Abstract
Academic journals have been publishing the results of biomedical research for more than 350 years. Reviewing their history reveals that the ways in which journals vet submissions have changed over time, culminating in the relatively recent appearance of the current peer-review process. Journal brand and Impact Factor have meanwhile become quality proxies that are widely used to filter articles and evaluate scientists in a hypercompetitive prestige economy. The Web created the potential for a more decoupled publishing system in which articles are initially disseminated by preprint servers and then undergo evaluation elsewhere. To build this future, we must first understand the roles journals currently play and consider what types of content screening and review are necessary and for which papers. A new, open ecosystem involving preprint servers, journals, independent content-vetting initiatives, and curation services could provide more multidimensional signals for papers and avoid the current conflation of trust, quality, and impact. Academia should strive to avoid the alternative scenario, however, in which stratified publisher silos lock in submissions and simply perpetuate this conflation.
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subject
General Agricultural and Biological Sciences,General Immunology and Microbiology,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,General Neuroscience
Reference71 articles.
1. Credibility, peer review, and Nature, 1945–1990;M Baldwin;Notes Rec,2015
2. An introduction to this tract;Phil Trans R Soc,1665
3. 350 Years of Scientific Periodicals;A Fyfe;Notes Rec,2015
4. The Pergamon phenomenon 1951–1991:Robert Maxwell and scientific publishing;B. Cox;Learned Publishing,2002
5. Ware M, Mabe M. The stm report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. 2012 [cited 2023 Jun 16]. https://www.stm-assoc.org/2012_12_11_STM_Report_2012.pdf.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献