sign in sign up
<<
Home , Brain Research, Scientific journal

Features and the Future of Scientific Carrie Lock sions follow the , and the has climaxed in 2001, when 30,000 In 1665, Henry Oldenburg, publisher and some degree of relevance. Once an in 180 countries signed a boycott letter prolific letter writer, changed the future passes , the journal publishes calling on publishers to make their work of . His legacy, the Philosophical it months or even years later, and other freely available in online libraries within 6 Transactions of the Royal Society of London, scientists in that particular field eventually months. They pledged not to “publish in, spawned the dominant form of scientific read it. In recent times, some journal edi- edit or review for, or personally subscribe communication for the next 3½ centuries. tors have taken steps to accelerate publica- to” journals that do not comply. “The Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton waged tion, such as posting articles online before current business model is unsustainable, intellectual battles over springs, optics, they appear in print. since it is now economically and physi- and gravity in its pages. By the late 19th Financial problems, however, have cally possible to disseminate an article century, other journals, including recently plagued the scientific publishing worldwide at zero cost”, says , and , had sprung up, and industry. Nonprofit and academic organi- publisher of the Open Access Newsletter of as scientific progress marched along, zations used to dominate the business, but the Scholarly Publishing and Academic their pages filled with articles by Albert for-profit publishers entered the industry Resources Coalition, an organization of Einstein, Marie Curie, and other scientific during the research boom of World War universities and libraries that aims to raise luminaries. II. Today, they publish 2 million articles awareness about this issue. “It’s a dysfunc- Journals hold a special place in the lives a year with $8 billion in annual revenue. tional system; [publishers] are racing into a of scientists. The number of articles they Most journals cost hundreds to thousands brick wall”, says Suber. publish and in what journals substantially of dollars for an annual subscription, but Some changes have already taken place affects the course of their entire careers— some, like and Combustion to satisfy researchers and keep traditional where they work, how much funding they Science and Technology, cost nearly $20,000 journals financially viable. Almost all get, and the respect of their peers. For per year. That forces all but the wealthi- journals published today put at least some some, articles are not just a means of com- est universities and foundations to cancel of their articles on the Internet, retain- munication, but the end products in and some subscriptions. Journals are expensive ing subscriptions by making the journals of themselves. Today, however, business to produce, no matter how many subscrib- worth their high cost in the eyes of buy- pressures and emerging technologies seem ers they have. As the number of subscrib- ers. Large databases link electronic articles likely to change everything about scientific ers goes down, prices rise for the fewer together, and scientists use search engines communication—who finances it, who has institutions that must share the total cost like to gather, in a matter access to it, even the very definition of a of publication. In a vicious circle, rising of minutes, the same information it previ- . prices induce even more subscribers to ously would have taken months to find. Since their inception, these journals cancel. That circle applies to all types of Electronic versions of articles have quickly generally have worked the same way. journals, although the more specialized the become indispensable to scientists. “I have Authors submit their research for publica- audience, the more important the impact. journals going back for years on the shelves tion in the most prestigious journal they If 100 libraries cancel their subscriptions to in my office”, says Vivian Siegel, executive can. Their colleagues, commonly three, Nature, it barely affects this journal’s bot- director of the open-access journal read and review the article anonymously tom line; but it might be the death knell PLoS Biology. “[But] if I need an article, I’ll and recommend that the editor accept or for Colloid and Surface Science. get it online. It doesn’t even occur to me to reject the article for publication, as well The shrinking number of those with read hard copies any more.” as noting its strengths and weaknesses access to scientific journals angers However, that an article is online doesn’t and suggesting revisions. Peer review does researchers all over the world, as the ever- necessarily mean that all researchers who not certify that the results are correct; the increasing costs of print publications shut want to read it can. Most scientists are reviewers do not replicate the experiments out researchers in poorer institutions. It affiliated with universities or research cen- or analyze the data. It only means that isn’t only Third World organizations that ters and collectively subscribe to journals the methodology is sound, the conclu- can’t keep up—many small to midsize US through their institutions’ libraries. Online universities have had to pare down their subscriptions are sometimes cheaper than CARRIE LOCK is pursuing a master’s subscriptions, making some of the more the expensive print format, but publishers degree in at Boston specialized, esoteric journals unavailable often bundle the two together, offering University. to researchers. Researchers’ frustrations online subscriptions “free” to libraries that

122 • Science Editor • July - August 2004 • Vol 27 • No 4 Features Open Access continued also purchase the print journals. In those the publication fee for authors who can’t changes are indeed likely to occur within circumstances, if scientists’ research insti- afford it. Readers, primarily other research- the next 10 to 15 years. Siegel predicts tutions can’t afford the print format, they ers, benefit when they have access to more that 95% of all articles will be available can’t access electronic articles either. That articles. Theoretically, everyone wins when freely through searchable databases within hurdle is prompting scientists to search for scientists can communicate more effi- a decade and that open-access journals alternative ways to develop an open-access ciently—research is done faster, discovery will eventually replace their traditional system in which articles are available free, is accelerated, and mistakes are uncovered print counterparts. Although open-access online, to anyone in the world. more quickly. The public finances the bulk journals will publish the bulk of day-to-day In recent years, open-access journals of American research through taxes, the scientific research, she thinks there will have made major gains in the publishing argument goes, so shouldn’t the public have always be a place for “research ” industry. The for-profit BioMed Central, a a right to see what it’s paying for? No one like Science and Nature. Those journals, general collection of over 100 more specif- wins under the current system except the with a large breadth of topics and a diverse ic open-access journals, published its first “extraordinarily greedy publishers . . . who paying audience, are taking a watchful article in 2000 with a novel pay-to-publish charge up to 10 times as much as the non- waiting stance toward open-access publish- business model. BioMed Central makes profits for an equivalent product”, says Paul ing. “Switching to open access now would money by charging authors or their insti- Ginsparg, professor of at Cornell mean the demise of the journal”, says tutions a $1000 to $1500 processing fee University and developer of a pioneering Katrina Kelner, deputy editor of Science. and supporting advertising on its Web site. large-scale database of scientific articles. “We would have to do it cautiously and in Also in 2000, the National Institutes of The path from the current journal sys- a responsible way.” Health Director Harold Varmus launched tem to an open-access one, however, has Today, PLoS and BioMed Central look PubMed Central, a database in which not been smooth. Some researchers fear like online versions of traditional journals, publishers can deposit their articles 6 that open-access journals will not imple- but in the future, the whole concept of months to a year after original publication. ment quality control, in the form of peer a journal may change. Scientists could Researchers can then search and access review, in the same way as traditional simply deposit their papers in their insti- the database at no charge, and traditional print journals. Some members of the sci- tutional archival database. As long as they publishers can continue to profit with their ence-editing community wonder how used compatible software to publish it, traditional business models. Over 50% of thoroughly, if at all, papers in open-access anyone with an Internet connection could articles in medicine and health are avail- journals will be edited and thus whether use a Google-like search engine to find it. able freely from PubMed Central, although quality will suffer. A journal using the pay- A “journal” might be like a virtual Good not until well after they are initially pub- to-publish business model might be more Housekeeping Seal of Approval—it would lished, which is still unsatisfactory to many inclined to accept papers of questionable tell readers something about the topic, researchers. In October 2003, the Public quality to keep up its revenue. Researchers how it relates to the field, and, perhaps Library of Science, a nonprofit organiza- also worry that funding scandals might be most important, its general quality, but tion of scientists and physicians advocat- much more likely when authors finance it would have no physical meaning. Also ing open-access scientific communication, the publication of their work. “One of like PLoS and BioMed Central journals, launched its open-access journal, PLoS the fears is that open-access journals are the next wave of open-access journals will Biology. PLoS Biology charges authors a going to somehow dilute the seriousness probably implement peer review in the $1500 processing fee. At the end of 2003, of our research”, says David Wood, an traditional way. Eventually, publishers and there were 561 open-access peer-reviewed assistant professor of chemical engineering scientists will have to figure out how to use titles, less than 1% of all published articles, at Princeton University. “With free online changing technologies to adapt to journals “but it’s growing every day”, says Melissa journals, people perceive that they get of the future. In the next decade or two, Hagemann, program officer for the Open what they pay for.” Open-access journals utilitarian search engines and high-speed Society Institute, which funds open-access will need to reconcile the peer-review connections may replace the traditional projects. process with their business models before glossy pages of the venerable scientific Open-access journals benefit almost authors, universities, and funding agencies journal. all parties involved in scientific publish- will recognize them as acceptable venues “I foresee a true knowledge network ing. Authors, who have never profited for publication and agree to bear the bur- rather than simple ‘electronic publica- directly from publication of their work, den of their cost. These solutions may use tion’,” says Ginsparg. “Most of the tech- gain increased visibility and prestige when multiple peer-review stages or occur on a nical pieces are already in place, but the more people can use the Internet to read different time scale—or they may use a for- sociologic obstacles, as usual, are the most their work. And BioMed Central and PLoS mat quite different from today’s standards. difficult to overcome.” Biology have already committed to waiving Most publishers seem to agree that these

Science Editor • July - August 2004 • Vol 27 • No 4 • 123