Group of biologists
bypasses journals and uploads their work straight to the Internet
Since
the first scientific journal was created 351 years ago, the process for
disseminating scientific information has remained fundamentally the same -
results are written up, peer-reviewed, and eventually published. And while this
process helps to ensure high-quality articles, it's also incredibly slow, with
the average biology paper taking on average six months - and sometimes even
years - to see the light of day.
Now
a growing group of life scientists are working to change that, by committing
the somewhat-rebellious act of uploading their papers directly to a open-access
pre-print site, called bioRxiv, before
submitting them to the mainstream journals, as Amy Harmon reports
for The
New York Times. That means their work is now available for
anyone to read and comment on for free.
Pre-print
servers are something that physics and mathematics already user regularly -
back in the '90s, arXiv.org (pronounced
"archive", in case you were wondering) became the primary way to get
research out there, allowing the scientific community to comment on it and
contribute their ideas. Sort of like a Facebook thread for researchers.
It's
a system that still happens regularly today, and, if anything, it seems to
supplement the traditional publishing model in those fields, with 80 percent of the manuscripts
on arXiv.org later being submitted to mainstream journals, usually with
beneficial updates and even new authors thanks to the feedback given during
pre-print.
Similar
pre-print servers do exist in the life sciences, but until now, they've rarely
been used, because researchers have been nervous that it would hinder their
career.
But
with publishing delays continuing
to increase for the major journals, scientists have decided it's time to
put an end to the taboo, and have started uploading their research anyway,
grouping behind the #ASAPbio
hashtag.
Supporters
of the model include Nobel Laureate in biology Carol Greider from Johns
Hopkins University and neuroscientist Steve Shea from Cold Spring Harbour
Laboratory:
The
main reason scientists are so enthusiastic about pre-print seems to focus on
two main reasons: firstly, it will make research freely available to the public
- who fund the majority of research with our tax dollars - and
secondly, it will help to increase the rate of scientific advance.
For
example, on topics such as Zika virus where time is of the essence, pre-print
servers could see scientists collaborating and learning from each other's
discoveries within days.
With
the growing online support, a group of 70 prominent scientists met in Maryland
last month to discuss whether pre-print is the way of the future.
But
what about peer-review, I hear you ask? While the intention for most of
the scientists
behind ASAPbio is to eventually submit to mainstream journals and have
their work reviewed, there are concerns that pre-print provides a platform for
lower quality research and unverified claims. "Post-publication review of
public-health research, what could possibly go wrong?" wrote
Elsevier journal publisher, Andrew Miller, on Twitter.
But
bioRxiv would clearly indicate that its articles contain information that
"has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or
medical community", and the
ASAPbio movement has made it clear that most scientists wouldn't risk their
reputation simply to rush a discovery out.
Also,
the credibility argument only holds true if traditional publishing was perfect,
which
it isn't. Even with the lengthy peer-review process, mistakes still
make it to print. Take for example the recent journal article that PLOS
ONE had to retract because it credited the design of the human to
"the Creator".
There's
also ongoing controversy over
the legitimacy of the review process, and the exorbinant paywalls that most
journals keep their information behind.
One
neuroscientist is so frustrated with the system that she's uploaded
mllions of scientific papers for free - nearly every paper that's ever been
published - in order to distribute knowledge, sort of like a Robin
Hood of the science world.
That's
a noble goal, but the outcome of the ASAPbio meeting was that researchers don't
want to do away with journals altogether - they still need them to
maintain quality and help determine the importance of research. They simply
want to find a way for scientists to be able to get their work out to the
public immediately.
"The
goal is to improve choice of communication, not to take choices away," the
ASAPbio committee write on the site.
They're
now working with journal publishers and editors, as well as funding bodies, to
agree on best practice going forward. And there are still challenges to
overcome. While many major journals accept mansucripts previously published
online, the Cell publishing
group doesn't. And pre-print articles aren't considered by funding and
hiring committees, which means it will be harder for young scientist to find
work on the back of a hit bioRxiv paper.
But
one thing's clear: the people have spoken, and biology publishing is about to
be forced into the digital age whether it likes it or not, and we'll be watching
what happens closely.
Source | http://www.sciencealert.com
Regards
Pralhad Jadhav
Senior Manager @ Library
Khaitan & Co
Upcoming Event | National Conference
on Future Librarianship: Innovation for Excellence (NCFL 2016) during April
22-23, 2016.
Note | If anybody use
these post for forwarding in any social media coverage or covering in the
Newsletter please give due credit to those who are taking efforts for the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment