Analysis and news


As well as suffering from bias, peer


reviewing can also be quite a protracted and drawn out process. Despite technological advancements, the time from submission to publication is dictated by a highly convoluted process. Once a journal receives a manuscript, an editor needs to screen the work and assign it to peer reviewers. Then, if the transition process between authors, editors and reviewers is successful, the manuscript is marked for publication. However, this does not mean that the paper is immediately published, it only means it is earmarked for release in the print edition as space becomes available. Depending on the journal, the publication time varies significantly, but the average time is 12 months. Once a research manuscript is rejected by a journal, authors have to resubmit to a diferent journal and resume the process. Unfortunately, the biased and protracted peer review process isn’t the only issue confronting academic publishing.


The copyrights misplacement While inefficient processes can be identified across a myriad of sectors, the copyrights misplacement is something unique to the academic publishing sector. In any other industry, the creator is paid


www.researchinformation.info | @researchinfo


for their work. Musicians are paid for their songs, artists are paid for their art pieces, and authors are paid for their books. However, the same ideal is not reflected in academic publishing. Generally, researchers are required


to transfer the copyrights of their manuscripts (research that frequently takes millions of dollars of public money to conduct) to the journal publisher. Their work is given permanently and for free to publishers who reap a higher profit margin than in any other industry. Academic publishers claim that this is


necessary in order to protect authors’ rights and to coordinate permissions for reprints or other use, but many authors find this method unsuitable. In theory, the permission to use one’s manuscript is granted in return for the services provided, such as editing, peer reviewing, publishing, and advertising. However, a large part of the editing and peer review costs are


“The time from submission to publication is


already paid for or done on a voluntary basis by the research community. Then, we have the scientific community, which is often charged hundreds of dollars to access decades-old studies. While scientists are priced out of the market, universities, and hospitals must pay millions of dollars per year to access papers produced decades ago, papers that were funded by the Government, or other charitable grants, at great expense. Moreover, just like traditional publishing,


academic publishing is primarily concerned with protecting the expression of works, not the ideas expressed, which are not copyrightable. This creates a situation where it is illegal to copy or reproduce a work without permission, yet acceptable to borrow one’s ideas by paraphrasing. And researchers are actually more concerned about others borrowing their ideas (or using their research) without giving them credit, not the papers themselves. The integrity of the study should also be respected, which means that academic journals should not alter research papers for profit. To give you a better idea of how


dictated by a highly convoluted process”


defective this industry is, I implore you to read the stories of Aaron Swartz, better known as the Robin Hood of Science, who was driven to his death for trying to


December 2018/January 2019 Research Information g 11


Hare Krishna/Shutterstock.com


Lightspring/Shutterstock.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32