The future of academic publishing

Abstract

Harnessing the utility of preprints may solve many of these issues in academic publishing. Preprints are defined broadly as research documents made freely available via a public server (e.g., arXiv; PsyArXiv) before publication in a journal. They accelerate dissemination of research, allow researchers to gain early feedback, and increase access. With many concerns surrounding their use unfounded (e.g., scooping 10,11 ), preprints can reduce publication bias by permitting researchers to deposit their work regardless of its publication 'success'. Through not-for-profit preprint servers, financially supported through institutions, organisations or donations, preprints fulfil the criteria of green open access detached from the typically large profit margins of gold open access publishing, which charge either a subscription fee to readers or an article processing charge to authors 12 . From this perspective, preprints can also create a more equitable and diverse research landscape, aiding better access and discoverability of research for those in developing countries (e.g., AfriArXiv; although additional support for such preprint servers is required 13 ). Ranking systems do not exist with each preprint server aligned with its discipline and quality control maintained through version tracking, moderation, and community feedback (including error detection) 14 . Services such as 'Review Commons' and 'Peer Community In' offer a platform for independent peer-review of preprints, facilitating author-directed submission of refereed preprints to affiliate journals. Such in-house oversight protects the community from predatory journals and ensures homogeneous policies and procedures. Furthermore, the offshoot of 'PCI Registered Reports' promotes rigour, reproducibility and replication by reviewing and recommending Registered Report preprints 15 .Problems associated with academic publishing signal a strong incentive for change. Preprints can mitigate many of these concerns by reimagining traditional publication and research evaluation processes and progressing a more equitable, open access future. Journals should not see preprint servers as a threat but rather an aide to an improved research landscape.

Neurobehavioral effects of fungicides in zebrafish: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…There is an important role of selective publishing in the misinterpretation of a meta-analysis 75 , highlighting the need for new practices regarding the publication of non-significant results. Even if this represents a complex, deep-rooted issue that requires a change in the whole culture of publishing scientific data, some authors have been raising this discussion and proposing alternatives 76 – 79 . However, the results of our publication bias analysis should be interpreted with caution, as our funnel plots were based on SMD versus standard error (SE).…”

Why can’t we be friends? Bridging the academic/practitioner gap in social marketing

“…More articles should be open access, given that practitioners have long cited access as a barrier to engaging with journals (Tucker and Lowe, 2014). Social marketing (and marketing as a whole) journals could take the lead of the Latin America science community where 95% are open access thanks to non-commercial public funding (Ahmed et al , 2023). The authors have engaged in much dialogue whilst writing this paper about the need for all articles to be open access (i.e.…”

Undertaking peer review for academic journals: The implications for critical care nursing

“…Journal editors are finding it increasingly challenging to find appropriate reviewers 2 . There might be several reasons for this, with lack of time being the most commonly cited reason.…”

“…Similarly, publication procedures and policies also need to rapidly evolve in order to keep up with advancements in modern technology, and also to overcome the challenges with the traditional peer‐review process. Some have suggested that peer review is no longer needed and many researchers are availing of the opportunity to pre‐print without peer review 2 . A recent paper comparing the quality of pre‐print and peer‐review articles concluded that the quality of reporting in pre‐prints in the life sciences was relatively similar to that of peer‐reviewed articles, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions 3 .…”