Idea #2: A re-thinking of Journal Publication

What is the problem?

To anyone who has published any academic papers before, the conventional publication process can be cumbersome, if not just downright inefficient and limits the pace of proliferation of knowledge. Typically, a submitted draft takes several months to review (or a full year if the first attempt fails with the first journal). Not only that, there’s no guarantee that the person (or few people) who review the paper actually is the most qualified (or even interested) on the specific topic. The limited number of reviewers also makes the reviewing process inherently subjective. There is also a lack of feedback system once the paper is published. Of course one can always email the chief author, but we lack a place where comments/thoughts about a specific paper can be efficiently aggregated. New ideas feed on other ideas to nourish; the delay, the cost involved ($112/page for authors in Applied Physics Letter!), the lack of feedback, the inadequacy of presenting idea with images and text all points to the opportunity to improve the centuries-old mode for distributing academic findings.

What is the idea?

This idea involves the use of web-based wiki software and dynamic databases to setup a non-profit online social network that allows researchers to publish their findings in a timely manner. The first part of the idea would be to build a basic social network (think Facebook for researchers) where members can list their past publications, current research interests, add others’ publication to their favorite list, comment on others’ papers. Users can also subscribe a RSS feed related to a topic of their interest (think syndication instead of publishing). A mechanism can also be built in that allows certain users with authority in a certain field (say he/she has published in the same journal before) to rate another paper. If one views journal publication’s primary function to be a filter for “better” content, this web-based model can potentially expose a single paper to many more reviewers and hence arguably provide a better filter.

The second part of the idea involves a total rethinking of the typical journal publication process. Instead of submitting for private review, researchers can now submit their first draft to this web-based portal (bearing in mind that the findings can be presented with a much richer media, such as videos, presentation slides, compared to conventional journals). In other words, the findings are published immediately after the findings are made. The traditional review process will now be replaced by the open rating system. As comments and ratings come in, the authors can choose to edit or add sections to their paper. This editing process can be tracked very effectively with wiki software and the changes made are also viewable by public.

How will the world improve with this idea?

My hope is that the proliferation of new knowledge will not be bogged down by bureaucratic inefficiencies. This non-profit online portal should instigate researchers to make public their findings in a timely fashion, while still keeping the function of giving credit to the researchers who carried out the work. Ideally, this portal should also make its dead simple for researchers to exchange ideas, comments regarding each other’s works, and provide a means to aggregate those ongoing discussions so others can also reap fruits from them.

Why do you think the adoption of this idea may begin within 5 years?

The technical barrier to entry is almost zero. Wiki software and other web programming platforms such as Ruby on Rails are open source and fairly easy to build. The main barrier lies with the users’ willingness to forego the current method of journal publication. Pre-Wikipedia years might be a harder time to put forward this idea. However, now that online social networks and user-generated/aggregated/edited content are such common place, it should be easier to convince researchers about the benefits of this “new” publication process. Prestige is another key motivation for researchers who value getting published in “good” journals. Hopefully, a vibrant and active community could also serve the same function (think top contributors in Digg.com). That said, there is still common ground for both traditional journals and such online portal to co-exist; after all, there are undeniable benefits to the end users if the editorial staff of a journal really deliver on its “filtering” and “editing” function.

What market trend or social trend will increase the need of this idea?

The trend towards digitizing content; towards users-generated content; with users having a larger say in how and what content/knowledge is being presented to them; the proliferation of internet; the decentralization of content distribution; the rise of Creative Commons all points to the eventual adoption of a web-based, users-modulated portal for the publication and distribution of scientific knowledge.

What do you think?