7 Habits of the Open Scientist #3: Pre-publication dissemination of research

Note: this post is part of a series on habits of the open scientist.  Here I discuss the third habit, pre-publication dissemination of research.  The previous post was on reproducible research.

A personal story

In 2003-2004, as a senior undergraduate, I got involved in research on strong stability preserving (SSP) Runge--Kutta (RK) methods.  I noticed a number of "numerical coincidences" -- certain numbers characterizing ostensibly different properties of RK methods always happened to be exactly the same.  I didn't yet have the necessary background to fully prove the conjectured connection, but after months of work, I finally succeeded in completing a partial solution to the problem, which I wrote up as my undergraduate thesis.  Before I could submit a manuscript for publication, I discovered that two other researchers had just published the full result.  Hence my manuscript was, of course, unpublishable.

Occasionally, situations like this are inevitable.  But those researchers had worked out and written up the result at least a year ahead of me -- before I even began the work in earnest.  If their work had been available to me at the outset, I could have devoted my time to unanswered questions.

Refereeing is slow; distribution is fast

In my field (applied math), it often takes more than 1 year for a submitted paper to be published.  This is because a thorough referee process of a manuscript takes time, and I think that time is worthwhile.  In contrast, I can "publish" a new paper on the arXiv in just 48 hours, or on my professional website instantaneously.

Many readers may not wish to see my work until it has been refereed.  But for those working on similar problems, reading my work 1 year earlier can be very useful by pointing out promising new avenues or avoiding duplication of effort.

The open scientist distributes his publishable research openly before the formal refereeing and publishing process, by placing completed manuscripts on a preprint server like the arXiv.

If you're brave, you can also share your grant proposals openly.

Concerns

The first time you do this, you may feel worried that someone else will 'steal' your preprint and publish it before you.  But posting it on the arXiv makes it public and stamps it with a date, so such theft would be obvious to everyone.  You may be worried that others will steal your ideas and immediately begin working on your next planned research question.  But if you're like me, the number of related research questions to pursue is essentially endless and you'd be fortunate if your efforts attract others to work on closely related topics (for the truly self-interested, note that it will increase your citation count).  Finally, in some fields or subfields, there is cultural resistance to making preprints public; you can see my take on the issue in this prior blog post.  But there are signs that it is gaining wider acceptance.

If everyone began to practice this, it would effectively transform the role of journals.  They would no longer be the primary distribution apparatus; their role would be that of filtering the already-published literature.  This would make a lot more science available a lot sooner, without sacrificing the usefulness of peer review. 

Next up: Habit #4 -- Open notebook science.

7 Habits of the Open Scientist: #1 -- Open publishing

Note: this post is part of a series on habits of the open scientist.  Here I discuss the first habit, open scientific publishing.

 

Why you should publish openly

A hallmark of important scientific work is that it is reused, modified, and built upon by other scientists.  As a scientist, I spend a great deal of time and effort advertising my work to others so that they will read it and use it.  

 

By default, scientific works fall subject to copyright law, which is intended to prevent reuse and modification.  To make matters worse, the copyrights are typically held by publishers who charge a fee just for access.   Copyright makes sense for musicians and popular authors, because they make a living by charging for access to their works.  But as a scientist, I don't get paid by those who read and use my work, nor do I seek to.  So copyright does not serve me, even from a purely self-interested perspective.  

 

Stepping back from personal interest, I believe that academic scientists have a moral imperative to freely distribute their work, for two reasons.  First, in academia science is primarily funded by taxes.  Therefore, it has been 'purchased' by the public and cannot rightly be withheld from them.  Second, and more importantly, science is intended to benefit humanity.  If it is to do so, it must be shared and communicated.  That is why it has been said that "science must push copyright aside."

 

The  open scientist proactively ensures that published research is freely and conveniently available to all.  Ideally, the open scientist releases research under a license like Creative Commons BY that explicitly allows use in derivative works as long as attribution is given.

 

How you can provide free, open access to your work

• Green open access (self archiving): independently of publication in a journal, the author uploads a pre-print, post-print, or final published version of the article to an institutional server, preprint server, or personal webpage.  Anyone can download this version of the article for free.  The author pays nothing and the reader pays nothing.

  
  

• Gold open access: The author pays the publishing journal a fee in order to have the article available for free on the publisher's website.  Author charges typically are in the range of hundreds to thousands of dollars. 

I have written elsewhere about the dangers of the gold open access model.  Suffice it to say that the gold open access approach severely limits which journals I can submit to and consumes my research funds, whereas the green model does not.  I post all my preprints on the arXiv and on my professional website before submission.  Where allowed, I post final versions as well.

Many journals still have restrictive policies that prevent green open access.  If you believe this to be the case for journals that you publish in, it's worth checking to be sure.  You can easily find this information in the Sherpa/Romeo database.  The number of publishers who still don't allow any kind of green open access are surprisingly few.  For instance, even the evil Elsevier typically allows archiving of pre- and post-prints.  

 

Best practices: pushing copyright aside

If you are brave, you can even modify the journal's copyright transfer agreement, to allow you to retain copyright and release your work under Creative Commons BY.  This is also (surprisingly) often accepted by publishers.  I haven't done this yet, but I plan to do so with all of my future papers, including those currently under referee.

This first habit of the open scientist is essential but no longer revolutionary.  The open access movement has really picked up speed in the past year, with many petitions and initiatives by governments and funding agencies moving forward.

Next up: Habit #2 -- Reproducible research: open code, open data.

What is this thing we call the arXiv, really?

When should you submit your papers to the arXiv?  Before or after they are published in a journal?  It turns out that this is a controversial question, with different right answers from different communities.  Consider the following comment from a fascinating discussion on astrobetter.com:

...you want people to be using and thinking about the “final” version of the paper, not just something they found lying around on the internet. It would feel like cheating to me to post to astro-ph before having the paper formally accepted by the journal. I do pick out several people from the reference list whose work I cite...should they read it on astro-ph instead? I’d feel like a jerk...I will never referee a paper that has already been thrown up on astro-ph. If they have that little respect for the refereeing process, fine, let them “publish” on the web. But it doesn’t (and shouldn’t) count. IMNSHO.

(emphasis added)

Contrast this with the following question and answer on MathOverflow:

Q: How do people usually use arxiv to put their papers? At which stage does one usually put his/her paper/report there?

A:...it is standard to post on the arxiv as soon as one is ready to share one's work with colleagues...it is quite common to post on the arxiv at the same time as submitting, or not long prior to submitting. (But there is nothing wrong with posting on the arxiv and then spending some more time polishing your preprint before submitting it to a journal.)

There are many voices on both sides of the question in both of the discussions linked above.  How can we have such different views of how to use the arXiv?  People seem to have two very different concepts of what the arXiv is.  The arXiv itself doesn't tell us what exactly it is meant to be*,  so we're left to create a definition personally or as a community.  The first attitude above seems to be based on the following definition:

A. The arXiv is an official outlet for papers whose quality and correctness has been certified already.  Its purpose is to make those papers available without the need to pay a journal subscription fee.

The second opinion seems to be based on a quite different definition:

B. The arXiv is a one-stop outlet for the latest scientific research in my field.  Its purpose is to disseminate new information as quickly and broadly as possible so that it can then be understood, evaluated, and added to.

Personally, I take viewpoint B, which I think is more common among mathematicians.  What is the arXiv for you?

 

*: the most relevant statement from the arXiv primer is this:

arXiv supplements the traditional publication system by providing immediate dissemination and open access to scholarly articles (which often later appear in conventional journals). It is important to note, however, that arXiv is not a repository for otherwise unpublishable material, nor is it a refereed publication venue.