Re: A proposal for a decentralized, peer-reviewed academic journal system for the Web

On 1/14/13 9:58 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>     So how about it researchers of the world, would you publish all of
>     your research through such a system?

Inspiring post Manu.

Three thoughts:

1. My own perspective.
(sorry to be long-winded about myself, but you hit the nail right on 
the head for me, and I think you need to know all this to understand 
my position):

Coming from an undergrad science background (engineering, which I left 
before completing the degree), I was faced with health challenges that 
mainstream medicine couldn't help, so for 10 years I did my own 
research and amassed a large library of biomedical journal articles, 
mostly in toxicology and immunology. On the basis of what I found I 
published about 4 papers circa 15 years ago, the main one fully 
peer-reviewed in a major journal (NIH's Environmental Health 
Perspectives), the others editor-reviewed, also in well-known 
mainstream journals. (You can find my peer-reviewed one, online free 
full text at the NIH site, using my name through the PubMed database; 
link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9539008). After this I was 
officially offered membership in the NY Academy of Sciences and the 
American Chemical Society, and was asked to peer-review other papers 
in my field by other journals.
     I did one set of peer-review, and asked to be paid for it, 
explaining that I had no income whatsoever and was working outside the 
university system, using the new Internet tools to search and find my 
information. After an intense exchange of emails, the editor at that 
journal did in fact pay me for the peer-review, while letting me know 
that no-one gets paid for peer-review, and that he was paying me from 
his own pocket.

After this experience I took stock of my situation: I got paid nothing 
for the result of many years of work, even though this work had been 
accepted in one of the world's three main journals on the subject and 
was the reason I was being asked to peer-review; and nothing for 
peer-reviewing such work (realized I couldn't continue to ask editors 
to pay me for the peer-reviews). And I had another major monograph on 
the subject in progress. It was a tough decision.

I squirmed around a bit, which I'll spare you; but in the end I 
shelved the monograph after the first draft, quit doing the research, 
refused the membership in the associations, and refused several other 
requests for peer review (the last one, amazingly, arriving as late as 
one year ago -- the system has a very long memory for the people it 
allows in, apparently).

In the end I couldn't be part of such a strange system: take all my 
work, ask for more, make me a peer-reviewer, and pay me nothing. Too 
strange.

So, first, from my own perspective: go for it Manu. I sure as hell 
needed it. Maybe I would start publishing again. Probably: I have 
folders full of leads to be followed, that I can't help thinking about.

2. Mainstream Researchers.
I haven't been one of these, so I'll speculate only briefly: if you're 
being paid $70k per year for an academic or biomedical position in an 
institution, your position is politically and financially the reverse 
of mine. The open system might seem ethically sound, but unless it's 
obviously financially sound there will be no (selfish) reason to jump 
to it. Additionally problematic: the implication of the new system's 
success, if it is succeeding, is that the university/institutional 
system may not be required for certain levels and types of abstract 
thought; that advances can come just by people considering ideas and 
doing thought experiments with them. If people can get fairly paid for 
such work then the university/institutional system will lose some of 
its power (and money).
    So, it may be, as you say, a political choice for people on the 
payroll of such institutions, and I suspect most will be against your 
outlined open system for this reason, until it becomes necessary to 
jump ship.

3. Do it anyway.
There doesn't seem to be a better option as far as I'm concerned. It 
needs to be done. I believe a large number of researchers, 
particularly younger ones accustomed to the open concept but also 
older disgruntled ones like myself, will use it immediately. It only 
remains to be seen whether it will be widely enough accepted that the 
bulk of mainstream researchers will move to it. I think it will, 
eventually. Maybe it's a similar situation to that of the oil 
companies and the alternative energy sources: we all realize it will 
happen. The entrenched institutions are fighting for their large piece 
of the pie.
     If, as you say Manu, PaySwarm already has this available in its 
core architecture, then I think the time is right to start it.

Steven Rowat

Received on Monday, 14 January 2013 20:58:41 UTC