Several famous biologists have broken the taboo and published scientific papers directly on the Internet.
- Transfer
Note Continuing the theme “ Should all scientific work be publicly available? "
On February 29, Carol Grader from Johns Hopkins University became the third noble laureate in biology in a month to do what was long considered a taboo in the field of biomedicine. She posted a report on the latest discovery on bioRxiv's publicly available website before posting it to a scientific journal for review and “official” publication.
This little act of disobedience in the information age is reminiscent of Steve King’s Samizdat e-book in 2000 or the Radiohead digital album , uploaded to the Internet without the participation of any label. To celebrate her action, Carol Grader has released a confirmation of the publication of bioRxivunder the hashtag #ASAPbio is the recently invented cry of biologists calling for faster research with a key change in the way you publish.
Such publications are called “preprints” to emphasize the early stage of publication. BioRxiv was launched three years ago, and last year it posted 2048 publications - a barely noticeable part of the approximately one million scientific papers published annually in biomedical journals.
But after a month ago, several dozen biologists announced the ASAPbio campaign in support of preprints, site traffic increased slightly. On Twitter, rebels of the preprint publication congratulate each other on new articles and fight for revolutionary confidence.
Figure from a video that explains how to quickly publish works online, without excluding yourself from the traditional system of scientific publications
Throughout much of the history of organized research, technological journals have remained the main means of disseminating scientific results due to technological limitations. But some proponents of the #ASAPbio movement believe that after the Internet spread, this way of publishing means that biologists repudiated their duty to the public - which pays for most of the academic research - without posting the results of their work as quickly and openly as possible. This was talked about at the ASAPbio conference by another Nobel laureate Harold Varmus, a former director of the National Institute of Health.
Unlike physicists, in whom preprints became the usual publication method back in the 90s, biomedicine researchers usually expect more than six monthsopportunities to distribute their work after they provide it - on exclusive terms - to the most prestigious magazine that it can accept. Often the work is rejected, then the authors choose another journal. As a result, the process of publishing a scientific article can sometimes take several years, and then for some time this article is available only to colleagues at large research institutes, whose libraries are able to pay for a subscription to the scientific press. And since science is in many ways similar to the relay race, where one scientist builds his research on the basis of the scientific work of another scientist, such communication delays almost certainly slow down scientific progress.
Scientists say that they are involved in this process, largely because careful selection of selected articles in magazines like Science ,Nature and Cell acts as a filter for the highest quality science. Like diplomas of some universities, a published article in an elite journal is a passport for getting a job, getting financing and promotion.
Some influential magazines, including Science and Nature , have officially announced a policy of equal consideration of preprints and articles that have not yet been published anywhere. But still, only a few biologists agree to post preprints, because they are afraid to reduce the already illusory chances of publication. Some magazines generally prohibit preprints. Others, like Cell , require prospective authors to ask for permission to preprint.
Anne Carpenter, a computational biologist at the Broad Institute, believes that many young scientists prefer to publish in reputable journals so as not to risk it.
In addition to the benefits for a career, many scientists say that science as a whole benefits from peer review in the academic press, when editors of the journal ask other scientists in this field to point out obvious errors and appreciate the importance of the work before publication. Another Nobel laureate, Randy Sheckman, a cell biologist at the University of California at Berkeley, noted the importance of reviewing, although he also supported the placement of preprints.
But many biologists are beginning to be annoyed by the traditional system of academic journals, in which an attempt to publish an article resembles a beetle’s hopeless attempt to move, lying on its back.
Delays and delays in the academic press prevent scientists from showing their latest work to the employer or grantor. They also look a little absurd against the background of speed and openness in the long-coming digital era. Following the rapid spread of the Zika virus epidemic, for example, some journals signed a statement promising that scientists would not be punished for immediately publishing their research in the public domain, given the potential health benefits. But then the question arises: why be limited only to the Zika virus ?
As you know, a graduate student from Kazakhstan has almost become a hero in the scientific community thanks to piracy on the Sci-Hub site of all scientific works that are in the public domain. Although few people believe that this is a long-term solution to the problem, Alexander Elbakyan is already called Robin Hood from science .
Many #ASAPbio activists retweeted paleoanthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin. He recently visited one of the African universities and found that scientific research on the genomes of African peoples is not available there, because the library cannot afford to pay for a subscription, and there are no preprints.
Some magazine editors believe that preprints are bad for science. Emily Marcus, Cell Editor, at the conference #ASAPbio shared observations on the results of a conversation between editors and more than a hundred scientists. It turned out that most preprint authors are published on the Internet mainly in order to get ahead of their competitors. She believes that such motivation will negatively affect the quality of scientific work, when each author is in a hurry to publish his article before the others. Others agree with her. Some say that posting scientific articles without prior review is dangerous.
ASAPbio activists respond that scientists care too much about their reputation to publish low-grade articles, and the fact of posting on bioRxiv initially indicates that the article is “not yet accepted or approved by the scientific and medical community”. Others recall that many peer-reviewed papers in prestigious journals have proven to be erroneous . There is also an opinion that reviewing after publication will in any case be more rigorous and fair.
Unlike some writers or musicians who go online to completely get rid of intermediaries, most biologists, on the contrary, tend to keep in touch with traditional magazines. They repeatedly repeat that they do not want to destroy the current system, but only to improve it. If many scientists support the preprints, it is hoped that journals will allow the two systems to coexist.
“This is not a choice: beer or shrimp,” said James Fraser, an associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco at the February conference. “This beer TOGETHER with shrimp.”
However, some scholars, such as the Dean of Harvard Medical School, Jeffrey S. Flier, on the contrary, call the destruction of the academic press a good deed.
In any case, some researchers say the tension between magazines and preprint supporters may end soon. If university libraries refuse expensive paid subscriptions, then journals can revoke permissions to publish preprints, forcing biomedical scientists to make difficult choices . The transition to preprints, some #ASAPbio activists say, may portend the need for a more significant cultural shift than the scientific community is ready to accept: one will have to evaluate each other by the content of scientific works, and not by where exactly they are published. Но именно такой сдвиг необходим, считает Майкл Айзен из Калифорнийского университета в Беркли, давний адвокат реформы научного издательского бизнеса, чтобы «перевести эту область научного издательства в 20 век».
On February 29, Carol Grader from Johns Hopkins University became the third noble laureate in biology in a month to do what was long considered a taboo in the field of biomedicine. She posted a report on the latest discovery on bioRxiv's publicly available website before posting it to a scientific journal for review and “official” publication.
This little act of disobedience in the information age is reminiscent of Steve King’s Samizdat e-book in 2000 or the Radiohead digital album , uploaded to the Internet without the participation of any label. To celebrate her action, Carol Grader has released a confirmation of the publication of bioRxivunder the hashtag #ASAPbio is the recently invented cry of biologists calling for faster research with a key change in the way you publish.
Such publications are called “preprints” to emphasize the early stage of publication. BioRxiv was launched three years ago, and last year it posted 2048 publications - a barely noticeable part of the approximately one million scientific papers published annually in biomedical journals.
But after a month ago, several dozen biologists announced the ASAPbio campaign in support of preprints, site traffic increased slightly. On Twitter, rebels of the preprint publication congratulate each other on new articles and fight for revolutionary confidence.
Figure from a video that explains how to quickly publish works online, without excluding yourself from the traditional system of scientific publications
Throughout much of the history of organized research, technological journals have remained the main means of disseminating scientific results due to technological limitations. But some proponents of the #ASAPbio movement believe that after the Internet spread, this way of publishing means that biologists repudiated their duty to the public - which pays for most of the academic research - without posting the results of their work as quickly and openly as possible. This was talked about at the ASAPbio conference by another Nobel laureate Harold Varmus, a former director of the National Institute of Health.
Varmus: ... we also must fulfill our contract to the public who supports our ability to do research #ASAPbio
- Kenneth Gibbs (@KennyGibbsPhD) February 17, 2016
Unlike physicists, in whom preprints became the usual publication method back in the 90s, biomedicine researchers usually expect more than six monthsopportunities to distribute their work after they provide it - on exclusive terms - to the most prestigious magazine that it can accept. Often the work is rejected, then the authors choose another journal. As a result, the process of publishing a scientific article can sometimes take several years, and then for some time this article is available only to colleagues at large research institutes, whose libraries are able to pay for a subscription to the scientific press. And since science is in many ways similar to the relay race, where one scientist builds his research on the basis of the scientific work of another scientist, such communication delays almost certainly slow down scientific progress.
Scientists say that they are involved in this process, largely because careful selection of selected articles in magazines like Science ,Nature and Cell acts as a filter for the highest quality science. Like diplomas of some universities, a published article in an elite journal is a passport for getting a job, getting financing and promotion.
Some influential magazines, including Science and Nature , have officially announced a policy of equal consideration of preprints and articles that have not yet been published anywhere. But still, only a few biologists agree to post preprints, because they are afraid to reduce the already illusory chances of publication. Some magazines generally prohibit preprints. Others, like Cell , require prospective authors to ask for permission to preprint.
Anne Carpenter, a computational biologist at the Broad Institute, believes that many young scientists prefer to publish in reputable journals so as not to risk it.
@amy_harmon Not defending it, just explaining. Young scientists would rather have their paper in a high-profile journal.
- Anne Carpenter (@DrAnneCarpenter) February 27, 2016
In addition to the benefits for a career, many scientists say that science as a whole benefits from peer review in the academic press, when editors of the journal ask other scientists in this field to point out obvious errors and appreciate the importance of the work before publication. Another Nobel laureate, Randy Sheckman, a cell biologist at the University of California at Berkeley, noted the importance of reviewing, although he also supported the placement of preprints.
But many biologists are beginning to be annoyed by the traditional system of academic journals, in which an attempt to publish an article resembles a beetle’s hopeless attempt to move, lying on its back.
What it feels like trying to publish. #ASAPbio pic.twitter.com/bJCaFqrop7
- Jonathan A. Michaels (@JonAMichaels) February 25, 2016
Delays and delays in the academic press prevent scientists from showing their latest work to the employer or grantor. They also look a little absurd against the background of speed and openness in the long-coming digital era. Following the rapid spread of the Zika virus epidemic, for example, some journals signed a statement promising that scientists would not be punished for immediately publishing their research in the public domain, given the potential health benefits. But then the question arises: why be limited only to the Zika virus ?
#ASAPbio Open and rapid sharing is important for Zika virus. Also needed for:
- Lenny Teytelman (@lteytelman) February 16, 2016
As you know, a graduate student from Kazakhstan has almost become a hero in the scientific community thanks to piracy on the Sci-Hub site of all scientific works that are in the public domain. Although few people believe that this is a long-term solution to the problem, Alexander Elbakyan is already called Robin Hood from science .
Sci-Hub is illegal: when libraries become illegal, you know something went wrong #copyright
- Sci Hub (@Sci_Hub) February 26, 2016
Many #ASAPbio activists retweeted paleoanthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin. He recently visited one of the African universities and found that scientific research on the genomes of African peoples is not available there, because the library cannot afford to pay for a subscription, and there are no preprints.
Some magazine editors believe that preprints are bad for science. Emily Marcus, Cell Editor, at the conference #ASAPbio shared observations on the results of a conversation between editors and more than a hundred scientists. It turned out that most preprint authors are published on the Internet mainly in order to get ahead of their competitors. She believes that such motivation will negatively affect the quality of scientific work, when each author is in a hurry to publish his article before the others. Others agree with her. Some say that posting scientific articles without prior review is dangerous.
Post-publication review of public-health research, what could possibly go wrong? #asapbio
- Andrew Miller (@EndoMetabPub) February 17, 2016
ASAPbio activists respond that scientists care too much about their reputation to publish low-grade articles, and the fact of posting on bioRxiv initially indicates that the article is “not yet accepted or approved by the scientific and medical community”. Others recall that many peer-reviewed papers in prestigious journals have proven to be erroneous . There is also an opinion that reviewing after publication will in any case be more rigorous and fair.
Unlike some writers or musicians who go online to completely get rid of intermediaries, most biologists, on the contrary, tend to keep in touch with traditional magazines. They repeatedly repeat that they do not want to destroy the current system, but only to improve it. If many scientists support the preprints, it is hoped that journals will allow the two systems to coexist.
“This is not a choice: beer or shrimp,” said James Fraser, an associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco at the February conference. “This beer TOGETHER with shrimp.”
However, some scholars, such as the Dean of Harvard Medical School, Jeffrey S. Flier, on the contrary, call the destruction of the academic press a good deed.
Will preprints disrupt bioscience publishing? Perhaps they should. Disruption is needed, for many reasons. #ASAPbio @NatureNews
- Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) February 19, 2016
In any case, some researchers say the tension between magazines and preprint supporters may end soon. If university libraries refuse expensive paid subscriptions, then journals can revoke permissions to publish preprints, forcing biomedical scientists to make difficult choices . The transition to preprints, some #ASAPbio activists say, may portend the need for a more significant cultural shift than the scientific community is ready to accept: one will have to evaluate each other by the content of scientific works, and not by where exactly they are published. Но именно такой сдвиг необходим, считает Майкл Айзен из Калифорнийского университета в Беркли, давний адвокат реформы научного издательского бизнеса, чтобы «перевести эту область научного издательства в 20 век».
it's pretty amazing that it took 20 years for "scientists should post their work on the Internet" to not be viewed as radical #ASAPbio
— Michⓐel Eisen (@mbeisen) 22 февраля 2016 г.