Thoughts on Publishing Survey - how can we improve scientific publishing?

Public Deposited
Analytics

Downloadable Content

Download PDF
Request Version for Screen Reader
Creator
  • Pimentel, Ricky
  • Paxton, Roger
    • Other Affiliation: Children’s Hospital Colorado
Abstract
  • There are various pathways for scientists to share their work, but the most important method is the peer-reviewed manuscript. Lately, publishing in academic journals has become more competitive and time consuming, but fraudulent work and errors still occur in many journals. We propose an alternative publishing model that fits within our current model and could improve access to readers and support more efficient review. The goal of thoughts on publishing survey (TOPS) is to measure satisfaction levels of the current publishing model, propose an alternative publishing model, obtain feedback on the new model, and learn more about quality scientific articles and peer review. With this feedback, we highlight some areas that may improve publishing, for the reader, writer, and reviewer. We also assess the acceptance of an alternative model and identify ways that it could be implemented. Whatever scientific publishing may look like in the future, consumers and producers of these works should keep the goal in mind: “How can we make the peer-reviewed manuscript fit our workload and budget, and improve its value and reach to foster scientific advancement?”
Date of publication
Keyword
DOI
Resource type
  • Article
Rights statement
  • No Copyright - United States
License
  • Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States
Language
  • English
Is the article or chapter peer-reviewed?
  • No
Location
  • Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
Publisher
  • UNC

Relations

Parents:

This work has no parents.

Items

Thumbnail Title Date Uploaded Visibility Actions
file details TOPS_Manuscript.pdf 2019-10-06 Public Download