Several well-known biologists have violated taboos and published research papers directly on the Internet.
Note Continuing the theme “ Should all scientific work be publicly available? "
On February 29, Carol Grader from Johns Hopkins University became the third Nobel laureate in biology in a month, who made what has long been considered a taboo in the field of biomedicine. She posted a report on the latest discovery on the publicly accessible bioRxiv website before sending it to a scientific journal for review and “official” publication.
This small act of disobedience in the information age is reminiscent of Steve King’s samizdat e-book in 2000 or Radiohead’s digital album posted on the Internet without any label. To celebrate its effect, Carol Grader announced a confirmation of the publication of bioRxiv under the hashtag #ASAPbio - the recently invented cry of biologists calling for the acceleration of scientific research through a key change in the way of publishing.
Such publications are called “preprints” to emphasize the early stage of publication. The bioRxiv website was launched three years ago, and last year it posted 2,048 publications — a barely noticeable fraction of the approximately one million scientific papers that are published annually in biomedical journals.
But after a month ago a few dozen biologists announced an ASAPbio campaign in support of preprints, site traffic increased slightly. On Twitter, rebels preprint publications congratulate each other on new articles and are fighting for revolutionary trust.
')
Figure from the video, which explains how to quickly publish the work online, not excluding themselves from the traditional system of scientific publications
For most of the history of organized scientific research, due to technological limitations, printed journals remained the main means of disseminating scientific results. But some supporters of the #ASAPbio movement believe that after the spread of the Internet, this method of publication means that biologists have denied their duty to the public - which pays most of the academic research - without sharing the results of their work as quickly and openly as possible. This was discussed at the ASAPbio conference by another Nobel laureate Harold Varmus, former director of the National Institute of Health.
Unlike physicists, whose preprints became the usual method of publication back in the 1990s, biomedicine researchers usually expect more than six months to extend their work after they submit it - on exclusive conditions - to the most prestigious journal that only may she 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 in 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 baton, 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 they are involved in this process largely due to the fact that a careful selection of selected articles in journals like Science , Nature and Cell acts as a filter for the highest-quality science. As diplomas of some universities, a published article in an elite magazine is a passport for getting a job, getting funding and promotion.
Some influential journals, including Science and Nature , have officially announced a policy of equal consideration of preprints and articles that have not been published anywhere else. But still, only a few biologists agree to place preprints, because they are afraid to reduce the already ghostly chances of publication. Some magazines generally prohibit preprints. Others, like Cell , require prospective authors to ask permission for a preprint.
Ann Carpenter, a computational biologist at the Broad Institute, believes that many young scientists prefer to publish in reputable journals so as not to take risks.
In addition to career benefits, many scientists say that science in general benefits from peer review in the academic press when the editors of the journal ask other scientists in the field to point out obvious mistakes and appreciate the importance of the work before publication. Another Nobel laureate Randy Shekman, a cell biologist at the University of California at Berkeley, noted the importance of peer review, although he also supported the placement of preprints.
But many biologists are beginning to be irritated by the traditional system of academic journals, in which an attempt to publish an article resembles a hopeless attempt by a beetle to move while lying on its back.
Delays and delays in the academic press make it difficult for scientists to show their most recent work to an employer or grant giver. They also look a bit absurd against the backdrop of speed and openness in the long-coming digital era. After the rapid spread of Zika's 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 confine only to Zika virus ?
As you know, a graduate student from Kazakhstan has practically become a hero in the scientific community due to the piracy on the Sci-Hub website of all scientific works that are in paid access. Although few people believe that this is a long-term solution to the problem, Aleksandr Elbakyan is already called Robin Hood from science .
Many #ASAPbio activists have retweeted from paleo-anthropologist John Hawkes from the University of Wisconsin. He recently visited an African university and discovered that scientific research on the genomes of African peoples is not available there, because the library cannot afford to pay a subscription, and there are no preprints.
Some journal editors believe that preprints are harmful to science. Emily Marcus, Cell editor, at the #ASAPbio conference shared her observations on the results of the editors' conversation with more than a hundred scientists. It turned out that most of the authors of preprints are published on the Internet mainly to get ahead of their competitors. She believes that such a motivation will have a negative impact on the quality of scientific work when each author is in a hurry to publish his article earlier than others. Others agree with her. Some say that posting scientific articles without prior review is dangerous.
ASAPbio activists say that scientists care too much about their reputation to publish low-profile articles, and the fact of posting on bioRxiv initially indicates that the article "has not yet been adopted or approved by the scientific and medical community." Others remind that many reviewed papers in prestigious journals proved to be erroneous . There is also an opinion that the review after publication in any case will be more strict and fair.
Unlike some writers or musicians who go online to completely get rid of intermediaries, most biologists, on the contrary, tend to maintain links with traditional journals. They repeat many times that they do not wish to destroy the current system, but only to improve it. If many scientists support preprints, there is hope that the 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 at San Francisco at the February conference. “This is a beer TOGETHER with shrimps.”
However, some scientists, like the dean of Harvard Medical School, Jeffrey S. Flier, on the contrary, call the destruction of the academic press a good thing.
In any case, some researchers say, the tension between magazines and supporters of preprints may end soon. If university libraries refuse expensive paid subscriptions, then journals can cancel permissions for publishing preprints, forcing biomedical scientists to make hard choices . The transition to preprints, some #ASAPbio activists say, may portend the need for a more significant cultural shift than the scientific community is prepared to accept: you will have to evaluate each other by the content of scientific works, and not by exactly where they are published . But such a shift is necessary, according to Michael Aizen of the University of California at Berkeley, a longtime advocate of the reform of the scientific publishing business, “to transfer this area of scientific publishing to the 20th century.”
On February 29, Carol Grader from Johns Hopkins University became the third Nobel laureate in biology in a month, who made what has long been considered a taboo in the field of biomedicine. She posted a report on the latest discovery on the publicly accessible bioRxiv website before sending it to a scientific journal for review and “official” publication.
This small act of disobedience in the information age is reminiscent of Steve King’s samizdat e-book in 2000 or Radiohead’s digital album posted on the Internet without any label. To celebrate its effect, Carol Grader announced a confirmation of the publication of bioRxiv under the hashtag #ASAPbio - the recently invented cry of biologists calling for the acceleration of scientific research through a key change in the way of publishing.
Such publications are called “preprints” to emphasize the early stage of publication. The bioRxiv website was launched three years ago, and last year it posted 2,048 publications — a barely noticeable fraction of the approximately one million scientific papers that are published annually in biomedical journals.
But after a month ago a few dozen biologists announced an ASAPbio campaign in support of preprints, site traffic increased slightly. On Twitter, rebels preprint publications congratulate each other on new articles and are fighting for revolutionary trust.
')
Figure from the video, which explains how to quickly publish the work online, not excluding themselves from the traditional system of scientific publications
For most of the history of organized scientific research, due to technological limitations, printed journals remained the main means of disseminating scientific results. But some supporters of the #ASAPbio movement believe that after the spread of the Internet, this method of publication means that biologists have denied their duty to the public - which pays most of the academic research - without sharing the results of their work as quickly and openly as possible. This was discussed at the ASAPbio conference by another Nobel laureate Harold Varmus, former director of the National Institute of Health.
Varmus: ... we need #ASAPbio
- Kenneth Gibbs (@KennyGibbsPhD) February 17, 2016
Unlike physicists, whose preprints became the usual method of publication back in the 1990s, biomedicine researchers usually expect more than six months to extend their work after they submit it - on exclusive conditions - to the most prestigious journal that only may she 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 in 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 baton, 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 they are involved in this process largely due to the fact that a careful selection of selected articles in journals like Science , Nature and Cell acts as a filter for the highest-quality science. As diplomas of some universities, a published article in an elite magazine is a passport for getting a job, getting funding and promotion.
Some influential journals, including Science and Nature , have officially announced a policy of equal consideration of preprints and articles that have not been published anywhere else. But still, only a few biologists agree to place preprints, because they are afraid to reduce the already ghostly chances of publication. Some magazines generally prohibit preprints. Others, like Cell , require prospective authors to ask permission for a preprint.
Ann Carpenter, a computational biologist at the Broad Institute, believes that many young scientists prefer to publish in reputable journals so as not to take risks.
@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 career benefits, many scientists say that science in general benefits from peer review in the academic press when the editors of the journal ask other scientists in the field to point out obvious mistakes and appreciate the importance of the work before publication. Another Nobel laureate Randy Shekman, a cell biologist at the University of California at Berkeley, noted the importance of peer review, although he also supported the placement of preprints.
But many biologists are beginning to be irritated by the traditional system of academic journals, in which an attempt to publish an article resembles a hopeless attempt by a beetle to move while 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 make it difficult for scientists to show their most recent work to an employer or grant giver. They also look a bit absurd against the backdrop of speed and openness in the long-coming digital era. After the rapid spread of Zika's 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 confine only to Zika virus ?
#ASAPbio Zika virus. Also needed for:
- Lenny Teytelman (@lteytelman) February 16, 2016
As you know, a graduate student from Kazakhstan has practically become a hero in the scientific community due to the piracy on the Sci-Hub website of all scientific works that are in paid access. Although few people believe that this is a long-term solution to the problem, Aleksandr Elbakyan is already called Robin Hood from science .
Sci-hub is illegal
- Sci Hub (@Sci_Hub) February 26, 2016
Many #ASAPbio activists have retweeted from paleo-anthropologist John Hawkes from the University of Wisconsin. He recently visited an African university and discovered that scientific research on the genomes of African peoples is not available there, because the library cannot afford to pay a subscription, and there are no preprints.
Some journal editors believe that preprints are harmful to science. Emily Marcus, Cell editor, at the #ASAPbio conference shared her observations on the results of the editors' conversation with more than a hundred scientists. It turned out that most of the authors of preprints are published on the Internet mainly to get ahead of their competitors. She believes that such a motivation will have a negative impact on the quality of scientific work when each author is in a hurry to publish his article earlier than others. Others agree with her. Some say that posting scientific articles without prior review is dangerous.
Post-publication review of public health research, #asapbio
- Andrew Miller (@EndoMetabPub) February 17, 2016
ASAPbio activists say that scientists care too much about their reputation to publish low-profile articles, and the fact of posting on bioRxiv initially indicates that the article "has not yet been adopted or approved by the scientific and medical community." Others remind that many reviewed papers in prestigious journals proved to be erroneous . There is also an opinion that the review after publication in any case will be more strict and fair.
Unlike some writers or musicians who go online to completely get rid of intermediaries, most biologists, on the contrary, tend to maintain links with traditional journals. They repeat many times that they do not wish to destroy the current system, but only to improve it. If many scientists support preprints, there is hope that the 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 at San Francisco at the February conference. “This is a beer TOGETHER with shrimps.”
However, some scientists, like the dean of Harvard Medical School, Jeffrey S. Flier, on the contrary, call the destruction of the academic press a good thing.
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 supporters of preprints may end soon. If university libraries refuse expensive paid subscriptions, then journals can cancel permissions for publishing preprints, forcing biomedical scientists to make hard choices . The transition to preprints, some #ASAPbio activists say, may portend the need for a more significant cultural shift than the scientific community is prepared to accept: you will have to evaluate each other by the content of scientific works, and not by exactly where they are published . But such a shift is necessary, according to Michael Aizen of the University of California at Berkeley, a longtime advocate of the reform of the scientific publishing business, “to transfer this area of scientific publishing to the 20th century.”
It’s not a matter of #ASAPbio
- Michⓐel Eisen (@mbeisen) February 22, 2016
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/391731/
All Articles