62

Many of you will know that, whether per subscription fees or via open access models, there is a ridiculously absurd amount of money flowing to many big (or medium-size) publishers for getting our research outputs (i.e. papers, etc.) published in high-quality venues in the field.

The problem: Content and peer reviews (I think, the most important artifacts from a scientific point of view) are delivered largely for free and voluntarily. In some fields, such as math, physics, CS, EE, and related, even proper camera-ready type setting (e.g. via LaTeX) is also very often done by the researchers themselves. Moreover, in fact, the downstream (i.e. after-acceptance) editorial process in traditional publishing companies is nowadays (for a number of reasons I don't want to elaborate on here) more likely to introduce faults through the various conversions and process stages that are involved. I'm speaking not only of my own experience but have even seen publications that have been corrected using post-prints, personal copies of authors, etc.

So, my question again: Can't we just extend well-known and widely-used archival platforms such as arXiv, biorXiv, zenodo.org, etc. with a light-weight infrastructure to perform peer review (e.g. via an integration with EasyChair or the like and building up editorial teams) and transfer the whole peer review life-cycle from established publishers (with over the years questionably evolved business models) to such platforms? A tiny fraction of the (mostly tax payers') money currently flowing to such publishers would be invested in running the mentioned infrastructure. My naive assumption is that no relevant quality loss (if not even a gain in quality) is to be expected in certain fields of science after an appropriate ramp-up phase.

The only relevant issue, I can see for now, is the issue of a lacking reputation or trustworthiness of such a platform as a publishing venue where, I suppose, it will be a matter of time for this issue to be overcome.

One of the reasons why I am asking is because I think that the mentioned amounts of money can be better invested in science for the public than it is now. A question (totally obvious to me) that I've pondered over for a long time but was afraid to ask. Thanks for your thoughts on these, I apologise, probably too progressive and naive ideas. Fortunately, similar concerns are shared elsewhere.

In response to some of the comments: Archival has very little to do with publishing. This question is about modern peer-reviewed publishing. Please, also note that with this question I very much value professional editorial work and am looking for solutions in support of EiCs, editorial committees, and reviewers. By no means is this question to be understood in any way as a critique of any of the work done by EiCs, editorial committees, and peer reviewers, not at all. If so then it was definitely not my intention.

mfg
  • 1,453
  • 15
  • 22
  • 2
    That doesn't seem so different from OA journals. A related question might then be why we haven't all moved to OA journals and/or whether OA journals have indeed contributed to resolving the problems you mention. – henning Aug 30 '21 at 09:56
  • 5
    Right. So, if you mean by OA journals the journals of big publishers with e.g. gold OA option or OA journals (e.g. registered on DOAJ), both strategies often charging significant APCs, then I'd say, problems have not really been solved well. I suppose, arXiv + peer-review should still be much cheaper after a quick ballpark figure. – mfg Aug 30 '21 at 10:48
  • 10
    There is a lot of administrative work associated with peer review for a large journal. It's one thing to be program chair for a large conference once (or once every several years). It's another thing to handle 10 times that volume every year on an ongoing basis. It really is a situation requiring a paid staff person. – Alexander Woo Aug 30 '21 at 19:38
  • 1
    @Alexander: Absolutely, there needs to be staff to handle some administrative tasks and possibly an EiC will need to be paid. But, I suppose, a full-time paid post or two per journal are well within the range of costs we are talking about here. – mfg Aug 30 '21 at 20:03
  • 3
    "Can't we just ... ?" Yes, and people do it. – cheersmate Aug 30 '21 at 20:18
  • 1
    @cheersmate: Awesome! That's exactly what I was looking for. Brilliant. – mfg Aug 30 '21 at 20:26
  • 22
    "even proper camera-ready type setting (e.g. via LaTeX) is also very often done by the researchers themselves." This is common in math, physics (?) CS and related fields. Over all of "science" it's not "very often." The vast majority of academics do not know how to use LaTeX. – Azor Ahai -him- Aug 30 '21 at 20:46
  • 2
    The entire editorial process might not be as cheap as you think. As an example, see the financial overview of PLOS, a non-profit running several reputable journals. Their APCs are easily €/$/£2000, yet they don't seem to be drowning in money. – TooTea Aug 30 '21 at 20:56
  • 2
    @TooTea I suspect they spend a lot on stuff that an arXiv overlay journal just wouldn't need. The ballpark of actual costs I've heard is more in the £200 range. – Arno Aug 30 '21 at 21:05
  • 3
    @Azor Ahai -him-: I don't think we are discussing "all academics" here, just those in STEM fields. If there are a few who don't understand LaTeX, they can learn. It's probably far easier (IMHO) that whatever they're using now. And if they don't want to bother, they can hire an undergraduate RA to transcribe their quill pen originals :-) – jamesqf Aug 30 '21 at 21:44
  • 27
    @jamesqf There's a trend on this site that people assume everyone knows LaTeX because this site's demography is fed by SO, Math.SE, etc. I can assure you, even if you take "in STEM fields" (and not the humanities, who have the same problem, so idk why we're excluding them) the vast majority do not know LaTeX and haven't heard of it. I love LaTeX, but I come from a programming-ish background. It is not easier than using Word ... If the field doesn't use LaTeX, where are they going to get URAs who know it? – Azor Ahai -him- Aug 30 '21 at 22:03
  • 22
    People suggest LaTeX all the time, but frankly, even though I like it, I don't want to spend all my time formatting my articles instead of analyzing and doing research. The answer to "Why don't we have scientists typeset their own articles?" is "Most scientists don't know any typesetting software." – Azor Ahai -him- Aug 30 '21 at 22:05
  • 3
    This is all distinct from the main thrust of the question, which my comments aren't addressing, to be clear. – Azor Ahai -him- Aug 30 '21 at 22:07
  • 2
    @Azor Ahai -him-: You need to consider what I said in context. While I know very little of humanities publishing, open access seems much less of a thing there. And if people writing papers don't know typesetting software, then just what the heck are they using to write? Quill pens, as I jokingly suggested? Typewriters? Even fer gawdsakes Microsoft Word? – jamesqf Aug 31 '21 at 04:24
  • 2
    I was voting to close but my vote closed the question entirely, so I retracted the close vote. I think this question is a duplicate, or at least closely related to, Why are journals used in modern scientific academic research? – Allure Aug 31 '21 at 04:52
  • 16
    -1 because this question keeps getting asked by people who think papers are really interesting and they should be paid more to write, edit, and review them even though the average paper is read by no more than 10 people. If anyone thinks they can do it better, try setting up an arXiv overlay journal and maintain it till it becomes self-sustaining. Don't point at the arXiv overlay journals that already exist; that's like pointing at Messi and saying it's easy to earn £500,000/week playing soccer. Set up your own journal. – Allure Aug 31 '21 at 05:14
  • 5
    @Allure: I do not think the question you pointed to is a duplicate. Moreover, archival of preprints or other artifacts should definitely not be mistaken with peer-reviewed publishing. Just using arXiv is by far not enough. I'm suggesting something different, please, reread the question. Also, I do indeed think papers are really interesting, but we need to create an environment where this principle is supported and not violated. If, as you refer to, they are only read by 10 people on avg., why do tax payers then accept such APCs/costs for getting them published? – mfg Aug 31 '21 at 08:01
  • 3
    @Mario Who are these "tax payers" to which you keep referring? I would hazard that the total number of "tax payers" who are not academics who know about this is as close to zero as to be equivalent. – CGCampbell Aug 31 '21 at 12:42
  • 6
    @CGCampbell: E.g., in the German system, universities (and most libraries even outside unis) are to a very large extent funded by tax payers' money, which I think is a very good thing in general. Hence, I'm referring to those people, most of them, as you correctly point out, will have no clue whatsoever about how much of their money is wasted in APCs and subscription fees due to obsoleted publishing business models. I'm also such a tax payer myself. – mfg Aug 31 '21 at 12:50
  • 1
    @jamesqf Ah, tone is hard to read over text. I didn't realize the whole comment was a joke, I just thought the last sentence was. – Azor Ahai -him- Aug 31 '21 at 14:12
  • 2
    @Azor Ahai -him-: No, the whole comment was not a joke. It was quite serious: even if people wanting to publish papers don't know LaTeX, it is simple to learn enough to do most formatting. At the most basic, you just include your on-line journal's format package. – jamesqf Aug 31 '21 at 18:59
  • 1
    @jamesqf In that case, I have nothing further to add to the points I already made – Azor Ahai -him- Aug 31 '21 at 19:05
  • @Mario If, as you refer to, they are only read by 10 people on avg., why do tax payers then accept such APCs/costs for getting them published? I feel like you already know the answer to your question. Let's word it differently. If a funding agency were to ask you "why should we fund your work when it's read by only 10 people", what do you say? – Allure Aug 31 '21 at 20:22
  • @Allure: Right, there are a number of justified questions to be asked, no doubt. I am happy to avoid wasting my funding/time for voluntary reviews and pay from this very funding to publish my own work. But coming back to my question here, whether a paper is read, cited, published, etc. does in a specific field often say little about it's relevance or irrelevance. Overall, I have the feeling that many of us agree on the need and usefulness of the proposed change, and even better, that such a change will be easier to implement than expected. – mfg Sep 01 '21 at 07:31
  • 3
    Your comment illustrates exactly why I downvoted - it is what on the Politics.SE would be considered a "push question" that isn't actually meant to ask a question but rather to advance a particular viewpoint. Also, if you really believe that "many of us agree on the need and usefulness of the proposed change", and that it "will be easier to implement than expected", as I wrote above - set up your own journal. – Allure Sep 01 '21 at 08:27
  • @Allure: I have led/organised several events and PCs in my field, currently I don't see myself in a position to create a journal from nothing, as a nobody. Unlike programming SEs following the Q&Solution pattern, I've misunderstood Academia.SE as a platform to share thoughts and opinions. I do definitely not intend to advance a particular view but pinpoint an arguably severe problem of our academic systems, mea culpa, from the narrow CS perspective. Suggestions to move this discussion to elsewhere are appreciated. If you think, my question is worth being deleted from SE, please, go ahead. – mfg Sep 01 '21 at 11:07
  • 1
    @Allure: My conjecture is that the reasons for a reputable EiC/journal committee to stick with a traditional publisher (under nowadays conditions and contexts) are IMHO rather artificial. That conjecture can be well interpreted as my (maybe unjustified) view or it can turn out that this observation of a few people here is actually a quite general one. And that the discussed change/solution might be against others' interests is totally clear. – mfg Sep 01 '21 at 11:21
  • 3
    @Mario read your comments again - you've said you're a nobody, but you also know better than reputable EiC/journal committees, and the reason your model hasn't been widely adopted is because it goes against unnamed others' interests. Your two comments come across as so rude that I will not comment further. I'll only repeat what I wrote above: if you think you can do it better, try setting up an arXiv overlay journal and maintain it till it becomes self-sustaining. – Allure Sep 01 '21 at 15:18
  • 1
    @Allure: I've neither meant to be rude, and I think I wasn't, nor did I mean to say that I know anything better than EiCs/journal committees. But I do have an informed opinion from soon two decades of experience that I feel should be expressed in form of a question. I'm sincerely sorry if that opinion differs from yours. But I felt it worthwhile asking my question and hoping for a solution to a real problem that, I know for damn sure, many academics in my field seem to experience in very much the same way I am experiencing it. Thank you for your suggestion of starting a journal. – mfg Sep 01 '21 at 15:58
  • 1
    I work at a non-profit that publishes research performed on behalf of utilities, foundations, municipalities, etc. We are one of many, such as the Rocky Mountain Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council, etc. We don't use a formal peer-review process, and being outside of academia would not be considered by typical journals unless we're partnering with academics. I wonder if there could be an avenue through arXiv to get our work reviewed and published? Adding this whole body of research could create demand that would attract others who are interested in this work. – LShaver Sep 02 '21 at 02:04
  • @LShaver The arXiv itself is only for storing/disseminating the preprints, in a limited range of subjects (https://arxiv.org/category_taxonomy). But I think the question of what steps you'd need to take to turn what you have into an academic journal might be a very interesting one. Please post it! – Arno Sep 02 '21 at 16:09

3 Answers3

64

There are Diamond open access journals (which are free to both author and reader) run as arXiv overlay journals. An example in my area is Logical Methods in Computer Science, which is generally well-regarded in the field (and indexed whereever it needs to be).

Besides the already existing journals, there also seem to be plans for additional journals of this type to better cover the various disciplines. However, founding a new journal takes a lot of effort from a team of respected (and thus very busy) academics. Early on, it will not be on all indices and thus less attractive to the unfortunate amongst us whose administrations force these issues. Taking an established journal away from a publisher to move to this framework is, even where possible, a radical act and usually pure inertia will stand in its way.

Nevertheless, my sentiment is that Diamond open access (with arXiv providing the long-term storage) is the way to go; and I believe that this is a rather popular perspective.

Despite being lightweight, an arXiv overlay journal still has some monetary costs. They seem to be enough to be an issue, but also to pale in comparison to journal subscriptions or open access charges by commercial publishers. My best guess why institutions/governments aren't more eager to support them is that traditional publishers have a lot of lobbying power, while arguing pro-Diamond open access is more of a hobby.

Arno
  • 43,962
  • 8
  • 123
  • 169
  • 1
    Thanks, Arno. Very good points, I haven't been aware of Diamond OA. So, there is also EPTCS (http://info.eptcs.org/), which is well integrated with arXiv for peer-reviewed workshops and conferences run e.g. using EasyChair. EPTCS would indeed also follow that model while not being a journal, though. But your example and mine seem to be among the currently still very few exceptions. There are costs, indeed, but the question is how many orders of magnitude less ;) – mfg Aug 30 '21 at 10:51
  • 3
    Another example: https://scipost.org/ – Anonymous Physicist Aug 30 '21 at 14:48
  • Another example: The Open Journal of Astrophysics. – Vectornaut Aug 31 '21 at 01:00
  • How do these "journals" effectively reject poor submissions? Would this not create a conflict of interest in some cases if the decision is done by the same people who submit their own stuff to the journal? – And Aug 31 '21 at 13:08
  • 20
    @And You seem to be under some kind of misapprehension. There is no reason for scare quotes here. The refereeing process works in exactly the same way as any other journal. Whether or not a journal accepts submissions by editors has nothing to do with whether it is Diamond OA/arXiv overlay/published by a society/published by a commercial publisher/printed/online only/etc. – Arno Aug 31 '21 at 13:18
  • There are overlay journals, there could also be overlay platforms. Example of a defunct experiment: the Selected Papers Network: https://gowers.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/the-selected-papers-network/ – Sylvain Ribault Sep 01 '21 at 07:29
  • 2
    It is not at all clear that prepublication peer review adds value to the process. Perhaps it mainly serves as an entry barrier without which journal publishing would not be profitable. This is what the open access model suggests. – Dan Fox Sep 01 '21 at 17:26
56

tl;dr: we could, but we won't, because we're in a Nash equilibrium.

It would be the better outcome for all involved parties (except the traditional publishers) if we would find ourselves in the situation that you sketch. However, if a few individual parties make a move towards the optimum, while others all stick with the current strategy, the few movers lose. Hence, the change is unlikely to happen.

Suppose that you're a PhD student, who seeks a decent venue for their next publication. You can either go for arXiv, where science is free, or you can go for a traditional venue, where it is not. In a few years, however, you might want to apply for a tenure-track position at some top university, and the competition will be fierce. Most of your competitors will still go for the traditional publication venues, even if you move on. Current practice at hiring committees is to look for candidates with many publications at the top venues, which is typically measured by traditional journals and conferences. Why would you run the risk of having your best work not recognized by future hiring committees? Surely, you shouldn't run the risk of kneecapping your own future employability, so submission to traditional venues it is.

Suppose that you're a tenure-tracker, who seeks tenure. You want to apply for grants that bolster your tenure application. To get those grants, it helps if you can show that the community considers you an expert in the field. How do you establish your name as an expert in the field? For instance, by serving on the program committees of the top conferences, or becoming a member of the editorial board of the top journals in your field. You may consider reviewing for arXiv, but there is only one tenured spot at your university; the four other tenure-trackers with whom you must compete will all review for the top journals/conferences at the traditional publishers. Surely, you shouldn't run the risk of not getting tenure, so reviewing for traditional venues it is.

Suppose that you're tenured. This is the moment! You have freedom, so now you can finally be the change you want to see in the world! But hold on, you're writing research papers together with a new batch of PhD students who all would like to be tenure-trackers someday, and you apply for funding jointly with tenure-trackers who all would like to be tenured today. Will you run the risk of kneecapping your direct colleagues for the sake of your principles?

In all these examples, it's not impossible to advance in a scientific career while moving along the arXiv path. In all these examples, it's probably over-the-top to characterize choosing the arXiv path as kneecapping yourself and your coworkers; any real damage may be subtle and small. The point is, though, that the academic career ladder is murderously competitive, and every little bit just might help edge out your competitors. It stands to reason that not many people would allow themselves to risk any disadvantages in this fierce competition, and hence I see no path to get from the current situation to the situation you suggest.

  • 5
    Valid analysis. Imporant point: "You have freedom, so now you can finally be the change you want to see in the world!" Replace [You] by [EiC of a top journal] (typically tenured) who takes their freedom to move their editorial committee (overnight) to arXiv (with a little bit of preparation), advertises for it, and within months everyone in the field WANTS to publish there, and hiring committees will quickly notice and value that. Not far-fetched, I'd say, but, again, your analysis is valid, though being pessimistic with respect to the inertia of the system. Sure, EiCs could be bribed to stay. – mfg Aug 30 '21 at 15:02
  • 4
    "murderously competitive" is certainly true. As you mentioned that from a game-theoretic viewpoint, I wonder about the extent to which this is actually necessary and even caused/reinforced by the publishing industry... – mfg Aug 30 '21 at 15:05
  • 12
    Very good analysis, in my opinion. This dynamic is what strongly inhibits many changes. And, yes, surely the for-profit publishing industry finds no reason to help jolt us out of this unfortunate equilibrium. – paul garrett Aug 30 '21 at 19:35
  • 11
    @Mario the scenario you sketch of the EiC of a top journal going rogue is a potentially plausible one, and quite similar to the founding of the Journal of Machine Learning Research. This happened in 2001, when 40 members of the editorial board of Springer's journal "Machine Learning" resigned (letter can be seen here: http://sigir.org/files/forum/F2001/sigirFall01Letters.html ) in protest against the hefty fees Springer charged; they founded JMLR as an open-access alternative. So it's not impossible, but such change is rare and slow. –  Aug 30 '21 at 19:37
  • 2
    Thanks, Wetenshaap, for another nice example, I've even heard of this journal, though not being active in that field. I very much believe such change is possible within the medium term, it just needs quite a few more nudges and, of course, platforms like arXiv need to provide further features/integrations with other tools. No change without effort and costs, for sure. But you can do hell of a lot with 100s of Mios of subscription fees and APCs. – mfg Aug 30 '21 at 19:58
  • you may find this interesting: How did Astronomers mostly(?) agree to publish arXiv preprints along with peer-reviewed Journals? Was there pushback? and of course its obligatory XKCD. In some answers and comments there is mention of publishing preprints in arXiv receiving helpful (but in this case informal) review. – uhoh Aug 31 '21 at 00:24
  • The intermediate step probably involves respected tenured people setting up mid-level field-specific open-access journals (impact factor 2-5, where you put decent but not world-changing papers). Rather than jumping straight to replacing Science and Nature. There's less of a barrier to that but it probably has to happen one subfield at a time. – DavidW Aug 31 '21 at 13:49
  • 1
    @Mario as another answer briefly mentions, publishers have a lot of lobbying power, and it certainly helps them that metrics like impact factor are used in assessing universities and research proposals. But I was really hoping another answer would cover this aspect of if (I don't know enough of the gory details to write one myself - beyond knowing that they're gory), that I could upvote. – James_pic Sep 01 '21 at 10:18
  • @James_pic I'm well aware of the bibliometric circus, but in my field hiring committees these days put much less weight on h-index and other ECR-killers, so there is some hope. Quantity is unfortunately still relevant. I think, putting thoughts and critique in form of answers rather than in the comments might give them more light. – mfg Sep 01 '21 at 11:16
  • 2
    While all of this is true and the inertia indeed impacts any sort of change in academia, I feel like you could have used the same points a decade or two ago to argue why the whole open-access idea won't ever fly. However, there are many counterexamples by now (say, some PLOS journals are among the top in their fields). It's just inertia that slows down progress, not an equilibrium that would force the system back to where it was upon any disturbance. – TooTea Sep 01 '21 at 13:14
  • @TooTea You're not wrong, but your argument suffers from survivorship bias. If the scientific community would come up with twenty good ideas to change aspects of science for the better, we'd be lucky if one of them is indeed adopted. Just because you can point at one idea that was partially adopted, doesn't mean that the deck isn't stacked overwhelmingly against change. It's not impossible, but it is improbable. –  Sep 01 '21 at 19:09
  • 1
    This answer adequately describes why individual authors cannot drive such a change. But there's still the possibility that the scientific leadership of top journals and conferences can drive the change, by turning away from traditional publishers. That's what we see in positive examples, like the Diamond OA journal in the current top answer. – lighthouse keeper Sep 02 '21 at 15:06
  • 3
    Interestingly, we are now seeing a "K-shaped" dynamics here, with some subjects (such as algebraic combinatorics or category theory) now having most of their topical journals open-access, while others, even ones that are very close (e.g., noncommutative algebra or representation theory) have none. I'm wondering what the causes of this might be. – darij grinberg Sep 02 '21 at 18:09
  • 1
    @Wetenschaap Yes. More examples can be found at http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Journal_declarations_of_independence – Nemo Sep 03 '21 at 09:04
6

If you restrict attention to areas like pure math, where papers are mainly text with equations, then Arvix overlay journals can work really well. However, different areas of science have needs that are not so compatible with the Arxiv. Of course, other preprint servers might work.

One problem is with supplemental files. Consider the supplemental videos and how they appear one this webpage of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Nice descriptions, links to forms for copyright permission. Now consider the supplemental videos in this preprint of the arxiv. All you get is a title.

Images on the arxiv are another issue. A few of my papers I did not post on the arxiv as the images do not compress well and I did not want to fiddle with creating low-resolution images just to get the figures small enough for the arxiv. (The size limits used to be smaller.)

Recently the Arxiv has added the "papers with code" feature, but this mostly assumes hosting the code elsewhere.

I think the needs of journals are too diverse to count on overlay journals to cover too much of math and science.

Terry Loring
  • 8,568
  • 1
  • 23
  • 38
  • 1
    Recently (actually, apparently it was a little over a year ago) arXiv increased the default size limit to 50 MB, so having too large images (or too many) should be much rarer than it used to be. – Anyon Sep 05 '21 at 00:35
  • @Anyon Good to know about the increase. Thanks. – Terry Loring Sep 05 '21 at 03:12
  • @TerryLoring Absolutely, arXiv would need a bunch of further features, such as support for supplemental material (videos, code, data) and further meta-data. I like https://zenodo.org in this regard. And the possibility to add comments/post-pub peer reviews. I like https://pubpeer.org in that regard. Overall, I don't think that the required implementation of such features in arXiv would be a showstopper for the suggested change/solutions. arXiv seems to be on its way to widen its applicability for Diamond OA journals and the like. – mfg Sep 06 '21 at 14:27
  • In a software as a service world, one could organise peer reviews via EasyChair, forward papers to arXiv (like eptcs.org), upload supplemental materials to zenodo.org, code to bitbucket, and allow post-publication discussions on pubpeer. And arXiv or someone else could provide an interface that collects and distributes the data. Funding for such a project should be acquirable. – mfg Sep 06 '21 at 14:34