Comments on: Who is killing science on the Web? Publishers or Scientists?

By: travc

travc — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:03:00 +0000

Scientific publishers (or new orgs to replace them) need to serve several important functions… publishing isn’t actually one of them.

What we really need are better categorizing and rating aggregators.
There are much better ways to do this than the publisher model. Something more like a list (a bunch of categorized lists actually) where submitted work is reviewed and possibly elevated to higher (more visible) levels and more general interest categories.

Not really a new idea, but there is no good reason to start with a publisher model and trying to shoe-horn in the real vital functions. Article level impact metrics are a good place to start.

By: Masroor Bangesh

Masroor Bangesh — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:31:43 +0000

Well, this is not entirely true that I fail to appreciate the complexity. Actually it is the complexity which is preventing us from sharply pinpointing the trouble spot as I am insisting.
There are many issues involved, and it may not be harmful to split the discussion into different threads. For example someone can identify problem the \business model\ of scientific publishing. Another area could be the existing \peer review\ model. I would be delighted if someone enlighten this community with their informed view.
Personally I am more concerned because of yet another aspect of complexity. As the number of disciplines has proliferated many fold in last several decades, the size of community dedicated to any particular discipline is dwindling. It turns out that now it is very difficult to differentiate \junk published science\ from the \meaningful published science\. Specially when you require (for work in your own field) to judge some findings in your neighbouring field, but you do not have time to work out the quality.

By: Ralf Stephan

Ralf Stephan — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:06:36 +0000

Mr Bangesh asks if it’s possible to restate the problem in a more objective way. The problem is the growing complexity of all relevant and pressing problems, in comparison to a hundred years ago. The solution the original author proposes, i.e., opening and freeing all data about the problem, has already proven to be a possible solution to complex problems many times, so his choice is a natural one. Mr Bangesh and others, however, do not even appreciate that we live in times that have problems that are vastly more complex than the publisher’s solution can handle—even if it could hundred years ago.

By: Masroor Bangesh

Masroor Bangesh — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:21:29 +0000

Mr. Gunn, Thanks for the response. My first name is Masroor.
Anyway, my point was not about being polite or rude, and I do not think this blog has any rude contents. Certainly there may be (or may not be) some problem with scientific publishing, but first we need to accurately identify this. Next is to make sure that solution does not turn out to be worse than problem itself.
At the moment we have a system at hand, and any improvement should evolve out of it. I am more concerned about the radical solutions which may make us worse off.

By: Mr. Gunn

Mr. Gunn — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:58:43 +0000

Mansoor, this was a very partisan post, but that was kinda the point, I think. Why carry on having polite and genteel discourse about this when the whole edifice is crumbling around us?

By: Masroor Bangesh

Masroor Bangesh — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:25:42 +0000

The view in this blog carries certain ideological and partisan flavour. It is obvious from the frustration and anger of the author.
Is it possible to restate the problem in more objective and unbiased manner? At least that would be the first requirement to move towards “application of scientific method to how science is communicated”.

By: Jason Hoyt

Jason Hoyt — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:54:26 +0000

Thanks for highlighting that, Kristen. Certainly, publishing outfits such as HighWire Press, BioMed Central, and PLoS are blazing a new trail in the digital age that others should emulate. Also, one reader sent me this via Twitter, "Grant funding committees should require at least one or more articles published in an Open Access journal." Why not extend that to faculty hiring committees as well?

By: Kristen Fisher Ratan

Kristen Fisher Ratan — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:47:43 +0000

This is as somewhat naive view of academic publishing. Many publishers are not-for-profit societies and university presses. They have mission statements, not shareholders. To characterize them as the bad guys is counter-productive and, well, kinda mean.

These publishers have been providing a valued service for decades or even centuries. The advent of new technologies has changed the media, but not the purpose of responsible publishing. It is up to all of us to find the best way forward so that we can preserve the important aspects of scholarly publishing and further science at the same time.

By: Duncan Hull

Duncan Hull — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:47:12 +0000

Hi Jason, nice post, I particularly liked your quote about business models for publishing “I don’t care if you find one or not. I’m here to advance science, not your bottom line”

By: bill

bill — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:15:15 +0000

Knowlege is about trust and that trust is guaranteed by a process, part of which is funded by the fees we pay publishers.

Quite right; the only question is, what’s a fair level for such fees? As things stand the academic community is being roundly gouged. In addition, the subscription model does not scale: no matter how low the fees, no one can subscribe to 25,000 journals (see Ulrich’s directory). Open access is the only way to guarantee end-user access; not only that, but when publishing fees are paid upfront journals become economic substitutes rather than economic complements, and a truly competitive market can be established.

Whatever online solutions are developed; they must be solidly backed by a distribution infrastructure that will continue to work should the internet break down.

I’m not sure I get this. Under what circumstances, in which the internet had “broken down”, would anyone still be trying to access scholarly journals?

This doesn’t apply to scientists in e.g. developing countries, where the internet is unreliable, but offline backups are not the answer to that supply problem either — better net access is.