Article by JP Flores and Hannah Frank: “…The deeper problem is that a system built around journal prestige shapes what science gets done, how fast it moves, and whose work gets seen.
We come to this argument from different directions. One of us, Hannah, conducts soil research on vineyards. Fundamental to the project are the relationships she has built with grape growers and winemakers. Yet when her work is finally published there is no guarantee those growers will be able to easily access the material, or that the wine industry beyond the academic paywall will be able to take the findings and apply them more broadly.
The other, JP, has committed years to experiments, failed analyses, and revised manuscripts that often seemed to be judged less by what they contributed to science and more by which journal ultimately agreed to publish them. Like many scientists, he was then asked to pay over $10,000 in article processing charges just to make that research publicly available. That money could have funded follow-up experiments, a student’s salary, or an entirely new project.
There are two central critiques of current publishing venues. First, systems that reward publication volume can encourage researchers to pursue smaller, lower-risk projects that generate a steady stream of papers rather than tackle more ambitious questions whose answers may take years to emerge…(More)”.
