The way scientific publishing works right now sucks in various colorful ways. And that’s quite honestly an understatement. Scientists complain about it frequently and many of us agree that it’s time to do something about it to improve it but we are neither in a position to actually change it nor can we really know what needs to be done to bring the change. Economists, lawyers and politicians on the other hand may have some idea what to do about it. So, I am setting off to describe in simple words how scientific publishing works at the moment in the hope that non-scientists that can help us improve scientific publishing can understand our predicament and devise solutions to get us out of this rat hole.

Let me introduce Bob, the researcher

Bob is a biologist who works in research. He has a doctorate, has worked hard and long in academia to get to the point where he can spot gaps in the humanity’s knowledge and devise ways to obtain brand new information. This is normally done through experimentation. So, Bob worked day and night for the past, let’s say 4 years, and has now enough information to write a paper. On Bob goes, working hard for another fortnight to put together a manuscript and find the most appropriate scientific journal for his work.

Scientific journals are divided into categories based on the topics they publish most and most importantly, they are divided by how prestigious they are. A number has been assigned to each scientific journal to state its level of prestige and it is called an impact factor. The impact factor reflects that reflects the yearly mean number of citations of articles published in the last two years in a given journal [source-Wikipedia]. A paper that is published in a journal gets a citation when another paper refers to it. The more citations a paper or a journal receive the more novel ideas they present and/or the more popular their topics are. The higher the impact factor of a journal, the fewer the chances of Bob to get his manuscript published there. Bob needs to have a very interesting scientific story to tell, should make sure he has used fancy experimental methods and he should be able to write his story down in the most compelling way possible.

The manuscript is ready and Bob submits his very hard work to Scientific Journal X. Not unlike any other scientific journal, Scientific Journal X has an Editor who will receive Bob’s manuscript once Bob submits it. The Editor will take a look and decide if the manuscript fits to Scientific Journal X’s usual published topics and if it is written well enough or if its findings are novel enough to attract the attention of the readership of Scientific Journal X. If he finds it isn’t a good fit for any of these reasons he will send an email to Bob letting him know that he doesn’t think the manuscript is good enough. In this case, Bob will most likely submit his manuscript to another journal. If however the Editor of Scientific Journal X thinks Bob’s manuscript is worth a shot, he will forward it to a couple of other scientists that work in scientific areas closely related to the one Bob works on. These scientists are called Reviewers and their job is to read Bob’s work critically and decide if it is well done, if its findings are important contributions to the respective scientific topic(s) it touches. They aren’t much different from Bob. In fact, Bob has been asked frequently to review other scientists’ manuscripts. Once they are done reading Bob’s manuscript, the Reviewers write down a small essay with their observations sometimes even asking for additional experiments to become entirely convinced of Bob’s conclusions. These small assays are then read by the Editor of Scientific Journal X who based on the Reviewers’ comments decides if Bob should change his manuscript a bit (minor revision), a lot (major revision) or simply not bother trying to fix it at all because it’s not good enough and correcting it would take so much time and effort that it simply doesn’t work for the usual timeline Scientific Journal X follows. This final decision is the so called Editorial Decision.
Bob will read the Editorial Decision and will most likely do as he is told to do by the Reviewers and the Editor. He will try and squeeze in new findings even though he thought his work was good enough in the first place and he will try to placate the Reviewers with a long letter (rebuttal letter) if they are too demanding, all the while draining his resources. In some cases, Bob will refuse entirely to perform any of the experiments the Reviewers ask and he will retract his paper and submit it to another journal.

When Bob has completed the revised version of his manuscript, he will resubmit it to the Scientific Journal X, the Editor will receive it and look over it again and in most cases the Editor will contact the Reviewers again so that they can also see the revised manuscript and let the Editor know if they feel all of their concerns have been addressed. If yes, then Bob will receive another Editorial Decision email letting him know that his work has been accepted for publication. If not, then the Editor will let Bob know that his revision wasn’t good enough and the paper is rejected or in some cases let Bob work on it a bit longer and re-resubmit. In the latter case, Bob is still entitled to refuse further revisions, retract his manuscript and go for another journal, starting the process from the start. In the former case, Bob is out with colleagues buying drinks or at home booking a vacation with his loved ones or enjoying a day at sea-side with his best friend. His paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication and this is what we all researchers live for.

Don’t forget about the price tag

Now, let’s examine what’s happening behind and beyond the Editorial Decisions and the Reviewer’s comments. The Editor of Scientific Journal X is likely to be a paid staff member of the Journal. There are however many journals that have unpaid editors who do the job voluntarily only to enjoy the benefits of networking with their colleagues and taking a look at the freshest science there is. So let’s say it’s likely that the Editor is an unpaid scientist participating in the pipeline of scientific publishing. The people who are 100% of the time unpaid are the Reviewers. They are scientists who are asked to give their very precious time to criticize a fellow scientist’s work and give their valuable opinions and insights without any compensation whatsoever. It’s just that they have been taught to believe that paper reviewing is the ultimate way of serving science. By reviewing papers they ensure that good science goes out in the world and not the demented thoughts and perverted experiments of all those crazy scientists that walk the earth. So, Editor maybe unpaid, Reviewers definitely unpaid, yet, Bob is asked to pay somewhere between 2000-10,000 euros to publish his paper. Did you know that? Huh?

Well, I didn’t know until I got into the publishing game. If anything, I expected that scientists are paid for giving their hard work to journals. But, I grew up a bit and I thought it actually made sense to pay some money because the journal will process your paper and print it (at least back when we still printed journals) and publish it under its good name. But still, does that really cost 10,000 euros especially now that we don’t even print journals anymore? What’s even more scandalizing is that Bob will pay for his publication from the same lump of money he used to pay for his own salary and his experiments. In the vast majority of cases this money has come from public funds, meaning the precious money of tax payers. Up to here, this doesn’t sound so bad, but will I upset you if I tell you that you, dearest tax payer, who has already paid for this research you cannot read it unless you pay up to 50 euros per article in a journal or a for an annual subscription of up to 600 euros? Well, that would piss me off, easily. But then again, have you ever tried reading a scientific publication? It’s a really bad experience most of the time even if you speak “science”. If you don’t speak this secret language, you have zero chances of enjoying the research that your good tax money have paid for. So, to hell with reading the newest scientific discoveries, who needs that anyway?

So, let’s sum up. Bob worked his fingers to the bone and spent a considerable amount of money to put together a scientific study. Then he worked a bit more to write it down and went on submitting it left and right until it got accepted and published by a journal. When the much desired decision for acceptance reached Bob he had to put his hand deep into his budget-pocket again and pay a handsome sum to see his work published. Then if a person that doesn’t have the privilege of working in a setting that provides its employers with access to scientific journals wants to read Bob’s paper, assuming they could withstand the relentless scientific jargon, would have to pay another handsome sum to gain access to Bob’s paper.

So, I am sure you are thinking that this process ensures that only good science gets published therefore it’s only logical that journals need some money to uphold high standards and push scientists to become better. Right? Nope. It’s a very long story, but believe me when I tell you that peer-reviewing doesn’t work a lot of the time. You can have a look at this study, or this wonderful and more recent article on the topic.

Is this a real documented problem?

So, the simple fact is that journals don’t make scientists richer, science better or freely accessible. I have been reading for the past several years so much on how publishing in science needs to change, but I am yet to read about a sustainable change that will improve the situation.

But before we plunge into solutions, the first logical question should be: is the way we publish science now really a problem? Does the way we do things now hurt us in a tangible way? Can we somehow measure how good or bad things are and how certain changes will improve them?

I believe that those of us who are skeptical about how things are done currently, need to inform people who have the skills to assess situations like this, get them involved and see if there’s anything they can do to help.

I do hear about multiple problems in scientific publication when I socialize with colleagues and I have stumbled upon several myself. I outline some below to give you an idea:

• Scientific performance is much measured against the impact factor of the publications a scientist has and this affects how research grants are distributed creating a huge gap between research groups regarding funding. In the current situation, even if Bob does good work, if he can’t afford the publication fees of a high impact factor journal and publishes in lower journals instead, his chances of earning research grants are hurt. In an ideal world, if Bob produces useful science that progresses his field and can be reproduced by others as well, he should get research grants to continue his good work.
• Peer-review sucks very hard a lot of the time. I have myself been through this extensively and I can write books on how many irrelevant comments authors get from reviewers when they submit manuscripts. It is very common to get landed with reviewers who are not true experts on your topic and have difficulty appreciating the importance of your work, let alone being able to provide useful feedback. Editors are unhelpful with this most of the time, giving the reviewers’ comments the highest priority instead of working with authors to improve a manuscript when it’s needed. Many times Bob gets unfair or irrelevant comments from the reviewers and the Editor almost never comes to his aid.
• Peer-review is restricted to the processing of an article by a journal. The comments of the Reviewers and Bob’s responses should be open to the public together with the paper itself (some journals do that already).
• There is not enough discussion on papers after they get published. Two to five reviewers (depending on the paper and the journal) have seen and approved or rejected one scientific study and we are fine with it? Depending on the topic, a single paper may affect the research of hundreds or thousands of scientists. Are we basing this decision on what 2-5 people said about a paper? Maybe a system should be in place allowing for everyone to post their comments on a scientific article for ever. And Bob should be given a chance to respond to these comments, consider them and perhaps improve his research in the future. Scientific discovery without scientific discussion is pointless.

But my questions remain

All of us who have tried to play the “publish your paper” game have lost now and again. And yes, major errors in papers have been missed by reviewers and excellent, impactful studies have been wrongly rejected by high impact journals only to be revealed as extremely important after they found their way to scientists around the world. It’s a system with errors, no doubt about that.

But is there an alternative way to publish science without or with fewer bugs? Does the current system perhaps work well overall but some scientists are left behind as a natural and harmless consequence? Or are the people who are left behind a terrible loss for the progress of science? In other words, are things as good as they could be or is it time to re-assess our situation and start moving towards real improvements?

If publishing in science is really hurting society, we should look into it and come up with the numbers proving it. If we find adequate evidence that it does hurt society, then we should come up with a plan to change it. Before any of that actually happens, Bob’s feeling of being wronged is simply a feeling he should learn to live with. But if there is a better way to publish science, then Bob can breathe a sigh of relief because as long as he does good science, he will have no trouble publishing it.

That’s all folks! I hope that this article reached some of you who understand more than me about the complex process of publishing in academia. I also hope that it stirs discussions within circles of people who might be unaware of the situation but come up with solutions. As always, I am looking forward to your reading your thoughts in the comment section!