blog

Corina Logan (CL), University of Cambridge, recently published an Opinion Article about publishing choices that face researchers when deciding how to disseminate their work. The article underwent open post-publication peer review and was also highlighted through our literature recommendation service F1000Prime. Clint Perry (CP), Queen Mary University of London, is an Associate Faculty Member for F1000Prime and co-author of the recommendation. In this post, Corina and Clint discuss some of the points raised in Corina’s article about the peer review, open access and what changes are needed to ensure that publishers better serve the scientific community.

In Corina’s article, she says that the goals of academia and publishers are in direct competition with each other. Why do you think that is?

CL: I think academics live in a bubble and for some reason think companies are altruistic. So when corporate publishers saw a way to make money off of our research products, of course they jumped at the chance. The problem is that we never stopped to say, hey, wait a minute, there is a huge imbalance here and that’s not what science is about. In fact, it corrupts the scientific process if you monetize it because then scientists compete for the more expensive options (subscription-based journals and high APC open access), many of which are considered more prestigious, rather than doing good science for the sake of good science (and the generation of more accurate knowledge). The great part is that there are publishers whose goals are aligned with academic values, so we already have these options to rely on.

CP: I agree that as a business, publishers need to think about the bottom line. This does not make them bad, but does seem to conflict with the endeavour of scientific research to communicate findings openly and freely to everyone. As Corina points out in her article, there are many cheap options for publishing manuscripts online which are 100% open access, some free even. If the peer review system was completely transparent, it seems to us that these options could be utilised by many and the prices dropped to free access across the board. A university’s media department would then be responsible for helping with broader public attention to the work.

 

 

Corina discusses the ethics of publishing, she says that publishing in 100% open access journals is the best choice when publishing papers. How important do you think this choice is and how much do researchers actually have a choice when choosing where to publish?

“What I think inhibits people from making this choice is related to the separate issue of pursuing prestige.” Corina Logan

CL: It’s important to choose journals that are 100% open access because the hybrid OA model (where you can pay an APC at a subscription-based journal to make a particular article OA) is a failed transition to 100% OA. Publishers found that they can make more money off hybrid OA because they charge APCs in addition to subscriptions to the same journals. We need to force this change ourselves because the publishers certainly aren’t going to do it for us.

Researchers always have a choice. I know because I made this choice and it was as easy as saying: I’m only going to publish OA in journals at ethical publishers. And that’s what I’ve been doing for over a year now. What I think inhibits people from making this choice is related to the separate issue of pursuing prestige. This is the perception that they will be discriminated against for not publishing in journals that are traditionally considered prestigious. However, it’s illegal for employers to discriminate against employees for their personal beliefs (e.g., ethics of publishing). As well, journals that are considered prestigious usually select articles based on an editor’s subjective opinion of its potential impact to the field. The way researchers respond to this practice promotes the selection of bad science because they focus only on the analyses and results that will lead to a sexy result.

 

CP: Corina brings up a good discussion point here. Some feel that because many prestigious journals have open access options, then the debate about open access and the pursuit for prestige are separate issues. But it’s not that simple? It seems that, as Corina has brought up previously, the connection between 100% open access and the pursuit of prestige is with scientific rigour. The pursuit of prestige decreases scientific rigour by reducing the likelihood of publishing negative results, by chasing p-values and sexy results. 100% open access increases rigour through transparency and accountability, and non-selective open access is even better because sexy results don’t matter.

I feel it will take more than just some scientists choosing to publish in 100% open access under ethical publishers. It will also take a re-evaluation of how we assess fellow scientists for grants and job applications, when it comes to their publications.

Although it might be illegal to discriminate against someone for their beliefs, we don’t believe it’s illegal or even wrong at this point to view those who have published in more prestigious journals as better candidates. If you’ve published more prestigiously, you’re more likely to get funding and more likely to publish well again, and bring in money for the university. As universities run on a business model, departments at research schools seem to need to recruit those able to publish in more prestigious journals. So the question becomes, what do we replace these metrics with if everyone publishes the same? And will this work if not everyone does it?

It does seem that there is a battle between publishing in 100% open access under ethical publishers and pursuing prestige. I’ve had many conversations with young scientists discussing how pursuing prestige induces pressure to focus on the results, the p-value, the sexiness of the results, and makes writing up negative results not worth the time.

 

Peer reviewing, pre- and post-publication, is highlighted as something that should be valued more in academia. Do you think citable reviews or F1000Prime recommendations are good ways of recognising this value? Are there other ways it can be recognised?

“F1000Prime could be helpful, as they help bring more attention to good pieces of work.” Clint Perry

CP: If by citable reviews you mean open access referee comments, then yes. I feel more transparency in the peer review process would increase scientific rigor and our understanding of differences in journal types and systems. As reviewers put their names on their comments I think their reviews are likely to become more helpful and justifiably critical. This also helps put checks on editors to properly handle reviewers comments.  I’ve not experienced post-publication peer review as an author or reviewer, but this seems like a great route to increase dialogue and help with the actual impact of an article. F1000Prime could be helpful, as they help bring more attention to good pieces of work. However, perhaps there should be a way of being critical of some works as well?

 

CL: I think publishing peer review histories, as F1000Research does, is the only way we will be able to collect data to evaluate review quality as well as conduct editorial quality control. I realized how important both of these points are after having a terrible experience. I was a reviewer in a confidential peer review process where the editor published the paper after ignoring the reviews. So now a paper is published and it hasn’t actually been peer reviewed even though it is stamped as such. As a result, I will only agree to review a paper if the peer review history is published alongside the paper. Open reviews are the only way we can recognize the value of reviews because it is the only way to evaluate them critically – indeed it is this meta-research that will add further value to the process. F1000Prime recommendations are great for increasing the value of this publishing practice that increases research rigor because of the positive attention they attract.

 

In their F1000Prime recommendation, Clint and his co author Lars Chittka say that “we as researchers are responsible for and can drive this cultural shift ourselves”, what do you think researchers can do to push this change?

 “Early career researchers are the largest group in academia so we have the power to make big changes.” Corina Logan

CP: I feel that trying to publish in 100% open access journals under ethical publishers would help. But we also need to fight against the pressure to pursue prestige in publishing. How we do this, we’re not sure. Some have done this, and we applaud them. But how has this behaviour affected the careers of all those who’ve done so? Have those who’ve succeeded had the support of others in their field already? How does an advisor advise young scientists against publishing in the most prestigious journals possible, putting them at risk of hurting their career? Further, how does one rid oneself of wanting to pursue prestige? It seems to us that it will take more than individuals, but most of the scientific community to change not just which journals we submit to, but also how we evaluate fellow scientists publication record for grants and job applications.

CL: Early career researchers are the largest group in academia so we have the power to make big changes. One thing I’m doing to push for change is launching a campaign called “Bullied into Bad Science“ to give early career researchers – from all fields, not just the sciences – a chance to speak out about the pressure they feel and how they want to change academic culture by focusing on openness – early career researchers who are interested can sign the petition here. I will then write letters that include the endorsements to funders, institutions, and politicians to urge them to take the actions we think will best support us. This will raise awareness of the issues that affect us and give us a way of seeing that we aren’t alone in these experiences and many of us want a culture shift. I think it will make us more willing to try to change academic culture.

Corina Logan investigates cognition and behaviour in birds and mammals as a Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellow in the Department of Zoology at the University of Cambridge. She is particularly interested in how behavioural flexibility works and what brain size means.

Clint Perry is broadly interested in the evolution and neuroethology of cognitive abilities. What are the cognitive capabilities of animals with very small brains? How are complex cognitive abilities (such as consciousness, uncertainty, self-awareness, etc.) accomplished by the brain? His research focuses on the neural basis of behaviour with particular emphasis on how neural complexity relates to cognitive complexity. He is a Post-doctoral Research Associate at Queen Mary University of London.