Ever wish you could just publish an exciting result, without having to wait for the entire string of data that follows in order to tell an entire story, which then gets held up for months by peer review at traditional journals? So do a lot of other researchers, who are working on ways to sidestep those barriers. One new project: ScienceMatters, a publishing platform where scientists can submit single, robust results for relatively quick peer review. We spoke with co-founders Lawrence Rajendran and Mirko Bischofberger about how this new next-generation journal platform works, and why it’s important.
Retraction Watch: You accept “only single observations, properly conducted and robustly validated.” Why did you want to restrict your publications to something so specific, and relatively narrow?
Lawrence Rajendran and Mirko Bischofberger: The need to publish “sexy” scientific stories has become more important than a solid, standalone observation in many fields. Plus, the science publishing system exerts enormous pressure on scientists to turn simple – sometimes powerful – observations into flashy stories, and since universities and funding agencies judge researchers on their publishing record, we have no choice but to oblige. Storytelling has thus become the prevailing paradigm of scientific publishing.
But this emphasis on storytelling is accompanied by further problems such as delayed reporting of major observations, non-reporting of ‘inconvenient’ facts and orphan observations, and a strong publication bias. These systemic flaws partly contribute to the alarming increase of irreproducible results, retractions of papers and fake studies, and studies reviewed by fake reviewers.
ScienceMatters eliminates the need to spin big stories from simple observations as there is no pressure to create stories, no reason to delay publication and no reason to omit ‘inconvenient truths’. The advantages of this single-observation publishing are myriad: It eliminates the need for scientists to delay disclosing their results while they collect months or years’ worth of additional data in pursuit of a long, drawn-out story. It also allows scientists to publish those intriguing observations that might otherwise lie forever unpublished, whether for lack of resources or because they cannot currently be explained.
Retraction Watch: How long as the site been up and running, and how many submissions have you received?
We launched the inaugural issue on the 24th February and the word is slowly spreading among scientists. We have received about 50 submissions so far.
RW: What’s the typical length of a submission?
The author submits using our template, which typically takes around 1-2 hours. Since we do not allow any word/PDF and have no strict regulations on font and formatting, it significantly reduces the time. We hate the strict rules of formatting as much as any scientist and hence created a template that eliminates all of these nonsensical rules.
Once the author submits the observation, it then takes 24-48 hours for our editorial office to do a preliminary check which includes screening for fraudulence (image manipulation, compromising anonymity, etc) and then it is sent to a handling editor/reviewers who perform the peer-review. We have had cases where the first round of review and the decision was made within 24 hours! Typically this process takes between 72-96 hours. So, it takes on an average a week if we find the right reviewers.
RW: Do some researchers who publish in ScienceMatters eventually submit the same data as part of a larger paper to a more traditional journal? Or do traditional publishers not consider such submissions, because the data on ScienceMatters are already published?
This is something that we get asked often. Traditional publishers rely quite a bit on “novelty” and if an author publishes a core observation in Matters, of course they can publish the extension in other journals, pretty much like what we do even now in form of citations to the previous article. Nevertheless, we are now in contact with publishers like eLife, EMBO Journal, Molecular Systems Biology to see if a formal collaboration could be established that takes into account that if an author publishes the first core observation in Matters, that they are not “punished” for the lack of novelty. This also means that we need to change the way journals collaborate. Matters is open and welcomes such collaborative initiatives that would foster science for better.
RW: You say the peer-review process is relatively fast. How fast, and how can you make sure it’s still thorough?
LR and MB: We’ve instituted a triple-blind peer review, in which the authors’, editors’ and reviewers’ identities are unknown to all. As a result, each observation is evaluated solely on its soundness, without regard to the authors’ reputations, identities, institutions, gender, race, or nationality.
Also, we use quantitative review, instead of a random thumbs-up/ thumbs-down kind of rating. Unlike long research papers, which are an amalgam of multiple observations and imaginative storylines, single observations are relatively amenable to objective, quantitative evaluation. ScienceMatters therefore asks its reviewers to score each observation on a 0-10 scale. 0 means that it is completely rejected based on fraudulence, thematic misfit, articles on engineering potentially harmful viruses and thus pose threat for humanity and the environment. Technically sound observations are published in Matters (score 4-<8), the very best observations published in Matters Select (score 8-10), while observations scored <4 are published in Matters Archive, our repository journal. While all published observations will receive a DOI, only those published in Matters or Matters Select will be indexed in PubMed.
RW: What’s the cost of submitting to ScienceMatters?
At the moment it is free. After the free quota is filled up, we will charge $150 USD/article for researchers from academic institutions and $300 USD/article from industry and for-profit institutions. Of these $150 USD, we pay 50% to the reviewers and editors. After all, they do a great part of the work.
Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our new daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.
Very interesting idea.
Academics need to publish, will they be policing folks who parse out their work into 72 “hot” observations? 🙂
Labrat, that’s an excellent observation. The phenomenon you are alluding to is called salami slicing / publishing. How will ScienceMatters verify salami papers, especially those cut ultra-thin to suit this “single result quick review” model? Especially if the 72 “hot” observations are finally indexed on PubMed. Will ScienceMatters aim for an impact factor?
I disagree with some of the statements made by these founders, specifically:
“The need to publish “sexy” scientific stories has become more important than a solid, standalone observation in many fields.”
I disagree, it is precisely this “sexy” storytelling that distorts pure science.
“we have no choice but to oblige.”
I disagree. If you oblige, then you widen the problem of “sexy” science. I have never had to oblige to making my papers “sexy”, nor have I ever experienced any editor requesting me to beautify the paper in any way. So, I am curious as to what journals or publishers you are referring to.
“Storytelling has thus become the prevailing paradigm of scientific publishing.”
I disagree. Science should be simple, clear and informative, and most of it is. Letters to the editor or opinion pieces can be like a story. I do agree that sometimes titles can be a little hyperbolic, but that is likely to catch the reader’s attention.
“We hate the strict rules of formatting as much as any scientist and hence created a template that eliminates all of these nonsensical rules.”
In fact, I agree that such rules are a waste of time and patience at the initial stage, before peer review and acceptance. But after, acceptance, standardization is a positive thing because it can add one additional layer of checks on the reference list. Standardization is not nonsensical. And in fact, if you created a template, you have standardized in some way.
“But this emphasis on storytelling … partly contribute to the alarming increase of irreproducible results, retractions of papers and fake studies, and studies reviewed by fake reviewers.”
Can you provide one clear case and data to support this statement?
“while observations scored <4 are published in Matters Archive, our repository journal"
What is a repository journal? Can you please indicate why you should publish papers, even those with a bad score? Is this not simply a form of easy income?
RW asked the question about the speed of peer review, but no response was provided.
"After the free quota is filled up"
What is this free quota? Is it defined on your web-site?
Specific questions:
a) Can you indicate your retraction policies, please.
b) How do you select reviewers or are these suggested by the authors?
PS: I also noticed that the editorial board is growing quite nicely. How were editors vetted and included? Will editors who have an entry on PubPeer with a valid concern that leads to an expression of concern or retraction be included in the editor board? Alternatively, will editors currently on the editor board who have an entry on PubPeer with a valid concern that leads to an expression of concern or retraction be allowed to stay on the editor board? I am sure that the founders of ScienceMatters are also clearly aware of the issue of cronyism in the editor boards of some powerful and prominent science journals, where even “problematic” editors simply cannot be removed from their positions of power, despite their presence on PubPeer with papers with concerns.
On this page:
https://www.sciencematters.io/help/about
Some of your team members’ full names are not defined, e.g., Joao, Lisellotte and Magdalena? Can you appreciate that incomplete information = reduced accountability and publisher/editorial opacity?
Finally, I am curious as to why your February 24 editorial required 24 authors to write?
https://www.sciencematters.io/articles/140385074186
Why is there no authorship contribution statement, and why does such a statement not exist for your published articles?
Given this serious gap in verifying authorship, and in indicating authorship responsibilities openly to the public, could you offer some indication of how authorship is verified at ScienceMatters, and what guiding principles exist regarding guest or ghost authorship. Although your site claims to follow COPE principles, the instructions for authors states absolutely nothing about publishing ethical principles, with zero ethical guidelines, including related to authorship and salami publishing alluded to above by Labrat:
https://www.sciencematters.io/instructions
“ScienceMatters therefore asks its reviewers to score each observation on a 0-10 scale. 0 means that it is completely rejected based on fraudulence, thematic misfit, articles on engineering potentially harmful viruses and thus pose threat for humanity and the environment”.
The “…articles on engineering potentially harmful viruses and thus pose threat for humanity and the environment…” caught my eye as being rather specific. Could this be a more common issue/occurrence than we think, making editors and journals look out specifically for such articles?
I wonder.
I served as editor early in this journal, and I found that the triple-blind did not work: as the editor does not know the authors, s/he is not allowed to chose reviewers outside a very short list suggest by journal staff. In the two cases that I saw the people on that list were a poor fit for the manuscript, and certainly not people I would have asked to review it.
I can see the point of double blind, but if an editor cannot chose reviewers, the system cannot work in my opinion.
I have resigned from the board, but apparently my name is still there; I have now asked that it be removed.
It is possible that the system has been improved since the earliest days of course, but this is my experience.
Update: after emailing the journal management, my name has been removed from the editorial board.
I like to publish in sciencematters, but the publication fee is 595$, way higher than the normal range. Who can pay such high fees?