TY - JOUR
T1 - Scientific Utopia
T2 - I. Opening Scientific Communication
AU - Nosek, Brian A.
AU - Bar-Anan, Yoav
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding agencies have recognized that the results of the research they support should be available publicly. For example, despite resistance from some publishers, the National Institutes of Health established PubMed Central (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/) as an OA repository of research conducted with NIH funding. Use of repositories for articles published elsewhere is known as “Green OA,” whereas OA publishing journals are known as “Gold OA.” There are hundreds of repositories, many maintained by universities for their faculty. Also in 2012, one of the largest funders of biomedical research, the Wellcome Trust (n.d.), adopted an OA policy that requires the research they fund to be made available in public repositories, and they provide additional funding to grantees for OA journal publication fees (http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Policy-and-position-statements/WTD002766.htm). Further, in collaboration with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Max Planck Society, the Wellcome Trust launched its own OA journal (http://www.elifesciences.org/) and has committed to underwriting the publishing costs for at least the first few years of operations (eLife, n.d.). Holding the purse strings is a powerful lever to encourage or require OA publishing and to provide the necessary resources to shift away from a subscription-based funding model.
PY - 2012/7/1
Y1 - 2012/7/1
N2 - Existing norms for scientific communication are rooted in anachronistic practices of bygone eras making them needlessly inefficient. We outline a path that moves away from the existing model of scientific communication to improve the efficiency in meeting the purpose of public science-knowledge accumulation. We call for six changes: (a) full embrace of digital communication; (b) open access to all published research; (c) disentangling publication from evaluation; (d) breaking the "one article, one journal" model with a grading system for evaluation and diversified dissemination outlets; (e) publishing peer review; and (f) allowing open, continuous peer review. We address conceptual and practical barriers to change and provide examples showing how the suggested practices are being used already. The critical barriers to change are not technical or financial; they are social. Although scientists guard the status quo, they also have the power to change it.
AB - Existing norms for scientific communication are rooted in anachronistic practices of bygone eras making them needlessly inefficient. We outline a path that moves away from the existing model of scientific communication to improve the efficiency in meeting the purpose of public science-knowledge accumulation. We call for six changes: (a) full embrace of digital communication; (b) open access to all published research; (c) disentangling publication from evaluation; (d) breaking the "one article, one journal" model with a grading system for evaluation and diversified dissemination outlets; (e) publishing peer review; and (f) allowing open, continuous peer review. We address conceptual and practical barriers to change and provide examples showing how the suggested practices are being used already. The critical barriers to change are not technical or financial; they are social. Although scientists guard the status quo, they also have the power to change it.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84865736540&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215
DO - 10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84865736540
SN - 1047-840X
VL - 23
SP - 217
EP - 243
JO - Psychological Inquiry
JF - Psychological Inquiry
IS - 3
ER -