To participate in scientific activity, researchers have to get published in indexed journals, but very few people can access them. Partially, because six prominent editorials of scientific publications worldwide, (five of which are private, for-profit companies), control 50% of the scientific publications and many require a paid subscription. These companies end up generating global profit margins close to 40%.

To participate in scientific activity, researchers have to get published in indexed journals, but very few people can access them. Partially, because six prominent editorials of scientific publications worldwide, (five of which are private, for-profit companies), control 50% of the scientific publications and many require a paid subscription. These companies end up generating global profit margins close to 40%.

There is an outdated —if not naive—idea that scientific knowledge is the ultimate truth and is therefore unrestrained from political, social, and economic conditions.

So, who can do science? Is it just those who are subscribed to the right magazines and manage to get published? If so, what findings are the ones that actually get published? Are they, in fact, the most insightful, accurate, and useful ones? Or are they just those that can overcome the bureaucratic and monetary barriers to publication?

TL;DR

• Researchers that desire to participate in scientific activity, have to get published in indexed journals, but very few people can access them. Many of the publications require a subscription, so it is not only difficult to investigate, but also to access research findings.

• There are some efforts to achieve decentralization of scientific publication, led by researchers themselves (Sci-Hub).

• There are also State tools, (such as the National System of Digital Repositories in Science and Technology) that try to democratize knowledge production.

• Publishing in scientific indexed journals and magazines ends up being unprofitable and doesn’t guarantee more visibility. In addition, it implies constant competition that dehumanizes scientific activity, leaving little time for creativity and quality research.

• If knowledge were managed differently, our societies could truly exploit its potential in their favor.

The publication system distances scientific knowledge from the general population. Formally, it could be argued that knowledge production should be available to all by right, but this is not the case. Science magazines are read by a very specialized audience with the necessary cultural capital to participate in the conversation - and can afford a subscription.

So, these are only read by:

• Young researchers who want to establish themselves in the scientific community.

• Senior researchers who want to keep abreast of developments in their discipline.

But what about the rest of the population? Why would someone pay to read about highly-specific subtopics that they don’t really understand?

The advances and findings of scientific research, far from enriching the general debate and contributing to scientific thought or becoming common knowledge, are reserved for a small number of people who have the means to overcome access barriers.

Furthermore, according to science.org “…reviewers work for free, even as the large commercial publishers that operate many journals earn hefty profits.” These big publishers not only charge for publication and subscription but also have a peer review system in which the editors do unpaid work.

So why would anyone be interested in playing a game that requires effort, money, or working for free?

To be able to fully participate in the scientific process, a young researcher will need to get published. To get published, the researcher must have a topic to delve into. Meaning, that a question that is yet to be asked about a specific subject matter has to come into place. Generally, these questions arise by reading what has already been published and is publicly available in indexed journals. But, how many publishers actually run these indexed journals? Just six.

This scenario is nothing new for the academic world and many have tried to come up with alternative options like PubMed Central or, in 2011, a nanotechnology researcher from Kazakhstan founded Sci-Hub after facing economic difficulties in accessing the material she needed for her thesis. As of today, the tool is a repository of more than 84 million academic articles available for free. No payment or subscription is required.

In 2009, Argentina's Ministry of Science and Technology created the National System of Digital Repositories in Science and Technology. The platform is an attempt to respond to the growing issue of the centralization of academic publishing through public policy. It also drafted the bill for the "Creation of Owned or Shared Open Access Institutional Digital Repositories," approved in 2013. The bill established that institutions receiving funding from the State must create free and open-access digital repositories. These documents must contain key research data and be made available within 5 years.

Academia is often seen as a path of self-sacrifice and work with little to no pay. There’s a common saying in the field that goes “there are institutions that pay three times for the same thing.” This phrase alludes to the fact that organizations often:

• Pay the researcher for investigating and producing an article.

• Pay the publishing companies for publishing their article in a closed journal.

• Subscribe to the magazines they provide material to.

In summary, this system has become time-consuming and economically inefficient. Besides, publishing in a prestigious journal does not necessarily result in more relevance or more citations. According to Larivière, the logical thing would be for a large publisher to give more visibility to a more significant number of studies. However, Lariviere et al show that moving from a small publisher to a large publisher does not result in an increase in citations.

It’s fair to say that the recognized scientific field consists almost exclusively of papers that were able to overcome prestigious editorial barriers, and were quickly produced to maximize scientific productivity.

Resource-intensive endeavors requiring years of research are often left outside this circuit. How many classic works of scientific thought would not have been published under today’s criteria?

This situation certainly leaves you wondering what is worth more: One solid and concise paper on a relevant topic made available to everyone, or 10 papers very closely related to one another, published exclusively in specialized magazines that few people read?

This scenario only leads to the dehumanization of scientific activity. Young researchers don’t have time for a creative activity or genuinely relevant questions and end up becoming piece-rate paper writers.

Hence, we owe it to ourselves to rethink the methods of scientific production and develop alternative ways for producing, publishing, and distributing scientific work. Many local and international groups have begun to explore the idea, both from the public and the private sectors.

The dominant model of scientific knowledge production is not immune to the logic of commodification and competition operating in our current times. The scientific system ends up being unfair, expensive, alienating, and undemocratic both for researchers and for society in general.

It was once thought that scientific knowledge could be a tool for emancipation. Although some may see this as naive, this ideal is still worth considering. Today, our world is full of situations that seemed impossible a few decades ago. The potential of scientific knowledge is undeniable. But to really access a better system we must find different ways to think, but more importantly to act and implement alternative approaches.

At ViralCure, we're building an ecosystem for scientists and community investors. Our purpose is to liberate science from bureaucracy by democratizing funding.

Website | Twitter | Instagram | Discord | Lenster | ViralCure Pilot | ViralCure’s Blog

To participate in scientific activity, researchers have to get published in indexed journals, but very few people can access them. Partially, because six prominent editorials of scientific publications worldwide, (five of which are private, for-profit companies), control 50% of the scientific publications and many require a paid subscription. These companies end up generating global profit margins close to 40%.

To participate in scientific activity, researchers have to get published in indexed journals, but very few people can access them. Partially, because six prominent editorials of scientific publications worldwide, (five of which are private, for-profit companies), control 50% of the scientific publications and many require a paid subscription. These companies end up generating global profit margins close to 40%.

There is an outdated —if not naive—idea that scientific knowledge is the ultimate truth and is therefore unrestrained from political, social, and economic conditions.

So, who can do science? Is it just those who are subscribed to the right magazines and manage to get published? If so, what findings are the ones that actually get published? Are they, in fact, the most insightful, accurate, and useful ones? Or are they just those that can overcome the bureaucratic and monetary barriers to publication?

TL;DR

• Researchers that desire to participate in scientific activity, have to get published in indexed journals, but very few people can access them. Many of the publications require a subscription, so it is not only difficult to investigate, but also to access research findings.

• There are some efforts to achieve decentralization of scientific publication, led by researchers themselves (Sci-Hub).

• There are also State tools, (such as the National System of Digital Repositories in Science and Technology) that try to democratize knowledge production.

• Publishing in scientific indexed journals and magazines ends up being unprofitable and doesn’t guarantee more visibility. In addition, it implies constant competition that dehumanizes scientific activity, leaving little time for creativity and quality research.

• If knowledge were managed differently, our societies could truly exploit its potential in their favor.

The publication system distances scientific knowledge from the general population. Formally, it could be argued that knowledge production should be available to all by right, but this is not the case. Science magazines are read by a very specialized audience with the necessary cultural capital to participate in the conversation - and can afford a subscription.

So, these are only read by:

• Young researchers who want to establish themselves in the scientific community.

• Senior researchers who want to keep abreast of developments in their discipline.

But what about the rest of the population? Why would someone pay to read about highly-specific subtopics that they don’t really understand?

The advances and findings of scientific research, far from enriching the general debate and contributing to scientific thought or becoming common knowledge, are reserved for a small number of people who have the means to overcome access barriers.

Furthermore, according to science.org “…reviewers work for free, even as the large commercial publishers that operate many journals earn hefty profits.” These big publishers not only charge for publication and subscription but also have a peer review system in which the editors do unpaid work.

So why would anyone be interested in playing a game that requires effort, money, or working for free?

To be able to fully participate in the scientific process, a young researcher will need to get published. To get published, the researcher must have a topic to delve into. Meaning, that a question that is yet to be asked about a specific subject matter has to come into place. Generally, these questions arise by reading what has already been published and is publicly available in indexed journals. But, how many publishers actually run these indexed journals? Just six.

This scenario is nothing new for the academic world and many have tried to come up with alternative options like PubMed Central or, in 2011, a nanotechnology researcher from Kazakhstan founded Sci-Hub after facing economic difficulties in accessing the material she needed for her thesis. As of today, the tool is a repository of more than 84 million academic articles available for free. No payment or subscription is required.

In 2009, Argentina's Ministry of Science and Technology created the National System of Digital Repositories in Science and Technology. The platform is an attempt to respond to the growing issue of the centralization of academic publishing through public policy. It also drafted the bill for the "Creation of Owned or Shared Open Access Institutional Digital Repositories," approved in 2013. The bill established that institutions receiving funding from the State must create free and open-access digital repositories. These documents must contain key research data and be made available within 5 years.

Academia is often seen as a path of self-sacrifice and work with little to no pay. There’s a common saying in the field that goes “there are institutions that pay three times for the same thing.” This phrase alludes to the fact that organizations often:

• Pay the researcher for investigating and producing an article.

• Pay the publishing companies for publishing their article in a closed journal.

• Subscribe to the magazines they provide material to.

In summary, this system has become time-consuming and economically inefficient. Besides, publishing in a prestigious journal does not necessarily result in more relevance or more citations. According to Larivière, the logical thing would be for a large publisher to give more visibility to a more significant number of studies. However, Lariviere et al show that moving from a small publisher to a large publisher does not result in an increase in citations.

It’s fair to say that the recognized scientific field consists almost exclusively of papers that were able to overcome prestigious editorial barriers, and were quickly produced to maximize scientific productivity.

Resource-intensive endeavors requiring years of research are often left outside this circuit. How many classic works of scientific thought would not have been published under today’s criteria?

This situation certainly leaves you wondering what is worth more: One solid and concise paper on a relevant topic made available to everyone, or 10 papers very closely related to one another, published exclusively in specialized magazines that few people read?

This scenario only leads to the dehumanization of scientific activity. Young researchers don’t have time for a creative activity or genuinely relevant questions and end up becoming piece-rate paper writers.

Hence, we owe it to ourselves to rethink the methods of scientific production and develop alternative ways for producing, publishing, and distributing scientific work. Many local and international groups have begun to explore the idea, both from the public and the private sectors.

The dominant model of scientific knowledge production is not immune to the logic of commodification and competition operating in our current times. The scientific system ends up being unfair, expensive, alienating, and undemocratic both for researchers and for society in general.

It was once thought that scientific knowledge could be a tool for emancipation. Although some may see this as naive, this ideal is still worth considering. Today, our world is full of situations that seemed impossible a few decades ago. The potential of scientific knowledge is undeniable. But to really access a better system we must find different ways to think, but more importantly to act and implement alternative approaches.

At ViralCure, we're building an ecosystem for scientists and community investors. Our purpose is to liberate science from bureaucracy by democratizing funding.

Website | Twitter | Instagram | Discord | Lenster | ViralCure Pilot | ViralCure’s Blog