\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage[natbibapa]{apacite}
\usepackage{eso-pic}
\AddToShipoutPictureBG{\AtPageLowerLeft{\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{powered-by-Authorea-watermark.png}}}

\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}

\usepackage{authblk}

\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}



\begin{document}

\title{6 Publisher Policies Antithetical to Research\\}


 \author{The Authorea Team}


\date{}

\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup




How researchers communicate with one another and the world has changed
very little over the last 350 years. Attempts to improve the process
have been implemented throughout the years, not all of which have been
to the benefit of research. Here we highlight some policies implemented
by various publishers that we believe are antithetical to research
communication and what we're doing to try to fix them.\\

\subsection*{Policy: Limiting the number of authors
arbitrarily.}\label{policy-limiting-the-number-of-authors-arbitrarily.}

\textbf{Aim:}~Conserve journal space.\\

\emph{``The reason for selecting these maximums, which are admittedly
arbitrary, is that it is difficult to imagine that more than 12 people
can have the comprehensive intellectual involvement necessary to fulfill
the criteria for authorship''~}(\emph{\cite{Kassirer_1991}}).\\

\textbf{Outcome:}~Arbitrary constraint later reversed.\\

\emph{"By extension of this reasoning, it is logical that those who meet
the criteria for authorship not be excluded as authors. However, our
current editorial policy limits to 12 the number of authors whose names
can be printed under the title of an article.~With advances in medical
research, investigators with a broader range of skills than were
required in the past are often needed to take new ideas from the bench
to the bedside and to conduct large clinical trials. For this reason, we
are modifying our policy on the number of authors we will list"
(\cite{Drazen_2002}})\\

\textbf{Our approach:} We encourage collaboration and in fact were built
to facilitate it. We think collaboration will be key towards the
advancement of research and because we're a web-native platform,
constraints on space are not a concern.\\\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.91\columnwidth]{figures/Screen-Shot-2016-09-06-at-5.50.48-PM/Screen-Shot-2016-09-06-at-5.50.48-PM}
\caption{{\hypertarget{auto-label-caption-218660}{}
(\protect\cite{Aboukhalil_2014})%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{Policy:~Restricting Data Sharing. Should seek co-authorship
and/or collaboration before using
data.~}\label{policyrestricting-data-sharing.-should-seek-co-authorship-andor-collaboration-before-using-data.}

\textbf{Aim:~}Limit how data is used. Encourage collaboration and
co-authorship~(\cite{Taichman_2016}~\&~\cite{Longo_2016}).\\

\emph{"{[}data sharing{]} will be taken over by what some researchers
have characterized as \textbf{``research parasites.''}}\\

\textbf{Outcome:~}Major push back from researchers research community.\\

\emph{``We are strictly against such a monopoly based on data and for
this reason suggested publication rules that prevent this from happening
and plead for a data sharing with ``research parasites'' in the interest
of the patients from whom the data originate"}
(\emph{\cite{Emmert_Streib_2016}}).\\

\emph{``Currently, a scientific output only corresponds to a study
report published in a medical journal, while in the near future it might
consist of all materials described in the manuscript, including all
relevant raw data. We need to change how we think about data (Drazen,
2015). Data sharing and open science are the future of science''}
(\emph{\cite{Barbui_2016}}).\\

\emph{``\cite{Longo_2016}~miss the very point of scientific research
when they write that researchers may ``even use the {[}open{]} data to
try to disprove what the original investigators had posited.'' It is at
the core of the scientific paradigm that researchers take nothing as
final truth. In fact, using research data to try to disprove a result is
good scientific practice, especially in light of the replication
crisis"} (\emph{\cite{Fecher_2016}}).\emph{~}\\

\emph{``One of the most shockingly anti-science things ever written.''}
Michael
Eisen,~\url{https://twitter.com/mbeisen/status/690345273793605633}\\

\textbf{Our approach:~}We encourage data sharing and data citation. With
Authorea we allow you to directly link your raw data with your figures
or tables or even your
\href{https://www.authorea.com/users/3/articles/3434/_show_article}{iPython
notebook}.\\

\subsection*{Policy: Do not accept preprints or unclear
policies.}\label{policy-do-not-accept-preprints-or-unclear-policies.}

\textbf{Aim:} Discourage other citations of record, maintain value
proposition of journal publishing, ensure content is peer reviewed
before dissemination.\\

\textbf{Outcome:} Unnecessary delays in communication amongst
researchers.\\

\emph{``In my experience, this lag time {[}between submission and
publication{]} is on average about six months, with a non-trivial long
tail of papers that take much longer. To put this in context with some
back-of-the-envelope calculations, lets define a unit of time called a
Scientific Career (SC), and let 1 SC equal 30 years. If there are 50,000
papers published in biology per year (this number is somewhat random,
but probably within an order of magnitude given that about 500k papers
are added to PubMed per year), and on average each paper takes 6 months
to go through the review process, then each year \textasciitilde{}800
Scientific Careers are spent bringing papers from initial submission to
formal publication. It would be a laughable to argue that 800 SCs of
research or value have been added to the papers during this process
(lets be honestfor most of that time the papers are just sitting on
someones desk waiting to be read). The system of pre-publication peer
review thus dramatically retards scientific progress.'' -
\href{http://genomesunzipped.org/2012/08/the-first-steps-towards-a-modern-system-of-scientific-publication.php}{Joe
Pickrell}}\\

\emph{``Scientists often fear the so-called Ingelfinger Rule more than
they have to, but it has a real chilling effect on the flow of
scientific information,''
-~\href{https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201211/preprint.cfm}{Ivan
Oransky}, the cofounder of Retraction Watch}\\

\textbf{Our approach:}~You can write securely in private or in the
open--your choice. ~Many use Authorea as a place to create their
manuscripts and then leave them up as preprints. See
some~\href{https://www.authorea.com/browse}{here}.\\

\subsection*{Policy: Paywalls-- require monthly or one-time fees to
access scientific research.}\label{auto-label-subsection-852965}

\textbf{Aim:} Profit and sustainability. Keep the journal going by
having readers pay rather than charging authors to publish.\\

\emph{``If a switch to open-access publishing led scientists to drive
down fees by choosing cheaper journals, it would undermine important
values such as editorial quality'' -}
\href{http://www.nature.com/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-science-publishing-1.12676}{\emph{Nature}}\\

\textbf{Outcome:} Large barriers for those who wish to access papers;
essentially a halt in the road to scientific discovery and progress.\\

``Publishing behind paywalls is immoral. More than that, it's
oxymoronic: if it's behind a paywall, it hasn't been published.'' -
\href{https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/jan/17/open-access-publishing-science-paywall-immoral}{Mike
Taylor}, the Guardian\\

\textbf{Our approach:} By making things open access to begin with,
research is open and accessible to anyone who needs it.\\\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.84\columnwidth]{figures/8653757940-50f128f767/8653757940-50f128f767}
\caption{{\hypertarget{auto-label-caption-717212}{}
(\href{http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/08/12/whatever-happened-to-the-academic-spring-green/}{LSE})
~ ~ ~ ~%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{Policy: Reference limits-- only a certain number of
references allowed per publication.}\label{auto-label-subsection-503294}

\textbf{Aim:} Publish in an aesthetically pleasing manner. Additionally,
it supposedly forces authors to be critically selective in what
references they use.\\

\textbf{Outcome:} Truncates important information, potentially
jeopardizing the integrity of the article.\\

\emph{``Other consequences of the trend toward less critical evaluation
of cited literature include not only a gradual erosion of scholarly
rigor, but also a dilution of the value of the impact factor as a
measure of journal prominence.''
-~}\href{http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/29170/title/Citations--Too-Many--or-Not-Enough-/}{\emph{William
Pearce}}\emph{, The Scientist}\\

\emph{}\\

\textbf{Our approach:}~Put as many references as you need-- we'll make a
format that fits to your needs.\\\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.84\columnwidth]{figures/Screen-Shot-2016-09-07-at-5.48.33-PM/Screen-Shot-2016-09-07-at-5.48.33-PM}
\caption{{\hypertarget{auto-label-caption-250059}{}
(\href{http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/gta/\#a5.4}{Nature}) ~ ~ ~
~%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{Policy:~Read-only PDFs to present online
information.}\label{auto-label-subsection-287735}

\textbf{Aim:} Read freely and share articles while preserving control
and tracking over the content
(\href{http://www.nature.com/news/nature-promotes-read-only-sharing-by-subscribers-1.16460}{Nature}).\\

\textbf{Outcome:} Limit discoverability and restrict information
sharing-- many PDFs require a fee and make it impossible to copy or
print\\

\emph{``To me, this smacks of public relations, not open access\ldots{}
With access mandates on the march around the world, this appears to be
more about getting ahead of the coming reality in scientific publishing.
Now that the funders call the tune and the funders want the articles on
the web at no charge, these articles are going to be open anyway,''
-~\href{http://www.nature.com/news/nature-promotes-read-only-sharing-by-subscribers-1.16460}{John
Wilbanks}, senior fellow at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation}\\

\textbf{Our approach:}~Information is meant to be shared. It's the
spirit of science and discovery. ~Our documents are formatted in HTML to
enhance discovery and machine readability.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\bibliographystyle{apacite}
\bibliography{bibliography/converted_to_latex.bib%
}

\end{CJK}\end{document}

