Abstract
Science is in a state of siege. The traditional stage for scientific ideas through peer- reviewed academic journals has been hijacked by an overpriced journal monopoly. After a wave of mergers and take-overs, big business publishing houses now exercise economic control over access to knowledge and free scientific discourse. Their 'all is number' rationale, made possible and perpet- uated by single-parameter bibliometric indices like the Impact Factor and the h-index has led to a measurement of scientists, science and science communication with quality being reduced to quan- tity and with careers hanging in the balance of column totals. Other multi-parameter indices like the subscription-based Index Copernicus have not helped to resolve the situation. The patented and undisclosed black box algorithm of the Index Copernicus has just replaced one yardstick by another even less accessible one. Moreover, the academic as author, editor and/or reviewer, under intense competitive pressure, is forced to play the publishing game where such numbers rule, leading to fre- quent abuses of power. However, there are also deep paradoxes at the heart of this siege. Electronic software for producing camera-ready-copy, LaTeX style files, the internet and technology mean that it has never been easier or cheaper to publish than it is today. Despite this, top journals are charging exorbitant prices for authors to publish and for readers to access their articles. Academic libraries are feeling the pinch the most and are being forced to cut journal subscriptions. Not surprisingly, schol- ars in droves are declaring their independence from commercial publishers and are moving to open access journals or are self-archiving their articles in public domain pre-print servers. That this move- ment is starting to hurt the big publishing houses is evidenced by their use of counter-tactics such as proprietary pre-print servers and pure propaganda in their attempts to guard against profit loss. Whether or not bibliometry will be an artefact in the future depends on the outcome of this battle. Here, we review the current status of this siege, how it arose and how it is likely to evolve.
Highlights
The advancement of science is based on a process of accumulating knowledge
Scientists and the results that they produce differ greatly with respect to originality and impact within their own fields of study and on society at large. This calls for a system of evaluation when it comes to choosing which paper to read, to cite, or which person to hire in a research center
We will examine the new initiatives appearing on the academic horizon to surmount these problems, such as the development of new open access bibliometric indices and publishing models that offset the costs currently paid to journals by authors and readers to fund open access alternatives
Summary
The advancement of science is based on a process of accumulating knowledge. Each new experiment or theoretical idea is always built in part on the results of previous research studies. Scientists and the results that they produce differ greatly with respect to originality and impact within their own fields of study and on society at large This calls for a system of evaluation when it comes to choosing which paper to read, to cite, or which person to hire in a research center. In the new era of corporate science, the desires of individuals to serve the public good do not suffice to ensure that corporate actions will serve the public good.’ This explosion of academic literature has made the problem of evaluation of science even more difficult. We will examine the new initiatives appearing on the academic horizon to surmount these problems, such as the development of new open access bibliometric indices and publishing models that offset the costs currently paid to journals by authors and readers to fund open access alternatives
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have