Why Are Biologists Starting to Publish Preprints Now So Long After It Became the Norm in Physics?

In the tumultuous landscape of scientific publishing, the transition away from the monolithic model is occurring with various degrees of urgency. While scholars in physics have long embraced preprints, biologists have been slower to follow, leading to a significant gap in scientific discourse and accessibility. This shift reflects a broader reevaluation of the publishing system and underscores the pressing need for more transparent and accessible scientific communication.

Scientific Publishing in the Digital Era

At the heart of this transformation lies the unprecedented changes in knowledge communication and perusal. Michael Nielsen, a pioneering blogger in the technological and scientific arenas, argues that the future of scientific publishing will be shaped not by its current stakeholders—scientists, publishers, librarians, and policymakers—but by outsiders. These include exceptionally creative user interface designers and those who design group experiences. This narrative challenges the prevailing order and highlights the potential for innovation beyond the traditional boundaries.

The David versus Goliath Moment of Scientific Publishing

The battle between open-access advocates and established publishing giants, such as Elsevier, mirrors the broader struggle for digital transformation. Open access advocates, like Alexandra Elbakyan, have successfully disrupted the status quo, leading to legal battles and legal actions. These skirmishes have not only drawn attention to the broader issues but also highlighted the flaws in the current system. For instance, scientific publishing currently relies heavily on taxpayer-funded research, with scientists performing peer reviews pro bono and other costs being outsourced to reduce overhead. Electronic publishing is much cheaper than print, yet publishers retain copyrights and charge exorbitant fees for access.

The Economics of Scientific Publishing

The economics of scientific publishing are particularly flawed. Annual subscriptions to thousands of journals are financially burdensome, even for institutions like Harvard. The barrier to access, especially for older papers, remains a significant issue. Publishers often charge between $6 and $36 per paper, even when the work is decades old. This inequity is exacerbated by the fact that many scientists perform peer reviews for these journals themselves, rendering the copyright and access fee structure counterproductive and unjust.

Biologists and Preprints: Lagging Behind Physics

Despite these issues, biologists are increasingly adopting preprints as a means of disseminating their research. The Zika virus outbreak is a prime example, where researchers rapidly shared raw data online in real time, a practice unthinkable under the monolithic publishing model. This shift reflects a recognition of the need for more immediate and accessible communication of research findings. While biologists are now picking up the pace, their earlier hesitancy underscores the slow transition from traditional publishing methods in the life sciences.

Future of Scientific Publishing: A Variety of Forms

According to Nielsen, the future of scientific publishing will not be monolithic but will include a variety of forms ranging from informal to collaborative to the prevailing model. This hybrid approach is indicative of the broader shift towards more open and accessible scientific communication. Unlikely as it may seem, some approaches may crash and burn, while others will become mainstays, reflecting the fast-moving and evolving nature of scientific research.

Conclusion

The journey from the monolithic to the diverse in scientific publishing is far from over. As biologists and other life scientists begin to embrace preprints, they join a larger movement towards a more transparent and accessible scientific ecosystem. The role of user interface designers and designers of group experiences will be crucial in shaping this future. This transition is both necessary and challenging, offering both opportunities and uncertainties. As we navigate this period of change, the principles of open access and immediate dissemination will continue to drive the evolution of scientific publishing.