A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences
Bodo M. Stern , Erin K. O’Shea
Published: February 12, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000116
Source/Fonte: Internet
Abstract
Science advances through rich, scholarly discussion. More than ever before, digital tools allow us to take that dialogue online. To chart a new future for open publishing, we must consider alternatives to the core features of the legacy print publishing system, such as an access paywall and editorial selection before publication. Although journals have their strengths, the traditional approach of selecting articles before publication (“curate first, publish second”) forces a focus on “getting into the right journals,” which can delay dissemination of scientific work, create opportunity costs for pushing science forward, and promote undesirable behaviors among scientists and the institutions that evaluate them. We believe that a “publish first, curate second” approach with the following features would be a strong alternative: authors decide when and what to publish; peer review reports are published, either anonymously or with attribution; and curation occurs after publication, incorporating community feedback and expert judgment to select articles for target audiences and to evaluate whether scientific work has stood the test of time. These proposed changes could optimize publishing practices for the digital age, emphasizing transparency, peer-mediated improvement, and post-publication appraisal of scientific articles.
Citation: Stern BM, O’Shea EK (2019) A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences. PLoS Biol 17(2): e3000116. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000116
Published: February 12, 2019
Copyright: © 2019 Stern, O’Shea. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
FREE PDF GRATIS: PLoS Biology
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: We have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interest: Both authors are employees of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Abbreviations: CV, curriculum vitae; DOI, digital object identifier; HHMI, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; JIF, journal impact factor; ORCID, open researcher and contributor ID
Provenance: Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed.
