General Information

Scientific research results are subject to the process of peer review before the final publication. This publishing process aims to create a public record of original contributions to knowledge and to encourage scientists to “speak” directly to one another[1]. Therefore, peer-review journal articles become important as a vocal point for description of scientific results, which sets the basis for future research[2]. For the purpose of further research, there is a standard expectation in the scientific field for authors to share the materials and methods they used to make the research results reproducible[3]. However, there are problems, both in legal and scientific fields, that come along with this expectation. After the peer review process, research articles get published in journals, and thus, the standards of these journals become essential. Every journal has its own policies depending on the nature of the journal. Big name journals have invaluable reputation and networks which enhance their power in scientific publication. Although the process of scientific publishing has endured and evolved through centuries, some contend that the centuries-old model is outdated and has loop-holes which can stifle innovation. On the positive note, attempts to change the system have taken place and are taking place. Online and offline forums are trying to make the process faster and more accessible[4].

Upon finishing research, authors are required to share the results for peer review. In the later process, the science community expects the author to share his/her materials and methods during the research to make the work reproducible and testable. Then, the original research, along with changes suggested by the peer reviews, will be published in journals for the larger public to access. This process has been implemented for centuries and has been proven in its effectiveness.

Despite its benefits, the current publishing process still has problems. First, the nature of scientific publishing creates a sense that it is the first to new findings that matters. On one hand, this sense of competition expedites the process of scientific research-as everyone is trying to be the first, the first means better job, career expectation and future research funding[5]. On the other hand, being first to publish has its down sides. Other competitors can build up their work on the basis of the first, either by invalidating or advancing the published research. In other words, the reward of being the first for further research can be “scooped” by the new comers[6]. It is not to say that new findings are bad for science community as a whole, but the opposite, valid new results can always build up fields of science in on way or another. However, if the problem is viewed from the perspective of the first researcher, there are risks to take. As discussed above, in non-profit field, other competitors can advance the first research to get better opportunity in jobs and funding, and in turn achieve more fame to be the authority on a specific topic. In for-profit field, even more can be taken into account. Although the companies encourage their investigators to publish research can have a voice in certain technology and attract more employees who want to have a good publishing record, the financial risks of disclosing company data and trade secrets can be taken advantage by other competing companies and cause loss of profit and competitivene ss[7].

Purpose of scientific publishing

The process of scientific publishing is designed to ensure the quality of papers and to disseminate the findings in the wider community. New findings should first be offered to specific science field for peer review, and after being tested and proven valid the results can be published in public journals to  a larger audience. The nature of the scientific field provides a self-correcting mechanism where “each new discovery plays the role of one more brick in an edifice[8]” of science. However, the process, at the same time, can hinder the value of scientific research in terms of risking property rights and time-lag caused by the process.

Problems and Challenges

The process of scientific publishing has been in place for decades even centuries, which facet  proves its effectiveness itself. However, some researchers and organizations have complained about that the centuries-old model can’t coordinate with nowadays demand for time-effectiveness when new findings are coming out at a much faster rate. A peer review process might take up to years when other more advanced research can come out in this period.

Moreover, research results are often reviewed by big name specialists but not the whole scientific community during the process. This appeals to the specialists extensive and in-depth knowledge on the topic, but we have to admit that there can be research that touches upon a completely new topic which requires more than a few specialists review. The limited access of primary research result can impact the value of peer review journals.

Furthermore, researchers are worried about the line between their legal property rights and the expectation from science community to share as much as they can to make the materials available to other researchers[9]. There are laws in legal field and rules in science field to complement each other, but how to prevent misuse of intellectual property is still a problem in the publishing process.

Last but not least, some researchers have been discontent with the current situation of scientific publishing, but they aren’t necessary changing their action in the process. Reason behind this dilemma is that if their research is not reviewed by reputable authorities, their work is less likely to be published in big name journals, which is the most efficient way to get funding and jobs under today’s fierce competition[10]. The less recognized reviews on open access science forums can’t alter the situation if they are not profitable enough.

Changes and future possibilities

As researchers are worried about current situation, but unwilling to change it, people do have this incentive. Academia.com was founded in 2008, by Richard Price, to help scientists to share their research. Richard Price believes that the new publishing process should include speed, community review and open access. The site allows researchers to upload and discuss their manuscripts. Some people might wonder whether the researchers will be willing to participate under the pressure to be the first to publish. The fact gives us a YES answer: now there are over 7 million users on the website, showing great growth of this attempt.

[11]

Price isn’t the only one who have made a change. Michael Eisen, a biologist at the University of California-Berkeley, also believes in open-access publishing, arguing that traditional way of publishing gives big-name journals so much power that they become “gatekeepers of success in science”[12] who can “stifle innovation in scientific communication”[13]. Eisen co-started Public Library of Science (PLoS) as a source of several open access journals to make review possible for the whole scientific community.

However, Price did admit that the biggest challenge of open access publishing is still the researchers’ reluctance to participate. There are a lot of good reasons behind this reluctance. First, the publication in big name journals is by far the most direct way to ensure funding and jobs. It is a time-and-effort-consuming process, so the researchers can only spare little time on the trying out the new open access journals. Secondly, as we mentioned that open access journals are mostly in a burgeoning period. Some of them lack the legitimacy associated with editorial and publishing services, but still charge publishing fees. They are often regarded as predatory open access journals. Jeffery Beal  has put forward reports of independent journals who aren’t giving proper services. Beal’s report contends that some of the papers shared on PLOS are flawed or with poor quality[14].

This means that there are still aspects to improve in the open publishing process. For example, they can implement post-publication peer review to strengthen the process. The three step review process – invited reviewer, volunteer reviewer and third party review – can largely ensure the quality of the publication by getting feed backs from different sources[15]. Although post-publication review sounds like a plausible procedure, the quality and participation of the reviews are hard to be censored [16]. Not all research papers receive valid comments, and the low expertise of some reviewers is also a aspect of concern.

We can see researchers struggling and trying to figure out a better publishing process. Difficulties, including quality, time-lag, and participation, still exist, but people are make stands to change the current situation.