The problem with scientific publishing

By A.B.

PERIODICAL journals have been the principal means of disseminating science since the 17th century. Over the intervening three-and-a-half centuries journals have established conventions for publication—such as insisting on independent (and usually anonymous) peer review of submissions—that are intended to preserve the integrity of the scientific process. But they have come under increasing attack in recent years. What is wrong with scientific publishing in journals, and how can it be fixed?

The problems stem from the fact that journal publication now plays a role that was not part of the original job description: as indicators of a researcher’s prowess, and thus determinants of academic careers. The incentive to withhold results for months or years until research is published is therefore powerful. But such delays can do real harm: during the Zika crisis, sponsors of research had to persuade publishers to declare that scientists would not be penalised for releasing their findings early. Nor are elite journals (such as Nature and Science) the guardians of quality that they often claim to be. The number of papers so flawed that they need to be retracted has risen sharply in the past two decades, with glitzier journals pulling more papers than lower-profile counterparts. Worse, studies in elite journals are no more statistically robust than those in lesser ones.