Refers to: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/science/asap-bio-biologists-published-to-the-internet.html?_r=1
In
other words, where's scientific publishing headed? Clearly, we're deep
in the trenches of a confusing and at times ugly transition phase.
Intrepid open-access advocates like Alexandra Elbakyan
have wrong-footed incumbents like Elsevier into taking potentially
futile and counter-productive rearguard actions like lawsuits (1). This is scientific publishing's Napster
moment after all. Such David versus Goliath battles draw mainstream
media interest and with that, the story's hopelessly flawed core stands
revealed.
Much of basic science research is taxpayer-funded. Scientists perform peer-review of each other's work pro bono.
Editing processes are outsourced to back offices in developing
countries to cut administrative costs to the bone. Electronic publishing
costs a fraction of print. And peer-review's unacceptably slow in the
era of instant updates. Why then do for-profit scientific publishing
heavyweights own the copyright to scientists' published work? And why do they charge an arm and a leg for accessing just one paper, even for scientists who publish in those same journals and who perform pro bono
peer-review on their behalf? For e.g., electronic access per-paper can
range from US $6 to $36, even for papers published decades earlier.
Annual subscriptions to thousands of journals are an onerous financial
burden even for Harvard (2),
one of the best-endowed universities in the world. Clearly, shining a
spotlight on scientific publishing is akin to turning over the
proverbial rock, and such scrutiny doesn't augur well for the prevailing
order. How could such an untenable status quo even continue to exist?
Obviously something's got to give and soon. Preprints, especially by
biologists, are a clear sign of this happening. After all, when it comes
to the digital era, biologists have tended to follow, not lead.
At heart, the issue's about unprecedented changes in knowledge communication and perusal. Perhaps one of the most persuasive arguments for where they might lead us comes from the physicist Michael Nielsen, one of the first scientists to embrace the digital landscape by blogging on his own web-site since 2003.
In a blog article titled, 'Where will the key ideas shaping the future of scientific publishing come from?', Nielsen explores the counter-intuitive idea that scientific publishing's future will be shaped by none
of the key stakeholders of the scientific ecosystem, i.e., neither by
leading scientists nor journal publishers nor librarians nor policy
makers, etc. Instead, he argues key features of future scientific
publishing will be invented over the next few decades 'by two groups of outsiders: exceptionally creative user interface designers, and people who design group experiences' (3).
Nielsen interprets Henry Oldenburg, Johannes Gutenberg and Aldus Manutius to essentially be interface designers, and defines scientific journals as 'user interface to humanity’s scientific knowledge'. Nielsen argues their present-day counterparts are 'attempting
to invent powerful new representations for knowledge, representations
that will let us manipulate and comprehend knowledge in new ways'. He reminds how two staples of user experience, the hyperlink and search box, have transformed how we relate to knowledge. Nielsen declares 'journals are also a medium for collective intelligence' but that the 'design of media for collective intelligence isn’t yet a widely recognized field'. He argues that collective scientific experience will be shaped by the work being done by the likes of Ned Gulley, Robin Hanson, Bobby McFerrin, Jane McGonigal, Elan Lee.
Nielsen concludes that scientific publishing's future won't be monolithic
as in the past but instead include a variety of forms, ranging from the
informal to the collaborative to the prevailing model, i.e., the 'paper of record'.
I'm inclined to agree. It'll be confusing for a while. Some approaches
will likely crash and burn. Others will become mainstays. Unlikely it'll
be monolithic. A fast moving science story like Zika had researchers
uploading raw data online in real time (4).
Unthinkable in the monolithic era. Seen in this light, physicists were
ahead of the curve by publishing preprints. Biologists? Far behind.
Both, however, are responding to the way the digital world has wrought
unprecedented changes in how scientific knowledge is shared. If
Nielsen's right, preprints will be but one form of how that's done.
Bibliography
2. The Guardian, Ian Sample, April 24, 2012. Harvard University says it can't afford journal publishers' prices
3. Michael Nielsen, May 10, 2015. Where will the key ideas shaping the future of scientific publishing come from?
4. Nature, Declan Butler, Feb 23, 2016. Zika researchers release real-time data on viral infection study in monkeys
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-biologists-starting-to-publish-preprints-now-so-long-after-it-became-the-norm-in-physics/answer/Tirumalai-Kamala
No comments:
Post a Comment