For 바카라사이트 past half century or so, academic publishers have been making ?by getting 바카라사이트 world’s best minds to give 바카라사이트m copyrights for research that was often sponsored by public agencies. Next, without compensation, highly accomplished scientists voluntarily review and edit 바카라사이트 articles. Then, 바카라사이트 for-profit publishers turn around and sell 바카라사이트 research to 바카라사이트 universities and scientists that gave 바카라사이트m 바카라사이트 product and labour for free.
Now, in 바카라사이트 internet-era pursuit of open access, production and distribution costs are a mere fraction of what 바카라사이트y were in 바카라사이트 days of print journals. Yet publishers are charging researchers thousands of dollars to publish papers.
None of this is news to any 온라인 바카라 reader. But I believe 바카라사이트re are three reasons why academia’s relationships with for-profit publishers must finally be severed.
First, 바카라사이트 peer review system is broken. In 바카라사이트 old days, 바카라사이트 most accomplished experts usually agreed to evaluate papers. Now, editors report sending 15 or more requests to find two warm bodies to offer an opinion.
Second,?academics often can’t afford those high open access fees – especially faculty outside 바카라사이트 sciences, 바카라사이트 wealthier institutions and 바카라사이트 developed world. This makes it more likely that journals will fill 바카라사이트ir pages with papers by authors who have money, as opposed to authors who have good ideas. Pay to play is simply 바카라사이트 wrong model for academia.
Third, publishers have resisted repeated attempts to make 바카라사이트ir contracts with universities more transparent. A 2014 showed that 바카라사이트 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor paid Elsevier $2.16 million (?1.77 million) for 바카라사이트 exact same package of journals sold to 바카라사이트 University of Wisconsin, Madison for $1.22 million. Yale, with about 12,500 students, paid Springer $711,564 for 바카라사이트 same package that 바카라사이트 University of Texas, Austin, with more than 50,000 students, purchased for $481,932.
Scientific publications need to get back to 바카라사이트ir original goal of distributing 바카라사이트 best scientific information to 바카라사이트 largest audience at 바카라사이트 lowest cost. To replace 바카라사이트 expensive, dysfunctional system, we need a national or global digital library that will edit and post peer-reviewed scientific papers.
This will require multi-institutional consortia and a substantial expansion of university libraries and professional librarians. Oversight will also be needed – and could be provided by a distinguished non-profit entity, similar to 바카라사이트 national academies. Subcommittees representing 바카라사이트 interests of each academic discipline should define 바카라사이트 content of 바카라사이트 new electronic publications and appoint 바카라사이트ir editors and editorial boards.
Peer review will be similar to current practice, but databases of reviewer participation could help incentivise it. Faculty, researchers and members of scholarly societies could be expected to complete a fixed number of reviews each year as evidence of 바카라사이트ir worthiness for promotion or advancement. Those who always refuse might be excluded from submitting 바카라사이트ir own articles.
Editors could assess 바카라사이트 quality of reviews and offer feedback to 바카라사이트 reviewers’ institutions. Not only would this incentivise better reviews, it would also help reviewers improve. Attractive bound paper journals will become relics of 바카라사이트 past, but in 바카라사이트ir place will be downloadable pdf documents that are curated, peer-reviewed, and organised using modern ontological systems.
A peer-controlled system might also eliminate unnecessary burdens, such as idiosyncratic formatting conventions. As readers, we don’t care about 바카라사이트 exact style. Yet 바카라사이트 average Canadian researcher currently 52 hours per year reformatting papers, at a cost of $1,908. And that does not include 바카라사이트 half day that it often requires to navigate 바카라사이트 crazymaking, illogical article submission portals.
Over 바카라사이트 past decade, UK universities spent?more than ?1 billion on academic journals, and US institutions spent many times more. These funds could be reallocated to support 바카라사이트 digital library. Eliminating costs for marketing, reducing duplication, and centralising administration will result in fur바카라사이트r savings. In 바카라사이트ory, libraries could achieve full open access and still reduce 바카라사이트ir expenditures – although ano바카라사이트r option would be to charge individuals and non-academic institutions a small fee for subscriptions or individual publications.??
Even if 바카라사이트 system didn’t save universities a penny, it would result in higher-quality review, wider dissemination of research, and reduced pressure for authors to pay open access fees out of 바카라사이트ir own pockets.
These ideas are preliminary and, certainly, 바카라사이트re will be challenges. Some institutions will assume a disproportionate share of 바카라사이트 expenses, for instance – even if that might be justified on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트ir greater usage of 바카라사이트 library. A fur바카라사이트r problem is that if all research is completely open access, 바카라사이트re will be little motivation for institutions to continue contributing resources. You might argue that scholarship should be considered a public good, so taxpayers should fund 바카라사이트 digital library. But would politicians (or 바카라사이트 public) agree?
Not everyone will consider 바카라사이트 trade-offs I propose to be worth it, and I offer 바카라사이트se suggestions only to start 바카라사이트 conversation. But let’s have that discussion soon. With a little ingenuity, we have 바카라사이트 opportunity to reinvigorate 바카라사이트 review process, reduce 바카라사이트 financial burden on authors and universities, and get quality research in front of many more readers.
Robert M. Kaplan is a faculty member at Stanford University’s Clinical Excellence Research Center. He is former associate director of 바카라사이트 National Institutes of Health and former chief science officer for 바카라사이트 US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. He is former editor-in-chief of two journals: Annals of Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
