| Abstract: |
This work is the continuation of a ‘revolution' started with "Research Counts,
Not the Journal". Own and published opinions from worldwide scientists on
critical issues of peer-reviewed publishing are presented. In my opinion,
peer-reviewed publishing is a quite flawed process (in many way) that has
greatly harmed Science for a long time – it has been imposed by most academic
and science funding institutions as the only way to assess scientific
performance. Unfortunately, most academics still follow that path, even though
I believe most do it for the fear of losing their job or not being promoted.
This paper aims to encourage (i) a full disruption of peer-reviewed publishing
and (ii) the use of free eprint repositories for a sustainable
academic/scientific publishing, i.e. healthier (no stress/distress associated
to the peer review stage and the long waiting for publication) and more
economic, effective and efficient (research is made immediately available and
trackable/citable to anyone). On the other hand, it should be pointed out that
nothing exists against scientific publishers/journals – actually it´s
perfectly normal that any company wants to implement its own quality criteria.
This paper is just the way chosen to promote the quick implementation of
suitable policies for research evaluation. |
| Keywords: |
Science Funding,Scientific Revolution,Sustainable Science,Sustainability,Research Quality,Scientific Assessment,Scientific Performance,Scientific Impact,Scientific Evaluation,Academia,Universities,Scientific Institutions,Publishers,Editors,Articles,Journals,Scientific Publishing,Research,PPPR,Post-Publication Peer Review,Pre-Publication Peer Review,Peer Review,Open Science,Eprints,Preprints,Reviewers,Papers,Science,Academic Institutions |