science publishing


With 50 Million Users, Is Academia.edu Speeding Up Science?

Today we follow up with Richard Price, the founder and CEO of the most popular social sharing site for the academic sector, Academia.edu. When we talked to Richard almost five years ago, the site had 1.5 million users, mostly academics sharing their own papers so that their peers had access without any paywalls. Today the site boasts over 50 million users and serves as a laboratory for the future of academic publishing.

It’s not hard to understand the site's phenomenal growth. Weathering the hit back by Elsevier and other prestige publishing houses, Academia.edu has been able to open up access to millions of scholarly papers which otherwise would not have been accessible. And the papers are not only available to academics. Anyone can get an account for free. Richard recently found a farmer from Sub-Saharan Africa downloading a paper on water conservation.

In addition, many users now choose to publish on the site rather than with an established journal. An emeritus professor at Berkeley told Richard this:

“If I publish in a journal, it takes two years to come out and seventeen people read the paper. If I upload to Academia, I get 100 views in the first week."

It's a success story in terms of uptake by the scholarly sector, but what does this success mean to Richard and the company, and to its users and the future of publishing?

So far revenue sources are limited. Experiments with a premium service have had mixed results with users pushing back and arguing that "open access to scholarship should be a human right, not a business model." How will the site, which requires huge infrastructure, sustain itself?

Richard said before that the site could speed up science. Has it?

Join us behind the scenes with the mastermind of Academia.edu.

Preprints and the Future of Science Publishing with Jason Hoyt, PeerJ

A renewed effort has been underway by leading biologists this year to persuade their colleagues to preprint. This is the posting of a paper to an open access server before peer review and publication. The proponents argue that preprinting will be good for science because discoveries will be made available sooner. The peer review process can take several months, and by preprinting, a biologist doesn’t have to wait to get their work out there and begin interacting with the community.

It’s a powerful argument, and one that has been embraced by the discipline of physics for some time. However, only a small fraction of biologists have been willing to jump on board, according to today’s guest, Jason Hoyt. He anticipates that about 5,000 biology papers will be preprinted this year out of a total of 1.5 million.

As co-founder and CEO of the open access publisher, PeerJ, Jason advocates for preprinting. He and his co-founder, Peter Binfield, launched PeerJ Preprints back in 2013, one of the first preprint servers online. At that time, the two co-authored a blog in Scientific American (Who Killed the PrePrint and Could It Make A Return) explaining that historically preprints were the way science was done (though it wasn’t called that). They point out that it's only been in the last 50 years that the peer review process has come to dominate the publication of biological discoveries.

So why are so few biologists making use of preprint servers today? Jason replies that “it’s still early days” for the online servers.

“There’s some good questions being raised about what influence funders or tenure committees could have to encourage preprints," he says. "I don’t think a lot of biologists are educated yet as to what a preprint is, and what the benefits of it are. And that just takes time. It took 300 years for peer reviewed literature to get where it is today. And we’ve been going three years with preprints."

Like the popular open access journal, PLOS (Public Library of Science), PeerJ charges biologists to publish (with a somewhat different business model) and makes their publications freely available for the public to read. But unlikePLOS, PeerJ offers a preprint server at no cost to biologists who use it. Jason anticipates that preprinting will shake up the traditional peer review process. That in the future peer review will be done and paid for separately from publication.

“Publishing—the different components of it—are becoming commoditized already. It’s conceivable that in 10 or twenty years [science publishing] is completely commoditized. Meaning that we preprint first and then we pay for peer review, somehow—maybe the funders do it—and then it’s published separately. . . Maybe there will be an aggregation service that will help people run through this all themselves.”

We finish the interview with Jason’s thoughts on SciHub and questions of copyright.

Gene and Tonic: The Decline of Pseudoscience, An Atheist for President, and What to Do with a Sexist Reviewer

The New Republic argued in a pice entitled, "The Decline of Pseudoscience," this week that now that the so called "natural" living industry has gone mainstream, "it's days are numbered."  Surely Oprah's dumping of Dr. Oz backs this up.   But other events this week show a different story.  Matt Herper at Forbes tracked down the makers of a brain enhancement supplement who were forging articles to promote their snake oil.  And have you read up on the new Republlican presidential candidates?  One of them, a neurosurgeon, says the human brain is "too complex for anyone but God."

And finally, as a follow-up to the scandal last week, we've come up with suggestions for handling a sexist reviewer.  

Join us for another episode of Gene and Tonic, our wrap on the week's news.

 



New to Mendelspod?

We advance life science research, connecting people and ideas.
Register here to receive our newsletter.

or skip signup