Need for a change in scientific publishing

S. Risnes
{"title":"Need for a change in scientific publishing","authors":"S. Risnes","doi":"10.7557/11.4509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Outsourcing of scientific publishing to scientific journals is problematic, both economically and academically. It is expensive, slow, non-transparent, unbalanced and excluding. Academic library subscriptions contribute substantially to the publishing companies’ 30-40% profit. There is general consensus that scientific reports should be openly accessible on the Internet. This is generally not the case with articles published in the traditional scientific journals. Open access journals are multiplying fast, but many are of questionable quality. Although open access publishing is less expensive than journal subscription, the article processing charges (APC) of open access journals are still high (up to 5,000 USD) and should be reduced. Science is expensive, scientific publishing should not be expensive.The impression the present system, with its editors and anonymous reviewers, conveys of quality and objectivity, is partly an illusion. The basis for decision on manuscripts is too thin and the balance of power is too uneven.Instead of a complicated fallible system, a simple fallible system is suggested: web-based, indexed and searchable repositories funded and organized by accountable and non-profit institutions/organizations where researchers may upload reports that have been thoroughly reviewed by and are supported by one or more competent, impartial, unbiased and named expert peers chosen by the authors themselves. After publication, reports may be further openly evaluated and commented online by named researchers in the field. Article processing charges should be moderate. Such a system would be simple, reasonable, fast, transparent, balanced, including, efficient, and adequately quality secured.","PeriodicalId":286110,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Perspectives on Open Science","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Perspectives on Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7557/11.4509","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Outsourcing of scientific publishing to scientific journals is problematic, both economically and academically. It is expensive, slow, non-transparent, unbalanced and excluding. Academic library subscriptions contribute substantially to the publishing companies’ 30-40% profit. There is general consensus that scientific reports should be openly accessible on the Internet. This is generally not the case with articles published in the traditional scientific journals. Open access journals are multiplying fast, but many are of questionable quality. Although open access publishing is less expensive than journal subscription, the article processing charges (APC) of open access journals are still high (up to 5,000 USD) and should be reduced. Science is expensive, scientific publishing should not be expensive.The impression the present system, with its editors and anonymous reviewers, conveys of quality and objectivity, is partly an illusion. The basis for decision on manuscripts is too thin and the balance of power is too uneven.Instead of a complicated fallible system, a simple fallible system is suggested: web-based, indexed and searchable repositories funded and organized by accountable and non-profit institutions/organizations where researchers may upload reports that have been thoroughly reviewed by and are supported by one or more competent, impartial, unbiased and named expert peers chosen by the authors themselves. After publication, reports may be further openly evaluated and commented online by named researchers in the field. Article processing charges should be moderate. Such a system would be simple, reasonable, fast, transparent, balanced, including, efficient, and adequately quality secured.
科学出版需要改变
将科学出版外包给科学期刊在经济上和学术上都是有问题的。它是昂贵的、缓慢的、不透明的、不平衡的和排斥的。学术图书馆订阅对出版公司30-40%的利润贡献很大。普遍的共识是,科学报告应该在互联网上公开获取。在传统科学期刊上发表的文章通常不是这种情况。开放获取期刊正在快速增长,但许多期刊的质量存在问题。虽然开放获取出版比期刊订阅便宜,但开放获取期刊的文章处理费(APC)仍然很高(高达5000美元),应该降低。科学是昂贵的,科学出版不应该昂贵。目前的编辑和匿名审稿人给人的印象是高质量和客观的,这在一定程度上是一种错觉。根据手稿作出决定的基础太薄弱,权力的平衡也太不平衡。与其采用复杂的易犯错误的系统,建议采用简单的易犯错误的系统:由负责任的非营利机构/组织资助和组织的基于网络的、索引的和可搜索的存储库,研究人员可以上传由作者自己选择的一个或多个有能力的、公正的、无偏见的、指定的专家同行彻底审查和支持的报告。报告发表后,可由该领域的指定研究人员在网上进一步公开评估和评论。物品加工费应适中。这样的制度将是简单、合理、快速、透明、平衡、包容、高效和充分保证质量的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信