Abstract
Science advances through rich, scholarly discussion. More than ever before, digital tools allow us to take that dialogue online. To chart a new future for open publishing, we must consider alternatives to the core features of the legacy print publishing system, such as an access paywall and editorial selection before publication. Although journals have their strengths, the traditional approach of selecting articles before publication (“curate first, publish second”) forces a focus on “getting into the right journals,” which can delay dissemination of scientific work, create opportunity costs for pushing science forward, and promote undesirable behaviors among scientists and the institutions that evaluate them. We believe that a “publish first, curate second” approach with the following features would be a strong alternative: authors decide when and what to publish; peer review reports are published, either anonymously or with attribution; and curation occurs after publication, incorporating community feedback and expert judgment to select articles for target audiences and to evaluate whether scientific work has stood the test of time. These proposed changes could optimize publishing practices for the digital age, emphasizing transparency, peer-mediated improvement, and post-publication appraisal of scientific articles.
Highlights
An outdated publishing process that is costly and delays access to knowledge Most scientific work in the life sciences is still disseminated using a process inaugurated by the Royal Society in the 17th century, with the notable addition of peer review in the middle of the 20th century
This process starts with authors submitting a manuscript to the journal of their choice, where editorial selection and peer review culminate in an editorial thumbs-up or thumbs-down decision that determines whether the article is accepted for publication or rejected
Editorial selection consumes the time and resources of selective journal publishers and peer reviewers, who spend much of their effort rejecting papers
Summary
An outdated publishing process that is costly and delays access to knowledge Most scientific work in the life sciences is still disseminated using a process inaugurated by the Royal Society in the 17th century, with the notable addition of peer review in the middle of the 20th century This process starts with authors submitting a manuscript to the journal of their choice, where editorial selection and peer review culminate in an editorial thumbs-up or thumbs-down decision that determines whether the article is accepted for publication or rejected. The forces of nontransparent quality controls, artificial selectivity, and articles “written in stone” all contribute to the persistence of the JIF and to prestige journal brands Getting into these journals can, for some scientists, even become more important than getting the science right.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
