"Dirty Truth" Drives Dubious Remedy

"A dirty truth pervades academic publishing," confides Brian Martinson, in the current issue of Nature, viz., that researchers write papers to gain credit in the academic marketplace. These pubcoins, as Martinson, who has led NIH-funded projects in research integrity since 2001, dubs them can be quite tangible, as recent reports confirm.

One needn't agree with his problematic proposal to restrict research publication to concur that its motivations have shifted and the role of sharing knowledge has received short shrift in the process. Indeed, it is precisely the latter that prompts this academic editor to demur. Surely there are positive reinforcements that bear exploring ― revisiting how tenure is awarded, comes to mind. 

How To Get Published: Editors' Advice

A pressing challenge facing journal editors is the badly written papers sent by authors eager for publication. As Brian Lucey, editor of the International  Review of Financial Analysis, notes, an initial hurdle may be that English isn't the writer's first tongue. This can be overcome or compounded, as when writers fail to have their work edited by a competent editor, preferably one whose English is native. Lucey and fellow editors offer sound advice on getting published in their pages. As the race begins with the starting gun, don't neglect the link to tips on how to write for academic journals.

Simple Rules for Getting Published

"The best papers are those in which complex ideas are expressed in a way that those who are less than immersed in the field can understand," Philip Bourne, editor-in-chief of PloS Computational Biology, advises in "Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published." While Bourne's guidance is intended for scientific writers, its practical relevance extends to the craft as a whole as in rule number one: "Read many papers and learn from both the good and the bad work of others." As I advise my academic writing students: Read, read, read. Write, write, write. Revise, revise, revise. All this and more can be found in Prof. Bourne's informative article.

Racket Bawl

As arbiters of science's reputation system, journal  publishers acquire copyright to the world's leading scientific output for free. They then charge scientists, who authored and reviewed the articles, and taxpayers, who funded the research, $8 billion a year to access the findings. The exit from this  revolving door lies in creating new reputation metrics, Academia.edu's Richard Price argues. 

Revolting Academics

Eleven leading British academic associations have issued an open letter condemning government plans for open access publishing as a “rushed policy” that threatens the “international standing of British Universities and research.” Signed by the Royal Historical Society, the Political Studies Association, and the Council for the Defence of British Universities, among others, the critique calls open access a “fundamental revolution” in academic life and expresses fears about the publication of papers falling to university administrators.         Academics Revolt Over Open Access