How to Break Free from the Stifling Grip of Luxury Journals. Schekman, R. ![How to Break Free from the Stifling Grip of Luxury Journals [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper abstract bibtex [excerpt] [...] Intense competition for space in key journals means that the editorial process often involves multiple rounds of revision, review and resubmission, causing long delays in publication. Additional experimental data and information are often demanded by reviewers who might later, as authors, be competing for space in the same journals. Much of this data is then relegated to supplementary appendices. The experience can be highly dispiriting for researchers. I see a solution in open-access journals. They generally cover their costs upfront, for example using a business model whereby a fee is levied for publication. This model is more suited to the digital medium: all the work that meets the editorial criteria for the journal can be published, and it can be made freely available to everyone. As high quality science grows, so can the number of articles published. [...] Journals, however, are only one half of this equation. We also need to address the demand for luxury journals, from researchers themselves and from the institutions that use them to judge scientific quality. We need to discuss what researchers, universities and funders can do to remove the incentives that make it rational to publish under the biggest brands. I would like to suggest four places to start. 1) Academics who serve a role in research assessment could shun all use of journal names and impact factors as a surrogate measure of quality. New practices and processes must be devised and shared so that we can rapidly move forward. My Berkeley colleague Michael Eisen has added an important point: we must speak up in appointment and funding committees when we hear others use journal names this way. Here we need peer pressure as much as we need peer review. 2) Researchers applying for positions, funding and tenure should avoid any mention of impact factors in their applications or CVs. Article metrics might have a role to play, but narrative explanations of research significance and accomplishments would be more helpful. 3) Funders, universities and other institutions should make it clear to their review committees that journal brand cannot be used as a proxy for scientific quality. If reviewers object, they should find different reviewers. 4) Many of us serve as editors or editorial board members of journals - and we could insist that the publishers of these journals stop promoting impact factors. Instead, the journals could emphasise the other valuable services they provide to authors and readers to promote their worth to the community. [...]
@article{schekmanHowBreakFree2013,
title = {How to Break Free from the Stifling Grip of Luxury Journals},
author = {Schekman, Randy},
date = {2013},
journaltitle = {The Conversation},
pages = {21669+},
url = {http://theconversation.com/how-to-break-free-from-the-stifling-grip-of-luxury-journals-21669},
abstract = {[excerpt] [...] Intense competition for space in key journals means that the editorial process often involves multiple rounds of revision, review and resubmission, causing long delays in publication. Additional experimental data and information are often demanded by reviewers who might later, as authors, be competing for space in the same journals. Much of this data is then relegated to supplementary appendices. The experience can be highly dispiriting for researchers.
I see a solution in open-access journals. They generally cover their costs upfront, for example using a business model whereby a fee is levied for publication. This model is more suited to the digital medium: all the work that meets the editorial criteria for the journal can be published, and it can be made freely available to everyone. As high quality science grows, so can the number of articles published. [...]
Journals, however, are only one half of this equation. We also need to address the demand for luxury journals, from researchers themselves and from the institutions that use them to judge scientific quality. We need to discuss what researchers, universities and funders can do to remove the incentives that make it rational to publish under the biggest brands. I would like to suggest four places to start.
1) Academics who serve a role in research assessment could shun all use of journal names and impact factors as a surrogate measure of quality. New practices and processes must be devised and shared so that we can rapidly move forward. My Berkeley colleague Michael Eisen has added an important point: we must speak up in appointment and funding committees when we hear others use journal names this way. Here we need peer pressure as much as we need peer review.
2) Researchers applying for positions, funding and tenure should avoid any mention of impact factors in their applications or CVs. Article metrics might have a role to play, but narrative explanations of research significance and accomplishments would be more helpful.
3) Funders, universities and other institutions should make it clear to their review committees that journal brand cannot be used as a proxy for scientific quality. If reviewers object, they should find different reviewers.
4) Many of us serve as editors or editorial board members of journals - and we could insist that the publishers of these journals stop promoting impact factors. Instead, the journals could emphasise the other valuable services they provide to authors and readers to promote their worth to the community. [...]},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13051882,free-science-metrics,free-scientific-knowledge,open-science,research-funding,research-metrics,science-ethics,scientific-communication,scientific-knowledge-sharing}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"d2Ae7QCDPZzTvwvZS","bibbaseid":"schekman-howtobreakfreefromthestiflinggripofluxuryjournals","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Schekman, R."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"How to Break Free from the Stifling Grip of Luxury Journals","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Schekman"],"firstnames":["Randy"],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2013","journaltitle":"The Conversation","pages":"21669+","url":"http://theconversation.com/how-to-break-free-from-the-stifling-grip-of-luxury-journals-21669","abstract":"[excerpt] [...] Intense competition for space in key journals means that the editorial process often involves multiple rounds of revision, review and resubmission, causing long delays in publication. Additional experimental data and information are often demanded by reviewers who might later, as authors, be competing for space in the same journals. Much of this data is then relegated to supplementary appendices. The experience can be highly dispiriting for researchers. I see a solution in open-access journals. They generally cover their costs upfront, for example using a business model whereby a fee is levied for publication. This model is more suited to the digital medium: all the work that meets the editorial criteria for the journal can be published, and it can be made freely available to everyone. As high quality science grows, so can the number of articles published. [...] Journals, however, are only one half of this equation. We also need to address the demand for luxury journals, from researchers themselves and from the institutions that use them to judge scientific quality. We need to discuss what researchers, universities and funders can do to remove the incentives that make it rational to publish under the biggest brands. I would like to suggest four places to start. 1) Academics who serve a role in research assessment could shun all use of journal names and impact factors as a surrogate measure of quality. New practices and processes must be devised and shared so that we can rapidly move forward. My Berkeley colleague Michael Eisen has added an important point: we must speak up in appointment and funding committees when we hear others use journal names this way. Here we need peer pressure as much as we need peer review. 2) Researchers applying for positions, funding and tenure should avoid any mention of impact factors in their applications or CVs. Article metrics might have a role to play, but narrative explanations of research significance and accomplishments would be more helpful. 3) Funders, universities and other institutions should make it clear to their review committees that journal brand cannot be used as a proxy for scientific quality. If reviewers object, they should find different reviewers. 4) Many of us serve as editors or editorial board members of journals - and we could insist that the publishers of these journals stop promoting impact factors. Instead, the journals could emphasise the other valuable services they provide to authors and readers to promote their worth to the community. [...]","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13051882,free-science-metrics,free-scientific-knowledge,open-science,research-funding,research-metrics,science-ethics,scientific-communication,scientific-knowledge-sharing","bibtex":"@article{schekmanHowBreakFree2013,\n title = {How to Break Free from the Stifling Grip of Luxury Journals},\n author = {Schekman, Randy},\n date = {2013},\n journaltitle = {The Conversation},\n pages = {21669+},\n url = {http://theconversation.com/how-to-break-free-from-the-stifling-grip-of-luxury-journals-21669},\n abstract = {[excerpt] [...] Intense competition for space in key journals means that the editorial process often involves multiple rounds of revision, review and resubmission, causing long delays in publication. Additional experimental data and information are often demanded by reviewers who might later, as authors, be competing for space in the same journals. Much of this data is then relegated to supplementary appendices. The experience can be highly dispiriting for researchers.\n\nI see a solution in open-access journals. They generally cover their costs upfront, for example using a business model whereby a fee is levied for publication. This model is more suited to the digital medium: all the work that meets the editorial criteria for the journal can be published, and it can be made freely available to everyone. As high quality science grows, so can the number of articles published. [...]\n\nJournals, however, are only one half of this equation. We also need to address the demand for luxury journals, from researchers themselves and from the institutions that use them to judge scientific quality. We need to discuss what researchers, universities and funders can do to remove the incentives that make it rational to publish under the biggest brands. I would like to suggest four places to start.\n\n 1) Academics who serve a role in research assessment could shun all use of journal names and impact factors as a surrogate measure of quality. New practices and processes must be devised and shared so that we can rapidly move forward. My Berkeley colleague Michael Eisen has added an important point: we must speak up in appointment and funding committees when we hear others use journal names this way. Here we need peer pressure as much as we need peer review.\n\n 2) Researchers applying for positions, funding and tenure should avoid any mention of impact factors in their applications or CVs. Article metrics might have a role to play, but narrative explanations of research significance and accomplishments would be more helpful.\n\n 3) Funders, universities and other institutions should make it clear to their review committees that journal brand cannot be used as a proxy for scientific quality. If reviewers object, they should find different reviewers.\n\n 4) Many of us serve as editors or editorial board members of journals - and we could insist that the publishers of these journals stop promoting impact factors. Instead, the journals could emphasise the other valuable services they provide to authors and readers to promote their worth to the community. [...]},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13051882,free-science-metrics,free-scientific-knowledge,open-science,research-funding,research-metrics,science-ethics,scientific-communication,scientific-knowledge-sharing}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Schekman, R."],"key":"schekmanHowBreakFree2013","id":"schekmanHowBreakFree2013","bibbaseid":"schekman-howtobreakfreefromthestiflinggripofluxuryjournals","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://theconversation.com/how-to-break-free-from-the-stifling-grip-of-luxury-journals-21669"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-13051882","free-science-metrics","free-scientific-knowledge","open-science","research-funding","research-metrics","science-ethics","scientific-communication","scientific-knowledge-sharing"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:20.755Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-13051882","free-science-metrics","free-scientific-knowledge","open-science","research-funding","research-metrics","science-ethics","scientific-communication","scientific-knowledge-sharing"],"search_terms":["break","free","stifling","grip","luxury","journals","schekman"],"title":"How to Break Free from the Stifling Grip of Luxury Journals","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}