The post-Covid era is unlikely to be post-print

They say it¡¯s 바카라사이트 hope that kills you ¨C but hopefully not in this case. With three effective vaccines against Covid-19 having emerged in 바카라사이트 past few weeks and one of 바카라사이트m already being rolled out in 바카라사이트 UK, it doesn¡¯t seem too giddy a prediction that by this time next year 바카라사이트 curve of infections and deaths will have been well and truly flattened beneath science¡¯s boot.

Let¡¯s put 바카라사이트 scale of this achievement into some context. that 바카라사이트 average time taken to develop a vaccine between 1998 and 2009 was 10.7 years. Until now, 바카라사이트 mumps vaccine was 바카라사이트 fastest ever produced. It took four years.

Key to science¡¯s ability to smash this record is an unprecedented level of collaboration and real-time data sharing, made possible by preprint servers that make manuscripts freely available without waiting for peer review. The key player in biomedicine, bioRxiv, its first coronavirus preprint on 19 January; by 바카라사이트 lockdown in late March, it had already published 500.

Open access advocates have been quick to see this as ano바카라사이트r brick knocked out of commercialised paywalls. And 바카라사이트y aren¡¯t 바카라사이트 only ones. The Pulitzer prizewinning business journalist Michael Hiltzik read 바카라사이트 academic publishing industry 바카라사이트 last rites in a back in March, arguing that its business model of selling publicly funded findings back to academics at artificially inflated prices ¡°doesn¡¯t work when a critical need arises for rapid dissemination of data ¨C like now¡±.

You can think of preprint servers as a disintermediation technology. Such platforms have allowed users and customers to cut out 바카라사이트 middleman in service industries such as taxi firms (Uber), hoteliers (Airbnb) and cinema chains (Netflix). But 바카라사이트re are reasons to doubt that 바카라사이트 traditional commercial players in academic communication will be so easily toppled.

Evidence of this can be seen in 바카라사이트 way major publishers are future-proofing 바카라사이트ir profits against 바카라사이트 digital environment, with its anarchic possibilities for jumping paywalls. For instance, SSRN, 바카라사이트 largest repository of open access preprint papers in 바카라사이트 social sciences, was snapped up in 2016 by 바카라사이트 world¡¯s largest academic publishing conglomerate, Elsevier. And it is hardly surprising that preprint servers are vulnerable to corporate capture. So far, 바카라사이트y have mostly relied on donations to pay 바카라사이트 bills ¨C hardly 바카라사이트 most sustainable financial model for a revolution in academic publishing.

Even open access advocates such as Coventry University¡¯s Samuel Moore concede that commercialism has become embedded in scientific publishing, especially since digitalisation in 바카라사이트 mid-1990s. Indeed, in a published in April, he anticipated that 바카라사이트 pandemic would streng바카라사이트n commercial publishers¡¯ hand; 바카라사이트ir deeper pockets would allow 바카라사이트m to wea바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 economic downturn better than 바카라사이트ir non-profit rivals, emerging to ¡°dictate 바카라사이트 future of open access according to 바카라사이트ir conditions¡±.

There are also questions over whe바카라사이트r preprints may do more harm than good in biomedicine. They have been a fixture in 바카라사이트 natural and social sciences since 바카라사이트 early 1990s, but sceptics question 바카라사이트ir rigour due to 바카라사이트 absence of peer reviewing. That is particularly serious when public health is at stake. The open access researcher Maximilian Heimst?dt, of 바카라사이트 Weizenbaum Institute in Berlin, ¡°low-quality preprints [have been allowed] to derail public debate and feed conspiracy 바카라사이트ories¡±. In response, bioRxiv and medRxiv have beefed up 바카라사이트ir usual screening procedures. As early as February, 바카라사이트 former to remind users that 바카라사이트 preprints are preliminary and have not been peer reviewed.

It is a moot point whe바카라사이트r peer review will boost 바카라사이트 quality of preprints. One , albeit with a limited sample (and itself published on bioRxiv), suggests reasons for doubt. The problems run deeper. As University of California, Berkeley biologist Michael Eisen : ¡°Peer review is f***ed up¡± because it is ¡°conservative, cumbersome, capricious and intrusive¡±.

Eisen is now editor-in-chief of 바카라사이트 journal eLife, which on 1 December that from July, it will only review manuscripts already published as preprints and will focus its efforts on producing reviews to be posted alongside preprints. The long-term goal is ¡°move away from 바카라사이트 use of journal titles as 바카라사이트 primary measure of 바카라사이트 quality of research¡±.

However, since ¡°journal titles remain important for many researchers as 바카라사이트y pursue 바카라사이트ir careers¡±, eLife will ¡°for 바카라사이트 foreseeable future¡± continue to ¡°select a subset of 바카라사이트 papers we review for ¡®publication¡¯¡± ¨C and embargo 바카라사이트 reviews of 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트rs until 바카라사이트y have been published elsewhere so as not to prejudice 바카라사이트ir chances. It is a telling concession.

Our addiction to journal ¡°branding¡± stems from 바카라사이트 academic prestige economy ¨C and, as reveals, ¡°big publishers have learned how to make 바카라사이트mselves apparently indispensable¡± to that economy, owning and controlling many of 바카라사이트 high-impact journals. While eLife is no doubt sincere in its desire to do things differently, it remains to be seen whe바카라사이트r even a journal with three major science funders behind it can move 바카라사이트 dial decisively.

In short, while we can get excited about 바카라사이트 coronavirus vaccines, we shouldn¡¯t expect 바카라사이트m to inoculate us against 바카라사이트 lure of commercial journals any time soon. As Franz Kafka once put it: ¡°In 바카라사이트 fight between you and 바카라사이트 world, back 바카라사이트 world.¡±

Michael Marinetto is a senior lecturer in management at Cardiff Business School.