Interactive Journal Concept for Improved Scientific Publishing and Quality Assurance 105
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance 105 Learned Publishing (2004)17, 105–113 Interactive ntroduction and motivation journal concept A large proportion of scientific publi- cations are careless, useless or false, I and inhibit scholarly communication and scientific progress. This statement may for improved sound provocative, but unfortunately is not an exaggeration. The spectacular recent cases of scientific fraud (e.g. Nature 2003:422, 92–3; Nature scientific 2002:419, 419–21; Science 2003:299, 31; Science 2002:298, 961) are only the tip of the iceberg. Many scientific papers fail to provide sufficiently accurate and detailed publishing and information to ensure that fellow research- ers can efficiently repeat the experiments or calculations and directly follow the line of quality assurance arguments leading to the presented con- clusions. Even in reputable peer-reviewed journals with high impact factors many Ulrich Pöschl contributions exhibit a lack of scientific Technical University of Munich rigour and thorough discussion. All too often papers fail to reflect the actual state- © Ulrich Pöschl 2004 of-the-art and do not take into account related studies in a critical and constructive ABSTRACT: Many scientific publications are way. careless, useless or false, and inhibit scholarly Many papers reflect a mentality of pub- communication and scientific progress. This is lishing just as much and as fast as possible, caused by the failure of traditional journal rather than participation in vital scientific publishing and peer review to provide efficient exchange and discussion. The inflationary scientific exchange and quality assurance in today’s increase of scientific publications is fuelled highly diverse world of science. The most promising by the habit of evaluating scientific produc- waytoimprovemattersisatwo-stage(or tivity by the number of papers. In many multi-stage) publication processes with interactive research areas scientists have to spend an peer review and public discussion in new and excessive amount of time to maintain an traditional scientific journals. A concept for such overview of the information dispersed and interactive scientific journals is outlined, and its dilutedintheincreasingfloodofpublic- applicability is demonstrated by the open access ations. These nuisances and aberrations lead journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. to an enormous waste and misallocation of resources: researchers invest lots of time and effort in the reconstruction of poorly described methods and results; useless activ- ities and erroneous conclusions are repeated and propagated; and scientists and projects are misevaluated. Central to the problems outlined above is Ulrich Pöschl LEARNED PUBLISHING VOL. 17 NO. 2 APRIL 2004 106 U. Pöschl thefailureofthetraditionalwaysofjournal to invest a lot of time and effort in it. Errico3 publishing and peer review to provide gives a detailed analysis of the problems efficient scientific exchange and quality outlined above and shows for a couple of assurance in today’s fast-developing and atmospheric science journals that the ratio highly diverse world of science. of commentaries to regular research articles The traditional closed peer-review process has decreased from about 1:20 to about is hampered by limited competence and the 1:100 from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s. sometimes conflicting interests of editors Similar developments and deficiencies of and referees. It frequently leads to a retard- critical discussion and quality assurance are the ation and loss of scientific information. evident in most, if not all, fields of science. Because of the high degree of specializa- Most colleagues from physics, chemistry and best-qualified tion and the enormous variety of research the life sciences concede that the phenomena referees for a activities, institutions and interdisciplinary outlined above are a serious problem which particular aspects, even scientists within the same substantially inhibits scientific progress. discipline are frequently not aware of all the Scientific publishing faces a dilemma manuscript details relevant for a critical and thorough between important and conflicting needs may often not review. The best-qualified referees for a which the traditional ways of journal pub- be known to particular manuscript may often not be lishing and peer review cannot resolve: the editor known to the editor. Even if very well- rapid publication and dissemination versus qualified referees are known, they often do thorough review and discussion of novel not have enough time and motivation to ideas and results. evaluate thoroughly all the manuscripts they Rapid publication is required for efficient are asked to review. They usually get little or exchange of new findings, and it is widely no public recognition of their efforts and pursued in current scientific publishing. Most contributions, which effectively disappear successful journals in physics, chemistry and ‘behind the curtains’. Critical, supportive life sciences push for very short peer-review and complementary referee comments are times (2–4 weeks), and short papers with sometimes as interesting as the reviewed a lack of detailed information and scientific paper, but in traditional scientific journals rigour are often treated preferentially. The these comments are generally not available legitimate quest for rapid exchange and the to the public. On the other hand, revisions regrettable trend towards ever-shorter peer imposedonauthorscandilutetheimpactof review, shorter articles and an increasing original manuscripts and inhibit scientific number of publications have resulted in the innovation.Lastbutnotleast,theclosed scientific information market being flooded peer-review process allows referees to delay by journal articles, preprints and proceed- and obstruct the publications of their com- ings with little or no quality control. Thorough petitors. It also facilitates hidden plagiarism. review and discussion are essential for the These and other aspects of peer review in detection and minimization of flawed and scientific journals have been discussed in useless research activities and results, but detail by Campanario.1,2 under the existing conditions this is hard to Because of the large number of publi- achieve. cations and the slow and time-consuming Resolution of the dilemma of rapid scientific review and publication process of com- exchange versus thorough quality assurance mentaries in traditional scientific journals, requires a two-stage (or multi-stage) public- individual papers rarely face critical public ation process. Efficient quality assurance in discussion once they have passed the peer- the highly diverse world of science requires review process. Incomplete, unbalanced or interactive forms of peer review and public plainly unsustainable presentations are discussion. rarely complemented or corrected by public commentaries. In traditional journals the Interactive scientific journal concept publication of a commentary requires almost as much effort as the publication of a regular The most promising, if not the only practic- research paper, and few scientists are ready able way to substantially improve mainstream LEARNED PUBLISHING VOL. 17 NO. 2 APRIL 2004 Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance 107 scientific publishing and quality assurance on a short to medium timescale (years to decade) is the implementation of a two- stage publication process comprising inter- active peer review and public discussion. The basic principle of the interactive scientific journal concept is illustrated in Figure 1. In the first stage, manuscripts that pass an efficient access peer review or pre- selection by the editor are immediately published in a scientific discussion forum on Figure 1 Basic principle of the interactive scientific journal concept: two-stage publication the Internet. Then they are made available process with interactive peer review and public for full interactive peer review and public discussion. discussion, during which the comments of referees (anonymous or attributed), additional ț The interactive peer review and public short comments by other scientists (attrib- discussion offer direct feedback and pub- uted) and the authors’ replies are published lic recognition for high-quality papers alongside the discussion paper. The inter- (authors’ advantage); they prevent or active comments are published without peer minimize the opportunity for hidden review and revision, but can be censored in obstruction and plagiarism (authors’ case of abusive commenting (personal offence, advantage); they provide complete and etc.). The access review (pre-selection by citable documentation of critical com- the editor with optional advice from ref- ments, controversial arguments, scientific erees) is meant to avoid a potential overload flaws and complementary information of the discussion forum with papers that are (referees’ and readers’ advantage); they clearly deficient or out of scope. In case of deter submissions of careless, useless and doubt, however, editorial decisions should false manuscripts (referees’ and readers’ be predisposed in favour of publication in all-win advantage). the discussion forum. To ensure publication ț The final revised paper offers a maximum situation for precedence for authors and to provide a of scientific information density and lasting record of scientific discussion, the authors, quality assurance