View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Tennessee, Knoxville: Trace University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange School of Information Sciences -- Faculty Publications and Other Works School of Information Sciences 4-7-2014 The four pillars of scholarly publishing: The future and a foundation. Jarrett EK Byrnes Edward B. Baskerville Bruce Caron Cameron Neylon Carol Tenopir University of Tennessee - Knoxville See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_infosciepubs Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation Byrnes, Jarrett EK, Edward B. Baskerville, Bruce Caron, Cameron Neylon, Carol Tenopir, Mark Schildhauer, Amber Budden, Lonnie Aarssen, and Christopher Lortie. “The four pillars of scholarly publishing: The future and a foundation.” Ideas in Ecology and Evolution Vol. 7, no. 1 (2014). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Information Sciences at Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Information Sciences -- Faculty Publications and Other Works by an authorized administrator of Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Jarrett EK Byrnes, Edward B. Baskerville, Bruce Caron, Cameron Neylon, Carol Tenopir, Mark Schildhauer, A.E. Budden, Lonnie Aarssen, and Christopher Lortie This article is available at Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange: https://trace.tennessee.edu/ utk_infosciepubs/154 Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 7: 27–33, 2014 doi:10.4033/iee.2014.7.7.f © 2014 The Author. © Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 2014 iee Received 24 April 2013; Accepted 18 February 2014 Future of Publishing The four pillars of scholarly publishing: The future and a foundation Jarrett E.K. Byrnes, Edward B. Baskerville, Bruce Caron, Cameron Neylon, Carol Tenopir, Mark Schildhauer, Amber Budden, Lonnie W. Aarssen, and Christopher J. Lortie Jarrett E.K. Byrnes ([email protected]), Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA USA 02139 Edward B. Baskerville, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI USA 48109 Bruce Caron, New Media Research Institute, Santa Barbara, CA USA 93101 Cameron Neylon, PLOS, Carlyle House, Cambridge, UK Carol Tenopir, School of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, TN USA 37996 Mark Schildhauer, National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA USA 93101 Amber Budden, National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA USA 93101 Lonnie W. Aarssen, Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston ON, Canada K7L 3N6 Christopher J. Lortie, Department of Biology, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, ON, Canada M3J 1P3 Abstract participating in the process. These four pillars will guide the development of better tools and practices for discov- Scholarly publishing has embraced electronic distribut- ering and sharing scientific knowledge in a modern ion in many respects, but the tools available through the networked world. The current traditional scholarly pub- Internet and other advancing technologies have pro- lishing model arose in the 1600s, and though it has found implications for scholarly communication beyond served its purpose admirably and well, it is time to move dissemination. We argue that to best serve science, the forward by embracing open, rapid transparent publicat- process of scholarly communication must embrace these ion and review. advances and evolve. Here, we consider the current state of the process in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Many forms of Government have been tried and will be (EEB) and propose directions for this evolution and tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that potential change. We identify four pillars for the future democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been of scientific communication: (1) an ecosystem of said that democracy is the worst form of government scholarly products, (2) immediate and open access, (3) except all those other forms that have been tried from open peer review, and (4) full recognition for time to time. ~Winston Churchill To see reviewer comments on the initial submitted version of this manuscript, see http://goo.gl/zO1FyW To make comments on the published manuscript, or initiate new discussions, go to http://goo.gl/zOTqFe iee 7 (2014) This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. 27 Introduction the literature they need; this access is crucial for their everyday work (Tenopir 2012). Similarly, the impact of We live in an age of rapid communication open to an high quality science is actually increased when it is ever-growing pool of information and ideas, yet our made open access (Gargouri et al. 2010). Recently the current system of communicating the results of scholar- predominant discussions about open access have moved ly activities dates back to the 1660s and still reflects past whether science needs open access or not and right many of the restrictions of that time. It limits access to on to the details of how it will be funded and how those outside the ivory tower via paywalls, keeps the existing journals and societies will adapt to the change. review process behind the closed doors of anonymity, As we concede that access must be open for the sake of and operates at a speed often far slower than what is good science, we naturally should ask what other possible. Is this a model for 21st-century publishing? Or aspects of the publishing process should also be opened do the general principles of rapid open access that have up. become apparent with the growth of the information age Here, we propose four pillars for a more open future provide a template for a form of scholarly commun- of scholarly publishing: (1) a widening of our definition ication that is both higher in quality and allows for the of scholarly products, (2) immediate open access to more rapid and efficient dissemination and revision of these products at the start of their assessment and refine- ideas? Can we improve our science by changing the ment, (3) open public review for scholarly products, and foundations of scientific discourse? With the rapid rise (4) an improved ability to assess scholarly products and of scholarly discourse online (Fox 2012), the time is the overall contributions of scholars. These pillars right to examine how we can improve the system. Here, (Figure 1) do not stand alone, but meet at a common we present a framework that provides the foundation for foundation: the need to link products together to better these considerations. enable discovery of relevant information. Embracing The debate on open-access publishing reflects the these core principles, we believe, will enhance both the ongoing changes in how scientists interface with content speed and quality of the scientific enterprise. and how their expectations for access have shifted, and moreover points the way towards more significant An Ecosystem of Scholarly Products changes to the system. Many scientists have already recognized that open access enables better science, Scholarly publishing in EEB is largely limited to a because it guarantees that researchers have the access to single species of product—namely the narrative paper in Figure 1. A brief overview of the four pillars of the future of scholarly publishing built atop the foundation of net- worked discover of new work. iee 7 (2014) 28 one of only a few forms. This monoculture of scholarly scientific process in EEB. We are cutting off a mode of production is curious, particularly given that an entire scholarly production, and limiting the information avail- subfield of ecology is devoted to the demonstration that able to scientists in the future—and by future, we may diversity can often lead to higher levels of ecosystem mean as little as a year, as blogs can have very limited function (Loreau et al. 2001). Importantly, scientific life-spans (i.e. sometimes only a year). If the purpose of dialog has eclipsed this singular modality in many scholarly communication is to forward EEB by ensuring respects with critical discoveries emerging more freely the dissemination of critical information to future schol- in dynamic discussion via blogs and social media. The ars, this distributed, undervalued set of shared products narrative paper artifact is a product of print publication must change. Beyond just creating new recognized and is increasingly seen as only one vehicle for science venues for this work, a line on a scholars CV listing a knowledge and practice to emerge in a digital world. In data product, software package, non-journal publicat- its recent white paper, the Force11 association has ions, and other scholarly resource needs to be valued in envisioned two aspects of new science artifacts: artifacts the same way as a narrative product for hiring, granting that capture the “relationships between knowledge, funds, and tenure evaluations. These are all building claims, and data,” and artifacts that promote the reprod- blocks for the future of progress in EEB. It is time that ucibility of science workflows (Bourne et al. 2012). It we begin to recognize them as such. is time for EEB to move beyond the devaluation of alternative types of scholarly product and embrace the larger ecosystem of scholarly products lest this infor- Immediate Access mation be lost, neglected, or generally undervalued. Fortunately, we have already begun to recognize that Once a researcher or research team deems the fruits there is more than one scholarly product that is of value of their scientific labor ready for the limelight, it’s time to advancing science. Publication of data has become for them to begin the cycle of peer review. The critique increasingly commonplace, with whole journals devoted of scientific work by one’s peers is the cornerstone of to data papers (e.g., Dataset Papers in Ecology scientific publishing (Goodman et al.