Cargando…

Toward a New Model of Scientific Publishing: Discussion and a Proposal

The current system of publishing in the biological sciences is notable for its redundancy, inconsistency, sluggishness, and opacity. These problems persist, and grow worse, because the peer review system remains focused on deciding whether or not to publish a paper in a particular journal rather tha...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kravitz, Dwight J., Baker, Chris I.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Research Foundation 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230039/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22164143
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2011.00055
_version_ 1782218026963173376
author Kravitz, Dwight J.
Baker, Chris I.
author_facet Kravitz, Dwight J.
Baker, Chris I.
author_sort Kravitz, Dwight J.
collection PubMed
description The current system of publishing in the biological sciences is notable for its redundancy, inconsistency, sluggishness, and opacity. These problems persist, and grow worse, because the peer review system remains focused on deciding whether or not to publish a paper in a particular journal rather than providing (1) a high-quality evaluation of scientific merit and (2) the information necessary to organize and prioritize the literature. Online access has eliminated the need for journals as distribution channels, so their primary current role is to provide authors with feedback prior to publication and a quick way for other researchers to prioritize the literature based on which journal publishes a paper. However, the feedback provided by reviewers is not focused on scientific merit but on whether to publish in a particular journal, which is generally of little use to authors and an opaque and noisy basis for prioritizing the literature. Further, each submission of a rejected manuscript requires the entire machinery of peer review to creak to life anew. This redundancy incurs delays, inconsistency, and increased burdens on authors, reviewers, and editors. Finally, reviewers have no real incentive to review well or quickly, as their performance is not tracked, let alone rewarded. One of the consistent suggestions for modifying the current peer review system is the introduction of some form of post-publication reception, and the development of a marketplace where the priority of a paper rises and falls based on its reception from the field (see other articles in this special topics). However, the information that accompanies a paper into the marketplace is as important as the marketplace’s mechanics. Beyond suggestions concerning the mechanisms of reception, we propose an update to the system of publishing in which publication is guaranteed, but pre-publication peer review still occurs, giving the authors the opportunity to revise their work following a mini pre-reception from the field. This step also provides a consistent set of rankings and reviews to the marketplace, allowing for early prioritization and stabilizing its early dynamics. We further propose to improve the general quality of reviewing by providing tangible rewards to those who do it well.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3230039
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Frontiers Research Foundation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32300392011-12-07 Toward a New Model of Scientific Publishing: Discussion and a Proposal Kravitz, Dwight J. Baker, Chris I. Front Comput Neurosci Neuroscience The current system of publishing in the biological sciences is notable for its redundancy, inconsistency, sluggishness, and opacity. These problems persist, and grow worse, because the peer review system remains focused on deciding whether or not to publish a paper in a particular journal rather than providing (1) a high-quality evaluation of scientific merit and (2) the information necessary to organize and prioritize the literature. Online access has eliminated the need for journals as distribution channels, so their primary current role is to provide authors with feedback prior to publication and a quick way for other researchers to prioritize the literature based on which journal publishes a paper. However, the feedback provided by reviewers is not focused on scientific merit but on whether to publish in a particular journal, which is generally of little use to authors and an opaque and noisy basis for prioritizing the literature. Further, each submission of a rejected manuscript requires the entire machinery of peer review to creak to life anew. This redundancy incurs delays, inconsistency, and increased burdens on authors, reviewers, and editors. Finally, reviewers have no real incentive to review well or quickly, as their performance is not tracked, let alone rewarded. One of the consistent suggestions for modifying the current peer review system is the introduction of some form of post-publication reception, and the development of a marketplace where the priority of a paper rises and falls based on its reception from the field (see other articles in this special topics). However, the information that accompanies a paper into the marketplace is as important as the marketplace’s mechanics. Beyond suggestions concerning the mechanisms of reception, we propose an update to the system of publishing in which publication is guaranteed, but pre-publication peer review still occurs, giving the authors the opportunity to revise their work following a mini pre-reception from the field. This step also provides a consistent set of rankings and reviews to the marketplace, allowing for early prioritization and stabilizing its early dynamics. We further propose to improve the general quality of reviewing by providing tangible rewards to those who do it well. Frontiers Research Foundation 2011-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC3230039/ /pubmed/22164143 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2011.00055 Text en Copyright © 2011 Kravitz and Baker. http://www.frontiersin.org/licenseagreement This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial License, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Kravitz, Dwight J.
Baker, Chris I.
Toward a New Model of Scientific Publishing: Discussion and a Proposal
title Toward a New Model of Scientific Publishing: Discussion and a Proposal
title_full Toward a New Model of Scientific Publishing: Discussion and a Proposal
title_fullStr Toward a New Model of Scientific Publishing: Discussion and a Proposal
title_full_unstemmed Toward a New Model of Scientific Publishing: Discussion and a Proposal
title_short Toward a New Model of Scientific Publishing: Discussion and a Proposal
title_sort toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230039/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22164143
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2011.00055
work_keys_str_mv AT kravitzdwightj towardanewmodelofscientificpublishingdiscussionandaproposal
AT bakerchrisi towardanewmodelofscientificpublishingdiscussionandaproposal