Session 7
COMMUNICATING SCIENCE
MARCH 17, 2021
How scientific findings are disseminated, especially among scientists
In this class, we will focus on how the results of scientific work are communicated to other scientists, as well as the wider public. We will consider the evaluation, publication, and use of primary scientific articles, emphasizing the contentious issue of how well the scientific community has exploited the new opportunities provided by computer sciences and the internet to accelerate communication of new findings, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, when the speed of delivery and the reliability of new information have the potential to alter the course of the pandemic. Along the way, we will consider the economics, fairness, and influence of the systems traditionally used for publication, including commercial publishers, scientific societies, and other organizations.
Although we will talk about these items as they apply to several scientific fields, most of the discussion will address biomedical research because that is where changes have been occurring at the greatest rate over the past couple of decades and with the most contentious arguments. (It is also the place where I have had a significant role and am still deeply engaged.) In particular, we will talk about several features of an evolving system for disseminating the results of research: models for publication of peer-reviewed research in traditional subscription-based journals or in open-access journals; the increasing use of “pre-print servers” to display work on-line prior to peer review; the creation and operation of public digital libraries, such as PubMed Central; novel approaches to peer review and post-publication assessments; and the roles of authors, publishers, and research funders in these modes of dissemination and use of research reports. We will also discuss the recent efforts of funders to mandate the use of open-access journals by their grantees (see Plan S below) and the opposition from commercial and society publishers.
Since publication is often viewed as “the coin of the realm” in development of scientific careers, these issues are central to the function of the scientific enterprise and taken very seriously.
Required reading:
Chapter 15 (“Science Publishing and Science Libraries in the Internet Age”) from my book, The Art and Politics of Science (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190606/) The chapter describes the development of public digital libraries and open access publishing in the life sciences.
Extra, semi-optional reading
(try to read at least a couple of items from this list; all are short):
The assigned Chapter 15 from my book alludes to the virtues of preprint servers in physics and some other sciences. Preprint servers in biology have been promoted more recently for the life sciences in: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/352/6288/899.full.pdf
(For an interesting perspective on one aspect of the problem, see: RD Vale and AA Hyman, “Priority of discovery in the life sciences” eLIFE 2016;5:e16931.)
Preprint servers have received enormous attention during the current coronavirus epidemic. Look at bioRxiv (https://www.biorxiv.org) and medRxiv to see what is going on. The effects of Covid-19 on the production of scientific papers were reviewed in Nature in December: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03564-y
Some newer and contentious themes have emerged from the funders of research. A plan (called “Plan S”) compels grantees to use Open Access principles to insure that work supported by the funders is rapidly made accessible to all: (https://www.coalition-s.org/feedback/). Some have posed objections to the plan, including the head of the US National Academy of Sciences (M McNutt, “Plan S falls short for society publishers—and for the researchers they serve” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:2400-2403, 2019) and those objections have been responded to: https://wellcome.ac.uk/news/open-access-and-plan-s-howwellcome-tackling-four-key-concerns). Whose views do you support?
Science magazine has provided a useful summary of the various attitudes that biologists have traditionally taken towards the use of preprints: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/are-preprints-future-biology-survival-guide-scientists
…and another summary of views about universal open access (such as Plan S): https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/new-mandate-highlights-costs-benefits-making-all-scientific-articles-free-read
In reading these articles, keep in mind the possibility that Science is published by a society that may be aligned against movements that could shrink its profits!
Here’s a broader concept that would undermine what many view as the excessive influence of a few current journals: put the decision to publish back in the hands of authors and encourage post-publication evaluation and organization of papers: ( BM Stern and EK O’Shea, “A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences” PLOS Biology 2019 https://doi.org/10.137/journal.pbio.3000116 How do you feel about this proposal for the future of science publishing?
Is there a role for social media in the dissemination of scientific information? Consider one extreme: https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/06/in-unusual-revolt-scientists-funded-by-mark-zuckerberg-criticize-facebooks-inaction-on-president-trumps-posts/
In your reading of these materials, consider the following questions:
–What factors enable and restrict access to new scientific findings?
–What do you believe are the ideal methods for getting new information to other scientists?
–What drives communication of new findings to the general public? (The experience of living through Covid-19 has probably shaped your views.) In other words, what makes science newsworthy? What are the motivations that lead to publicity for some discoveries and not others?
–What are the costs of publishing and who should pay them? (The public? Funders of science? Scientists themselves?)
–What is the role of primary scientific reports as opposed to review articles, news accounts, histories of science, and textbooks?
–Why is publishing so important and also so contentious? What is the relationship of publication to career development? How should peers evaluate a scientist’s record?
