Scholarly Publication and Research Policy Rector Georg Winckler University of Vienna

Content Current publication practice – differences among scientific fields The impact of publication practice and peer review Publications in peer reviewed journals “Other publications” Trends  Open Peer Review, Electronic Publications, Open Publications (PLOS) The two cultures Policy recommendations

I) Current Publication Praxis Substantial differences between the scientific fields “two cultures” (C. P. Snow 1959). International publications in medicine, sciences, social sciences and economics: publications of articles in international peer reviewed journals are common. This does not imply that books are of no importance. In the humanities and in the allied field publications in journals are not as usual as in the sciences. Books and Monographs are highly important. Problem: An increasing gap between the “two cultures”.

The impact of scholar publications Impact on the career of individuals Impact on the development of scientific fields Impact on the funding (distribution of resources within an organisation as well as the availability of soft money) Impact on the perception of scientific work in the public

Advantages and Perils of Publications in Peer Reviewed Journals I. Advantages Proof of methodological validity of an article Increasing quality of a paper through peer comments “Honest” comments of peers –fair treatment of authors Detection of scientific misconduct External “objective” advice for the editors (and policy makers, when deciding on quality. Many peer reviewed journals are “international” (SSCI, SCI listed) – articles could be easily found and most of the articles are electronically available The relevance of journals, (scientific fields), articles and authors can be judged through bibliometric analysis Public visibility through the reputation of journals (e.g. nature, science )

Advantages and Perils of Publications in Peer Reviewed Journals II. Perils Innovative and new approaches may not pass peer review (Akerlof, G. A. 1970, Fehr 2004). A “hidden” competition among reviewers and authors (especially in small fields)  in the worst case “blocking” a competitor (Rocha 2001) Mutual nepotism (especially in small fields) Reviewers may lack competence, time or both Reviews often take too long (endangering the careers of young scientists)

“Other publications ” Advantages Innovative approaches are not endangered through non- objective peer review. No space limit No language restrictions No time consuming review process

“Other publications” II. Perils No external quality assurance before publication (scientific and methodological) Highly self-referential system with the danger of over emphasising “local aspects” No prior detection of scientific misconduct Could be hard to find and read literature (language) and could be harder to built up international collaborations. Lower visibility of research in the public The relevance of journals (scientific fields) articles and authors can NOT be judged through bibliometric analyses

Trends Improving peer review – “Open peer review” Electronic publications – electronic journals Open publications

Open Peer Review The review of papers usually takes place behind close doors, could be process be improved if opened? In the worst case peer review could be perceived as follows (Smith 1999): “a court with an unidentified judge makes us think immediately on the world of Franz Kafka”. Advantages*: Papers are more open discussed – often a peers get in touch with authors - Lacking of competence and time will soon be obvious Perils*: Judgement of a work might be influenced by the power of the author- Especially young scientist might judge a paper of a more powerful older college not honestly (this would be a pity, because it is known that young scientists are among the best reviewers) * Nature 2002, Nature Neuroscience1999

Open Publications Not the reader pays for publication, but the author In the field of biology and medicine “The public library of sciences PLOS” started in 2003 with an open publications on the internet. The authors have to pay 1500$ for an article: Advantages: No restriction to get access to the newest finding in science – fast distribution of information Disadvantages and perils: Commercial success unclear. If the paper is not in line with the research policy of an institution the author might get no money for publications (a grant normally doesn’t pay for publications)

Chance to Overcome the Gap between the “Two Cultures”? On a first glance the gap seems to widen, but through increasing collaborations (for instance linguistics, neurobiology and cognition) the gap decreases through a mutual understanding. Fields which usually published “regionally” get more and more encouraged to publish internationally, for instance through EU research programs And the overall quality might be improved essentially if the “two cultures” cooperate to get a broader and deeper view of a problem (Nowotny 1999). Following Snow, that the breakdown of communication between the sciences and humanities might be a major hindrance in solving the “world’s problems”.

Policy Recommendations Ensuring a fair publication process – especially for young scientist Ensuring that new and creative work has a fair chance to get known and visible Ensuring that scientific work has an worldwide impact Increasing worldwide participation in the “production of knowledge”  (Eastern Europe developing countries) Ensuring that scientific work has an impact on policy makers. Avoiding fragmentation of disciplines If a “University Press” is established it should guarantee the highest scientific quality (in German: “keine Hauspostilien”)