The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersGene Expression Blog
Biology Discovers ArXiv (Sort of)
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Last year when Dr. Joseph Pickrell posted Why publish science in peer-reviewed journals? at Genomes Unzipped many of the responses naturally turned to criticism of such a system which overturned the conventions of publication in biology. The critiques were fair enough, but my own confusion and irritation was with the fact that many seemed to pretend, or not know, about arXiv. It is perhaps true that biological sciences are different in some fundamental ways from physics, or even social sciences which put preprints up at SSRN. But it seems that any objection to the revolution in scientific production and dissemination which Dr. Pickrell proposed should at least grapple with the fact that physics, mathematics, computer science, economics, etc. continue to remain viable academic fields despite the fact that preprints circulate widely among scholars, and even to the general public.* Publication in a paper in these fields is often an after the fact stamp of approval, depending on the reception from the community of peers.

Though Dr. Pickrell’s dream has not come true as of yet, it is nice to see that he and other bold individuals are making a push to make arXiv more widely used within biology through their own examples. Nature has a nice write-up:

Another attention-grabbing submission by prominent geneticists, posted on 23 July, compares genomic variation in 22 African populations to suggest an ancient genetic link between people in southern and eastern Africa…One of the paper’s senior authors, geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, publishes routinely in Nature and the Public Library of Science journals, and co-author Carlos Bustamante, of Stanford University School of Medicine in California, is a leader in the field. Reich says that first author Joseph Pickrell, also at Harvard Medical School, suggested using arXiv. Reich and the other co-authors saw no good reason not to post the manuscript there. “It could be an example of the younger generation coming in and finding this sort of thing natural,” says Ginsparg.

How fast generations fly. Neither David Reich nor Carlos Bustamante are particularly old. A few years ago you’d see quant bio papers on arXiv which were destined for The Journal of Theoretical Biology. It’s heartening to now see papers whose ultimate destinations are likely to be more mainstream journals now being put there.

* Many popular stories drawn from economics’ “papers” are actually preprints, which you can go find on the author’s website or some other repository.

(Republished from Discover/GNXP by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Science • Tags: ArXiv 
Hide 5 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. It is great to see researchers from top universities like Harvard, and Stanford embracing qunat-bio on arxiv. Just hope it encourages more to do so.

  2. Up until last April, there was Nature Preceedings which was an attempt at creating an arXiv for the life sciences. It launched in 2007, but then closed up. I am not certain as to the reasons for it closing though:

    In a more general note, I think that its less that Biologists are opposed as they are simply ignorant of arXiv. I myself never knew of its existence till a few years ago when I was searching for a physics paper which happened to be published in arXiv. Its not exactly like there is a lot of regular interaction between Physicists and Biologists, nor does arXiv really advertise, so I don’t find it that surprising that its relatively unknown.

    I think a lot more Biologists would be receptive to the possibility if they knew about it and gave it some thought. Labs are always in that position where they are trying to publish, up against a grant deadline, and need to show something for it. This could be one way. Or for the grad student and post doc needing to get results out there for jobs. Certainly I would love to see Biology move towards such a system. The openness and adaptability of it appeals to me and I think is what is needed in the increasingly quantitative, large data world of modern Biology. Dr. Pickrell is bold for pushing this and I commend him.

  3. I heard a bit of an interview with Richard Muller, the climate scientist who has changed his mind about global warming. He’s been criticised for not waiting until his work was peer-reviewed before going public. His response was that posting his data publicly was part of the peer-review process, in that anyone could look over his data and his methods, and make their criticisms. He also commented that it’s been the journals driving criticism of public release of data or preprints.

  4. To what extent does the interaction between academic biomedicine and big phrama/industrial biotech prevent the growth of the open source culture?

  5. #4

    It has little to do with collaborations with industry, this is a rather small (but growing) percentage of researchers. Even within those labs that do collaborate with industry, not all the projects or lab members will be involved in such collaborations.

    This is nothing but pure assertion on my part, but the primary issue with open source (not preprints) is who pays for it. The traditional publishing model has libraries and institutions paying huge fees to journals to obtain access coupled with smaller page/figure charges for publishing on the researcher. Open Access is expensive. The journals want to make money. Open access journals typically do this by charging researchers a large publishing fee (~$2000) up front. Thats a lot of money to most labs and a big turn off compared to the traditional route where the costs are usually a few hundred dollars.

    Otherwise, I think many researchers would welcome open access, as increased availability increases the chances of citation.

    The opposition to preprints is a bit different and has multiple layers:

    1) Not many people know about it
    2) Fears of getting scooped
    3) Fears that it will hurt the chances of getting published

    I think this last one is underappreciated. Journals have strict rules about trying to publish or submit a paper multiple places at once. While this is different than preprints, I think the similarities are such that it would be a turn off and illicit caution in many researchers. Until the concept becomes more familiar, these fears will continue. Until the culture of Biology changes and credit of first discovery goes for things other than first to publish in a journal, it will continue. I have seen friends get scooped and it is fairly certain that it happened because he presented data at a conference before publication, making it known to our competitors.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Razib Khan Comments via RSS