Is Scientific Publishing About to Be Disrupted?

[Nice Squirrel]

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/i...be-disrupted-asapbio-briefly-explained/109494

A group of biologists gathered last month outside Washington, D.C., for a conference that could help spur change in how the discipline publishes its work. United under the name ASAPbio, attendees discussed how they might upend the traditional publishing structure in the interest of speeding up scientific discovery and making scholarship more publicly accessible.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zMgY8Dx9co[/YOUTUBE]

Basically they are looking to supplement peer review with prepublishing sharing of research and inviting feedback.

Thoughts?

 

[Malintent]

What's the downside? Faster publication of pre-peer reviewed work to supplement the official peer review process sounds like a good idea. There is a 'black box' in the process, though.... the screening process that they say takes 'days' instead of 'months or years'... what is that? like what Yelp does with my restaurant reviews? just looks for bad words and ignores the quality of work? what do they mean by, "looks sciency"? How are lobbyist factions that currently operate by wiki page bombing and email spamming going to be addressed?

 

[bigfield]

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/i...be-disrupted-asapbio-briefly-explained/109494

A group of biologists gathered last month outside Washington, D.C., for a conference that could help spur change in how the discipline publishes its work. United under the name ASAPbio, attendees discussed how they might upend the traditional publishing structure in the interest of speeding up scientific discovery and making scholarship more publicly accessible.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zMgY8Dx9co[/YOUTUBE]

Basically they are looking to supplement peer review with prepublishing sharing of research and inviting feedback.

Thoughts?

I like it. But following from Malintent's point, they had better have a very well designed feedback system.

I once looked at building a system like this for a different kind of project, where there would be multiple permission levels for users based on their proven qualifications and contribution history. This system could use something like that, where feedback from members of the scientific community would be kept separate from that of laypersons, and feedback from laypersons with higher reputation (as awarded by the moderators) would be given higher importance.

 

[J842P]

I have yet to have anyone explain to me what it is that publishers actually do except act as middlemen in the peer-review process.

 

[fromderinside]

As I remember things institutions expect academicsto publish at rates commiserate with the school's reputation. Institutions should, therefore, pay for publications - I presume most publishing houses are in some way linked with institutions - at rates proportional to their profitability from such publications.

It's when for profit publishers intervene that seems to be the publishing bottleneck. They hold publications hostage to those interested in the research.

It should be an entirely scholarly enterprise where publications drive fame and status for both the publishing authors and institutions. It should not be a for ransom proposition where profit comes before communication.

Publications are the engines which make status and and advancement possible. Profitability is an engine that makes entrepreneurs money.
the latter should be constrained to results of supporting startups based on research supported by patent. Patents should be constrained to rights to exploit. Patents should not be a court order to not use for furtherance of knowledge.

 

[Underseer]

I have yet to have anyone explain to me what it is that publishers actually do except act as middlemen in the peer-review process.

Back in the days before the internet, publishing cost money. Keeping records of past issues and making them available to others cost money. Publishers provided a real and important function.

Now they are just obsolete leeches.

 

[fromderinside]

I have yet to have anyone explain to me what it is that publishers actually do except act as middlemen in the peer-review process.

Back in the days before the internet, publishing cost money. Keeping records of past issues and making them available to others cost money. Publishers provided a real and important function.

Now they are just obsolete leeches.

There has to be some motive to bring a group of people together to evaluate and edit submitted work.

After all, at core, scientists are just greedy humans like the rest of us.

 

[J842P]

Back in the days before the internet, publishing cost money. Keeping records of past issues and making them available to others cost money. Publishers provided a real and important function.

Now they are just obsolete leeches.

There has to be some motive to bring a group of people together to evaluate and edit submitted work.

After all, at core, scientists are just greedy humans like the rest of us.

But people who review submissions aren't paid.

 

[beero1000]

There has to be some motive to bring a group of people together to evaluate and edit submitted work.

After all, at core, scientists are just greedy humans like the rest of us.

But people who review submissions aren't paid.

Neither are many editors.

I actually just finished refereeing a paper. I did not get paid. I know the editor who contacted me to do the review. She is a professor, and she did not get paid. We view participation in peer review as part of being a member in the community of academics. In a real (but not literal) sense, it's part of our jobs.

Once (if?) the paper is published, the publisher will charge $29.95 for an electronic copy of it.

Something here stinks.

 

[fromderinside]

In a real (but not literal) sense, it's part of our jobs.

Once (if?) the paper is published, the publisher will charge $29.95 for an electronic copy of it.

Something here stinks.

I believe that's what I was talking about in http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...o-Be-Disrupted&p=267728&viewfull=1#post267728


Specifically:

Publications are the engines which make status and and advancement possible. Profitability is an engine that makes entrepreneurs money.
the latter should be constrained to results of supporting startups based on research supported by patent. Patents should be constrained to rights to exploit. Patents should not be a court order to not use for furtherance of knowledge.

 

[rjh01]

There are better ways. For example people could publish their papers on a specialised forum. The members there comment on the paper which may then be reviewed. When the members are happy the paper is published in another part of the forum where the public can know that the paper is good quality.

 

[Will Wiley]

There are better ways. For example people could publish their papers on a specialised forum. The members there comment on the paper which may then be reviewed. When the members are happy the paper is published in another part of the forum where the public can know that the paper is good quality.

I think that is worth trying. Would the members of the specialised forum be anonymous?

 

[fromderinside]

There are better ways. For example people could publish their papers on a specialised forum. The members there comment on the paper which may then be reviewed. When the members are happy the paper is published in another part of the forum where the public can know that the paper is good quality.

Great. Who would control for Trumps reviewing articles?

 

[rjh01]

There are better ways. For example people could publish their papers on a specialised forum. The members there comment on the paper which may then be reviewed. When the members are happy the paper is published in another part of the forum where the public can know that the paper is good quality.

I think that is worth trying. Would the members of the specialised forum be anonymous?

That depends on the rules of the forum. There are pros and cons both for anonymous and otherwise.

There are better ways. For example people could publish their papers on a specialised forum. The members there comment on the paper which may then be reviewed. When the members are happy the paper is published in another part of the forum where the public can know that the paper is good quality.

Great. Who would control for Trumps reviewing articles?

I think to be a reviewer you would have to be a scientist or at least scientific knowledge at an advanced level. Plus possible ratings for reviewers. If a person is highly qualified on a certain subject and they review an article on that subject the post could be marked as important. Plus possible voting.

Also see this video (and a few others it references) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLlA1w4OZWQ

The last minute of this video (which is a followup to the above video) mentions what I have said in my previous post https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcIUhHWsqlE