Even though most scientists agree, there are significant flaws in the publishing system (and related to that: funding distribution, reproducibility and peer review) change is slow. We need open access to the literature for both scientists and the public, we need to overcome this obsession with impact factors and we need a peer review system which can actually detect flaws in papers. My conclusion from all this is, that we inevitably will have to give up the journal-based system of publishing.
This is not exactly a very popular opinion, because our careers depend on publishing in reputable journals, being a scientist basically requires it. At the same time, I believe the publishers are acting unethically and against the best interest for science and society, when they cash in for both publishing AND reading and when they reject studies because they are “not novel enough” or “not interesting enough”. Judging this should be up to the community and not to the publishers!
In this episode, Chris, Ashley and I discuss issues coming from our current publishing system and propose alternatives for some specific aspects. If you share any of the ideas, then talk to your colleagues about it, share them online, follow the links below and consider participating in their programs. After all, change has to come from within, and we, the scientists hold the power to change the system together.
Further reading and taking action:
Listen on Spotify:
Or many other platforms: