Skip to main content

Welcome Physical Review Research

This post is addressed to fellow physics researchers:

I very much welcome the new open access journal Physical Review Research by the American Physical Society. It is a step in the right direction. I have great hope in the APS keeping its leadership in physics publishing in a way that journals serve the academic community and not the other way around. PRR aims to serve the whole physics community, subfields being identified by searchable tags. Ideal next steps to my mind:

(i) Gradually subsume the Physical Review journals into PRR (easier said than done, I know, especially moneywise).

(ii) Analogously to the tags identifying subfield, tags should also reflect “importance and broad interest” as now done by the categories of regular articles, rapid communications, and Physical Review Letters (or Physical Review X). A numerical tag would suffice: 1, 2 and 3 for the three mentioned categories, for instance. One could even go for a level 4, indicating the level of papers that would go into highly-selective all-sciences journals.

Present journal names provide information about “importance” of papers, just metadata (metaliterature) after all; why do not treat it as such?

Actually, these “importance” categories lose their relevance with time: if you are reading an article published a few years back you do not care so much about where it was published. Having this “importance” classification as a mere tag (not visible when citing the paper, and which could even disappear in due time), instead of keeping it enshrined in a flashy journal name, much better reflects its value and purpose, providing the needed discrimination of recent literature, and alleviating the IFFS epidemic (impact-factor-fascination syndrome). Authors could also opt out of grading if they can address their community effectively by other means.

(iii) This is daring: allow for a level 0, that is, papers that are decent physics papers, but do not reach the level of today’s Physical Review journals and are now sent to “more specialised journals” (the impact factor would drop, how terrible!). I do not think it makes sense to reject papers anymore, except for the ones that should not be published at all.

And finally, (iv) coordinate with other communities and learned societies towards a connected main body of literature. A new paradigm is emerging, and a new business model with it. My thinking is explained in more detail here.


Popular posts from this blog

The spirit of the San Francisco DORA in scientific meetings

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) advocates for avoiding the use of journal impact factors in evaluations of scientists and their contributions. I very much agree with the idea, and so do the many signatories of the declaration, both personal and institutional. Impact-factor fascination syndrome (IFFS, the very thing DORA wants to counter) is however spreading and thriving in the research community. I would propose to extend the spirit of DORA to scientific meetings: Speakers in adhering research meetings should avoid quoting journal names in what they show . Nowadays, the names of one or two authors and the year should suffice to find any paper, if there is no arXiv reference for instance. It sounds sensible that when speakers describe their work, they show the reference of where to find the relevant publication. But we all know that showing references to high-impact-factor journals is used to impress the audience (not to mention journal covers), and I can

On the shifting paradigm for research literature

Background. The way research progress is shared and published has been changing during the last decades from the old paradigm that revolved around the fact that publication had to be on paper. The transformation is remarkably slow, however. We are clinging on to basic concepts that were natural for the old paper model (e.g. enormous amounts of journals) but are now of little or no advantage. Among other reasons, the observed inertia is explained by the fact that the traditional business model for scientific literature is ideal for the established publishers. This model has been discussed by many (regularly in The Economist, for instance), whereby publicly-funded researchers produce the content and most of the quality control, and publicly-funded libraries pay juicy subscription fees for researchers to be able to access the research of others. Add to it the partly monopolistic character of the business (an author of an article can choose where to publish, but a reader of that article c