BE Board:Dinner Discussion/Alternate publishing models: Difference between revisions

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
There
==Shortcomings of the current publishing model==
==Shortcomings of the current publishing model==
#'''Speed of publication''': Papers can often take 6 months to a year to publish between date of initial submission and publication.  Thus, the results in today's journal issue are likely 1-2 years old.
#'''Single, slow channel of publication'''<br>There is only one main level of information dissemination: peer-reviewed, highly polished summaries of work in journals.  These papers generally take months or years to write, submit, review and publish.
#'''Single channel of information distribution''': There is only one main level of information dissemination: peer-reviewed, highly polished summaries of work in journals.
#*Published results are likely 1-2 years old due to the long publication process.
#*While tight, very trustworthy summaries of research are vital to scientific research, it is also useful to have more frequent reporting of results on shorter timescales.  Readers would need to evaluate these results with more skepticism than formal publications; however, it doesn’t mean they would have no value.  Such an information distribution channel would also permit the disclosure of failed experiments avoiding needless duplication of effort across labs.
#*The high barriers to publication prevent people from reporting uninteresting or failed experiments.  Thus, there is needless duplication of effort across labs.
#'''No documented reviews of articles''': Current publishing approaches do not encourage open feedback and reviews of work.
#'''Few documented evaluations of articles'''<br>Current publishing approaches do not encourage sytematic, open evaluation of published works.
#*It would be helpful to be able to read not only an article itself but also reviews and discussion of the article by other scientists.
#*It would be helpful to be able to read not only an article itself but also reviews and discussion of the article by other scientists.
#'''Insufficient detail in methods sections''': Published articles often do not contain sufficient information to reproduce the results of the work.  For instance, compare the usefulness of a two paragraph Methods section to having access to a complete lab notebook.
#'''Failure to take advantage of the online medium'''<br>Journals articles are edited and formatted for a print medium while being distributed primarily online.  They fail to take advantage of the features offered by the web.
#'''Failure to take advantage of the online medium''': Journals articles are edited and formatted for a print medium while being distributed primarily online.  In other words, they fail to take advantage of the features offered by the web.
#*Articles often lack the detailed methods information necessary to reproduce the results of the work.
#*The near absence of hyperlinks in journal articles is the clearest example of this problem.
#*There is a near absence of hyperlinks in journal articles.
#'''Nonmachine-interpretable data publication''': Published data is often not made available in a machine-understandable format.
#*Data is often not made available in a machine-understandable format that facilitates others to use the dataset independently.
#*Oftentimes the data from scientific research is not necessarily published in a form that encourages other groups to take the data and analyze it independently.  Presenting work in a form that enables others to make use of it easily would enhance the quality of the work.  Such goals are driving the scientific semantic web and SBML communities.
#*Periodic journal issue as a means of aggregating information is outdated.  Papers should be collected based on relevance to a specific topic rather than date of publication within a broad topic area.
#'''Periodic issue publication''': The whole idea of a periodic journal issue as a means of aggregating information is outdated.
#*Few scientists read journals cover to cover anymore.  Most papers are found via search engines.  Papers should be collated based on relevance to a specific topic rather than date of publication with a broad topic area.  Papers could be published in multiple collections as appropriate.


==Proposed alternatives==
==Proposed improvments==
#Review/Critique site
#'''Mechanisms for short-timescale publication'''
#*Would basically be a place to aggregate information about a paper.  For instance, summaries, comments, even reviews potentially.  Could layer this on top oif the current publishing system without much trouble, it can be a stand alone site - e.g. [http://www.facultyof1000.com/ faculty of 1000] - but be for anyone.
#*There are an abundance of technologies that permit people to easily and quickly distribute information over the web like wiki's, RSS feeds and blogs.  The research community needs to take advantage of these alternative means of information dissemination.
#'''Post-publication discussion and evaluation'''
#*A mechanism by which scientists could post summaries/reviews/critiques/comments about a given paper.  By enabling users to rank these posts, worthwhile commentary should rise to the top of the pool.  Such a system can be developed as a separate layer from the existing publishing system. The [http://www.facultyof1000.com/ Faculty of 1000] is an example of an attempt at a site of this form but restricts access.
#'''Novel publication formats'''
#*


==Barriers to change==
==Barriers to change==
#Current reward system only notices traditional publications.
The reward system in science, and to a lesser extent engineering, only values traditional publications. In order for the publishing system to change, institutions must value not only publications but other types of contributions during the hiring, promotion and tenure process.  '''What can we do to push such change forward?'''


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 11:31, 25 March 2006

There

Shortcomings of the current publishing model

  1. Single, slow channel of publication
    There is only one main level of information dissemination: peer-reviewed, highly polished summaries of work in journals. These papers generally take months or years to write, submit, review and publish.
    • Published results are likely 1-2 years old due to the long publication process.
    • The high barriers to publication prevent people from reporting uninteresting or failed experiments. Thus, there is needless duplication of effort across labs.
  2. Few documented evaluations of articles
    Current publishing approaches do not encourage sytematic, open evaluation of published works.
    • It would be helpful to be able to read not only an article itself but also reviews and discussion of the article by other scientists.
  3. Failure to take advantage of the online medium
    Journals articles are edited and formatted for a print medium while being distributed primarily online. They fail to take advantage of the features offered by the web.
    • Articles often lack the detailed methods information necessary to reproduce the results of the work.
    • There is a near absence of hyperlinks in journal articles.
    • Data is often not made available in a machine-understandable format that facilitates others to use the dataset independently.
    • Periodic journal issue as a means of aggregating information is outdated. Papers should be collected based on relevance to a specific topic rather than date of publication within a broad topic area.

Proposed improvments

  1. Mechanisms for short-timescale publication
    • There are an abundance of technologies that permit people to easily and quickly distribute information over the web like wiki's, RSS feeds and blogs. The research community needs to take advantage of these alternative means of information dissemination.
  2. Post-publication discussion and evaluation
    • A mechanism by which scientists could post summaries/reviews/critiques/comments about a given paper. By enabling users to rank these posts, worthwhile commentary should rise to the top of the pool. Such a system can be developed as a separate layer from the existing publishing system. The Faculty of 1000 is an example of an attempt at a site of this form but restricts access.
  3. Novel publication formats

Barriers to change

The reward system in science, and to a lesser extent engineering, only values traditional publications. In order for the publishing system to change, institutions must value not only publications but other types of contributions during the hiring, promotion and tenure process. What can we do to push such change forward?

References

  1. Open Networks and Open Society: The Relationship between Freedom, Law, and Technology. Talk by Hal Abelson and John Wilbanks.
  2. Science 2.0/Brainstorming
  3. Publishing Group
Retrieved from "https://openwetware.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=BE_Board:Dinner_Discussion/Alternate_publishing_models&oldid=28012"