“In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9].” - David Phillips and Andrew Kent, Center for Research in Applied Phrenology, Ithaca, New York.
Our peer-reviewed publishing system is built on trust. Trust that authors faithfully carry out their stated experiments, trust that reviewers objectively evaluate said experiments, and trust that publishing companies oversee such processes with an eye toward disseminating legitimate scientific findings. What happens when all three break down?
The excerpt at the top of this article comes from a paper submitted by Philip Davis and Kent Anderson to The Open Information Science Journal. If you find the prose confusing, then you probably went one step further than the publishing company/reviewers – you actually read it. The entire paper, in fact, was constructed using software that creates grammatically correct but nonsensical text. Thus, the complete paper was utter nonsense; a hoax to test the oversight and integrity of an established publishing company. Utter nonsense that Bentham Science Publishing saw fit to publish under the banner of peer-reviewed science. (You can read more about Davis and Kent’s hoax on sspnet).
This clever little stunt exemplifies one of our chief concerns here at OneSci: the business of science publication.
Imagine this scenario: the Internet has fundamentally changed the practical and economic realities of distributing scientific information. For the first time ever, we have the ability to institute a global and interactive representation of human knowledge - collected, cataloged, written, and reviewed by scientists - with the guarantee of worldwide access. Yet, we have a science based on tradition which, as non-idealistic as it sounds, has a fairly good track record of eliminating submissions of random computer generated text. This system, however: 1) costs researchers upwards of 30 billion dollars per year; 2) confiscates the copyright permissions to all scientific research; 3) is accessible almost exclusively to university-affiliated faculty and staff (not the public); and 4) puts all this money into the hands of large multinational publishing corporations (instead of recycling the money back into the scientific process). In turn, these publishing companies essentially provide two things: 1) they organize the peer review process (with no monetary compensation for reviewers, mind you); and 2) they have printing presses. The solution might seem too obvious, but here it is anyway: stop publishing for companies that take copyright permissions from you and your colleagues; start publishing and reviewing for journals that protect the authors' research under a GNU open access license.
We, the undersigned, feel obliged to address the challenges of the Internet as an emerging functional medium for distributing knowledge. Obviously, these developments will be able to significantly modify the nature of scientific publishing as well as the existing system of quality assurance. We know this is a task that will take inside of a decade to accomplish fully. We don't expect established principle investigators to jump right into publishing to online journals.
However, if you too agree that publishing companies are taking too much control and money from the scientific process, and there exists a better solution to the publishing process, here are ways you can help:
Science performed in isolation is useless. Only through rich scientific discourse can we reach our maximum potential for efficiency and progress. Onesci.com was founded on this simple principle and is committed to facilitating communication between scientists of every discipline. We welcome you to join the conversation.