How Open-Access Journals Are Transforming Science

Academic publishers are locking up the latest research behind paywalls and hurting science, says Michael Eisen. We spoke with the co-founder of the Public Library of Science about democratizing scientific progress.

----------------

Michael Eisen's goal is to change the way scientific findings are disseminated. Most research papers today are locked behind paywalls, and access can cost hundreds of dollars per article. The general public, and most scientists, don't have comprehensive access to the most up-to-date research, even though much of it is funded by U.S. taxpayers.

"It's a completely ridiculous system," says Eisen, an acclaimed biologist at UC Berkeley, an independent candidate for Senate in California running against Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D), and a co-founder of the Public Library of Science, or PLOS, which publishes some of the largest and most prestigious academic journals in the world. These publications stand out for another reason: They're open access, meaning that anyone with an internet connection can read them for free.

PLOS seeks to break up the academic publishing cartel, and it's a leading force in the so-called open science movement, which aims to give the public access to cutting-edge research and democratize scientific progress. This movement became widely publicized after famed hacker and Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz sought to upend the publishing system by uploading millions of articles for free; he was prosecuted relentlessly, and ultimately committed suicide in 2013.

Eisen first thought he could simply convince his fellow scientists to start uploading their work, but that didn't work because universities and funding agencies use journals as a proxy for quality. They base tenure and award decisions in large part on how many articles a researcher publishes, and on the reputations of the publishers.

To encourage a switch in researchers' thinking, PLOS's first journal, PLOS Biology, attempted to emulate what Eisen describes as the "snooty" journals such as Science and Nature, which generate prestige in part by rejecting most submitted papers. PLOS Biology became well regarded and provided a proof of concept for PLOS's model, in which funding agencies or universities pay a flat fee up front (typically $1,500, but adjusted based on ability to pay) that's then made accessible for free.

The multidisciplinary journal PLOS ONE, created in 2006, used this same model to become the largest academic publication in the world, though it's been surpassed by other open access sources. PLOS ONE puts papers through a fairly typical peer review process, but it doesn't ask editors to determine a paper's importance; the journal will publish any study that follows sound science and reports its data. According to Eisen, this model encourages more thorough experiments, rather than flashy results that aren't reproducible, and allows readers to determine whether a particular study is important and valid.

Reason spoke with Eisen at the BioHack the Planet Conference in Oakland, a gathering for DIY scientists known as biohackers who eschew traditional research institutions. They often carry out experiments in garage labs and share their raw findings on the internet in real time, a publishing model to which Eisen believes all scientists should aspire.

Eisen also discussed why scientists and universities continue to prop up the academic publishing monopoly, how scientific progress suffers from the current regime, why he's running for senate as an independent, why he beleives political parties are obsolete, and the way forward for the open science movement.

[georgeapplegate]

Government research grants should forbid publication of research in only paywalled journals. Journals like Nature and Science require that submissions not be available to the public. That must end.

[deuteriumjones]

Christopher Hitchens said he became a journalist so he wouldn't have to trust the news to tell him the real story. That's why I became a scientist.

[pokiejackson]

Open-Source... This is not complicated. If you want a problem solved... let everyone on the planet have a go...

[Ultrajamz]

The problem is the grant funding; how do you justify your grants? "Look at where I published..."

[jonesalex]

There're a lot of open access journals by the way. A good reason to publish on them is it means more people read it.
Which is the point.

[und_ed]

What the interviewer has not mentioned (and is imo negligent for not tackling) is the problem of "predatory journals". So many f the open-access journals are not properly peer-reviewed, and simply spam people looking for content to charge researchers to publish. No reputable institution will credit such publications, and a habit of publishing in such locations will actively harm a researcher's career.

For open-access journals to gain any real traction the problem of predatory journals needs to be tackled. If anything this has become worse over time instead of better, as harassment from these parasites has led to shutting of resources to differentiate predatory from non-predatory publications such as Beall's list.

[OMGWERDOOMED]

Dr. Alvin Weinberg, director of Oak Ridge National Lab, invented his preferred civilian nuclear reactor for passive safety at low pressures. Search Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE).

[OverLordthest]

College student here - our students government just meet with other SG groups throughout texas so we can get public funding for open access textbooks. I am a small l libertarian because there are certain things that the private sector is annoying at. Never open access means more competition in the market driving down prices

[GrandAdmiral]

Yea that is one thing that was irritating when doing research

[Eukatae]

Another winner from Reason. You can smell the sarcasm, right?

[brianronan]

Interesting video, but I'd like to clarify the description of the differences in the peer-review process between open access journals and traditional journals. Peer-review in specific paid journals is done by scientists who are expert in the field of the article being published. Open-access journals do not have experts in every field to verify the validity of the data published, so their peer-review process is necessarily less rigorous. Other good points were made about the value of open access journals in the video however, especially for providing a platform for valuable, unsupported science.

[Unassuming_Gay]

Oh wow, access to verified, open information is revolutionizing the world. The written press you say ? The same concept you say ? And it only took us a shit ton of time you say ?

.... xD

[AshwiniBDevi]

Why do an open access journal do charge an author?

[cesarmarolla]

Fine. Open access is good. However, for authors without financial support it is quite expensive to publish. The idea is great but not pragmatic across all areas across all researchers.

[germancarranza]

This guys said that political parties are bad but he also said that people "should form coalitions around ideas". I'm so confused lol...

[onyadam]

I keep my university e-mail account so access this stuff. Lucky for me duke university is in the same city

[germancarranza]

Regulations always make things worst. If you don't like something about society than use the free market to change it. Persuade people to change but don't dare to use the government to make things worst and take our freedoms away.

[KiiroSagi]

Non-subsidised scientists have the right to make a profit of their findings.

[coopersmout]

We're developing a collective action platform to help researchers drive change in the publishing system. Pledge to change your publishing behaviours (e.g. publish exclusively open access), but only after a critical mass of support is reached in your field. Check out freeourknowledge.org for more info and to make a pledge today!

[sanyaua]

He wouldn't win as a republican in California that's why he runs as independent