To the Committee
12/01/12 15:54 Filed in: GenomeWeb Daily Scan
Submitted by S. Pelech - Kinexus on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 15:24.
The more restrictions that are placed on the publication of scientific research results, be they financial or prior acceptance by a couple of anonymous peers, the lower the value of that research endeavor. With the explosion of new scientific journals, never mind the articles within, it is becoming increasing difficult for academic institutions to purchase subscriptions to provide a high level of access to its faculty and students. Reduced access ultimately translates into diminished impact, no matter what the so called "impact factor" of the journal that published the work might be. This is especially true, since many scientific articles are now purchased individually.
While there are concerns about maintaining the quality of the scientific literature and the need for expert peer-review, the fact of the matter is that there is a wide spectrum of quality in peer-reviewed papers even with the present system. Anyone who has participated in regular journal clubs is well aware of this. Most scientific papers, even in the most prestigious journals, have flaws.
It is time to further the transition of scientific publication in the biological sciences. Open access journals have been a major step forward, but they don't go far enough. They don't have transparency in peer-review and the authors bear the publication costs. This means that the more funding a laboratory receives, the more likely that it will be able to afford to publish its results. The more evidence of productivity, i.e. publications, the more likely that this laboratory will receive future funding. While this cycle might be viewed as not too serious a problem, political agendas with funding institutions do further complicate the matter. Of greatest concern though, is the poor post-publication peer-review that scientific papers currently receive. Relevant criticisms and supporting comments for specific scientific articles should be directly linked so that the readers can immediately become aware of pro's and con's related to the work. With such as high level of scrutiny possible, I suspect that this will raise the bar for quality of these publications and even ultimately result in a higher rate of retractions of scientific papers.
Another step forward might be for more government agencies, universities and even charities to sponsor their own journals. Government and academic institution backed journals have existed in the past, and with desk-top publishing, this should be even easier today.
Link to the original blog post.
The more restrictions that are placed on the publication of scientific research results, be they financial or prior acceptance by a couple of anonymous peers, the lower the value of that research endeavor. With the explosion of new scientific journals, never mind the articles within, it is becoming increasing difficult for academic institutions to purchase subscriptions to provide a high level of access to its faculty and students. Reduced access ultimately translates into diminished impact, no matter what the so called "impact factor" of the journal that published the work might be. This is especially true, since many scientific articles are now purchased individually.
While there are concerns about maintaining the quality of the scientific literature and the need for expert peer-review, the fact of the matter is that there is a wide spectrum of quality in peer-reviewed papers even with the present system. Anyone who has participated in regular journal clubs is well aware of this. Most scientific papers, even in the most prestigious journals, have flaws.
It is time to further the transition of scientific publication in the biological sciences. Open access journals have been a major step forward, but they don't go far enough. They don't have transparency in peer-review and the authors bear the publication costs. This means that the more funding a laboratory receives, the more likely that it will be able to afford to publish its results. The more evidence of productivity, i.e. publications, the more likely that this laboratory will receive future funding. While this cycle might be viewed as not too serious a problem, political agendas with funding institutions do further complicate the matter. Of greatest concern though, is the poor post-publication peer-review that scientific papers currently receive. Relevant criticisms and supporting comments for specific scientific articles should be directly linked so that the readers can immediately become aware of pro's and con's related to the work. With such as high level of scrutiny possible, I suspect that this will raise the bar for quality of these publications and even ultimately result in a higher rate of retractions of scientific papers.
Another step forward might be for more government agencies, universities and even charities to sponsor their own journals. Government and academic institution backed journals have existed in the past, and with desk-top publishing, this should be even easier today.
Link to the original blog post.