National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research are pushing their funded researchers to publish with open access. The fact that industry has apparently taken a lead on making their scientific research freely available should be applauded, not viewed with suspicion as primarily self-serving.
Link to the original blog post
I reject the notion that because twice as many industry-funded research papers compared to purely academic-sourced publications are available without subscription fees a pro-industry bias results.
Firstly, with the traditional journal subscription model, authors typically still have to pay page charges and reprint charges. Consequently, there has alway been an "author-pays' element to scientific publishing in most cases.
Secondly, independent peer of scientific papers is the first barrier to getting a manuscript published. While I am sure that politics plays a role in publication in some of the more popular journals that have a strong advertising base and the need to publish on hot topics, the submitted paper still has to pass scientific scrutiny from referees.
Thirdly, academic authors would be just as inclined to publish "favorable work" as industrial authors, because they are subjected to even more pressure to publish or perish that those in industry. It should be appreciated that the ultimate goal of industrial pursuits is the successful development of products, processes or services that permit profitability.
Publications with industrial input, especially from larger companies, benefit from the experience of highly trained teams of scientists with state of the art equipment and other resources. The problems that they tackle are often more challenging than those that can be taken on by an independent investigator in a university- or hospital-based lab. In my observations, a large amount of basic research publications also arises from industrial sources.
Government agencies such as the US National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research are pushing their funded researchers to publish with open access. The fact that industry has apparently taken a lead on making their scientific research freely available should be applauded, not viewed with suspicion as primarily self-serving.
Link to the original blog post