Analysis and news


Is it time for open submissions? Publishers should be constantly aiming to develop technological innovations, argues Amye Kenall


The concept of opening up research isn’t new. Open access and open peer review have been in usage in the biomedical sciences for more than 20 years and is now undeniably mainstream; at Springer Nature we published over 90,000 immediate open access articles in 2017. Pre-prints are often lauded as the ‘next big thing’ in scholarly publishing but the ArXiv pre-print repository was introduced in 1991, and the Social Science Research Network has been in place since 1994; Nature has had a pre-prints policy since 1997. Post-publication peer review has been around since 2000. Arguably, the most exciting ‘open’


innovations of our industry are as old as the Nokia 3310, Say My Name by Destiny’s Child, and older than Disney’s The Lion King. You could argue that publishers are


more forward-thinking than the scientific community gives us credit for; that we have shown our progressive credentials time and time again; or you could argue that we can do better. That the whole system needs an overhaul, from the moment a researcher presses the ‘upload manuscript’ button. A scientific manuscript is precious.


In order to add to the canon of human knowledge it will have been the result of researchers’ years of work. It is then painstakingly improved, line by line, and delivered to the world by hugely qualified experts, in the form of peer reviewers and our editors. Yet the ‘tracking’ service offered by publishing platforms, the information available to authors as to what has happened to this piece of work they have dedicated so much time and effort to over many years, is often worse than you’d expect from Amazon, delivering a pair of cheap headphones in a cardboard box (say what you like about the tech giant, they’ve revolutionised retail). No wonder some authors wonder what


we add to the process. Publishing is not nearly transparent or dynamic enough. At BMC, part of Springer Nature, we are experimenting with a new service which


24 Research Information December 2018/January 2019


“Arguably, the most exciting ‘open’ innovations of our industry are as old as the Nokia 3310”


could help to rectify some of these issues. In Review, powered by Research Square, aims to bring more transparency to the publishing process by providing authors with the ability to easily track the status of their manuscript in granular detail, and the opportunity to share it with the wider community earlier in the submission and peer review process. Available across four BMC journals in


the first instance – BMC Neurology, BMC Anesthesiology, BMC Ophthalmology, and Trials – the wider community will also benefit from being able to follow and comment on emerging science, and will gain insight into the editorial checks and peer review process. It is our hope that manuscripts shared on In Review will see benefits from early sharing, including earlier citations and collaboration opportunities. We believe that this service combines the best of publishing – ethical and scientific rigour, indexing, discovery – with speed and transparency. Building on our roots as the first commercial open access


publisher, at BMC we are always looking for new ways to experiment and improve the publishing process, and we think this new service will be invaluable for those seeking more transparency and control over their manuscript. Early feedback has been good: one author said: ‘Very interesting concept. Hope it becomes the new standard, so we can stop frantically checking our papers’ status.’ This is one small example of the kind of


technological innovations publishers need every month to drive our industry forward. We need to experiment small-scale at first, then build on every positive development that works for our customers. Let’s be honest – we’ve got the


developers and coders. We’ve got the scientific experts in droves. We’ve got the latest discoveries at our fingertips, and teams to help us market and communicate to our audiences. Wouldn’t it be nice if, in 20 years’ time, we treated open access as we do the Nokia 3310 – the humble beginnings of a technological improvement which truly changed society? Wouldn’t it be nice if, in 20 years’ time, the new tech unicorns are saying: ‘If only we could deliver the customer service that publishers provide?’


Amye Kenall is global head of life sciences, open research at Springer Nature


@researchinfo | www.researchinformation.info


Sergey Nivens/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