ReviewThe emerging landscape of scientific publishing
Introduction
In the world of biomedical sciences, publishing papers in a scientific journal is the path to sharing research with the world and receive recognition for hundreds of hours of work, research, writing and contributions to science. Published papers are the core of grant applications, prizes, employment, and in many ways, a scientist's career (Fig. 1, Table 1).
The first English-language scientific journal Philosophical Transactions was published in 1665 (http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/) and since then scientific publishing has grown to encompass thousands of journals with topics ranging from all of life such as Nature to specific organs like Kidney International. Some journals are published weekly while others are published only once or twice. Some journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine have been published for over 200 years (http://www.nejm.org/page/about-nejm/history-and-mission.), while new journals are founded every year. Some journals are distributed by print while virtually all are available online. Some are only accessible through a subscription (closed access) while others can be read by anyone with an internet connection (open access).
In this paper, we would like to elucidate the changing landscape of scientific publishing as it stands in 2017. We describe the impact factor and its relevance, different types of publication (classic, preprints, light peer review, post publication peer review, open access, closed access) while commenting on the evolution of peer review in the scientific process. We believe our analysis is of value because it details a fundamental purpose of science: sharing discoveries and knowledge with the world.
Section snippets
The journal impact factor
Conceived of by Eugene Garfield in 1955, the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been used by the scientific community as the ubiquitous yardstick of publication quality for decades [1]. The impact factor calculation is simple and unnuanced: the number of citations accrued by the journal's papers over a specified period is simply divided by the number of papers published in the journal [2].
Researchers across the scientific world clamor for acceptance into ‘high impact journals’ creating fierce
Classic closed access publishing process
The publishing process researchers are familiar has been around since the twentieth century, about as long as the impact factor. Authors submit their paper to a scientific journal, then the editor sends it to two or three experts in the field [14]. These “peer reviewers” are the hallmark of this publishing process; their job is to carefully read the manuscript, looking for adherence to ethical/scientific standards, quality of research and writing and the significance of results. Finally, they
Eponymous vs anonymous review
Peer review of a manuscript can take anywhere from three to beyond twelve hours, however experts are rarely credited for their work [14]. In virtually all “Classic” journals, peer review is anonymous (single blinded) and the pages of insight and commentary written by the reviewer do not go beyond the authors and the editor. Advocates for this system argue it protects the reviewers, allowing them to give an honest review without fear of repercussions or bias. One author, Karim Khan, compares
Rewards for peer review in closed access journals
Another trademark of the classic system is its' reliance on volunteer labour. However, this status quo has been challenged by scientists who want credit for their hours of unpaid work. In response to the criticism, Publons was launched in 2012 as an online platform to “track, verify and showcase your peer review contributions across the world's journals…to speed up science and research and give the experts involved in peer review the recognition they deserve” (http://home.publons.com/). The
Problems with peer review
Though rewards may incentivize more peer reviewers to do a better job, peer review will never be infallible. It is a human process, subject to bias and prejudices. It is inconsistent, flawed and sometimes downright fails.
There are several highly-publicized incidents in which falsified experiments got through the seal of classic peer review into publication in very prestigious journals. Norwegian oncologist Jon Sudbø published an influential paper on oral cancer in the prestigious medical
Preprints
Despite their novelty to the biomedical sciences, preprints, the immediate online publication of completed manuscripts before peer review is rapidly growing in popularity. Originally created in response to the lengthy peer review process, preprint repositories have been widely used by physical sciences for two decades and are just making their debut in the life sciences [23].
Advocates speak to this growth as an evolution of publishing made possible by the widespread use of the internet. Though
Light review
Some platforms have gone a step further from the Classic model by dramatically reducing peer review, such as the Public Library of Science (PLOS) journal family, founded in 2001 (https://www.plos.org/history). Papers published in PLOS are completely open access, however authors shoulder the hefty publication costs, paying between $1495 and $2900 USD depending on the journal (https://www.plos.org/publication-fees). These journals will publish anything their (unpaid) expert reviewers find to be
Post publication review
Founded in 2000, F1000 Research (Faculty of 1000 Scientists) turns life sciences publication norms backwards and upside down. Peer review happens not before, but after publication on an open access website. After the author submits the US $ 150 -$1000 publishing fee (dependent on word count), the papers are quickly screened for scientific and ethical correctness, then published online, awaiting peer reviewers (https://f1000research.com/about). It is important to note that like PLOS, the
Outlook: a brave new world
Just as biological science is evolving at a rapid pace, so is the landscape of scientific publishing. Authors have more options than ever before, to show their work.
As preprints, modifications of peer review and even open publication continue to be finessed, it is likely that these methods are here to stay. The Classic model will become one of many choices for your work, with its positives and negatives, just like the others described in this paper.
Methods need to keep being tested and
References (31)
- et al.
Alternatives to the impact factor
Surgeon
(2014) How to review a scientific paper
Asian J. Psychiatr.
(2014)The history and meaning of the journal impact factor
JAMA
(2006)The journal impact factor is under attack—use the CAPCI factor instead
BMC Med.
(2017)Journal impact factor: it will go away soon
Clin. Chem. Lab. Med.
(2009)More discussion on journal impact factor
Clin. Chem. Lab. Med.
(2013)Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric
Nature
(2016)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research
BMJ
(1997)Still more discussion on the journal impact factor
Clin. Chem. Lab. Med.
(2013)Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.
(2003)
A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions
The developing world needs more than numbers
Nature
The Five Deadly Sins of Science Publishing
Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival
Nature
The current peer review system is unsustainable—awaken the paid reviewer force!
Clin. Biochem.
Cited by (13)
Fusion of blockchain and IoT in scientific publishing: Taxonomy, tools, and future directions
2023, Future Generation Computer SystemsDriving Science Information Discovery in the Digital Age
2021, Driving Science Information Discovery in the Digital AgeBenign and malignant scientific irreproducibility
2018, Clinical BiochemistryEmerging plagiarism in peer-review evaluation reports: a tip of the iceberg?
2024, Scientometrics