Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Introducing the new JEB Forum section

2019; Oxford University Press; Volume: 32; Issue: 8 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/jeb.13511

1420-9101

Wolf U. Blanckenhorn,

Academic Publishing and Open Access

It has been nearly two years since I took over as Editor-in-Chief (EiC) of the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, also known affectionately as JEB. Admittedly, and prudently so, initially things remained pretty much as the previous EiC Mike Ritchie handed them over to me. In principle, JEB has been working well, despite experiencing a steady decline in manuscript submissions, a trend experienced by many other traditional journals in the field of evolutionary ecology and behaviour. Nevertheless, JEB is firmly established as one of the few well-respected society journals with an explicit focus on evolutionary biology. It is supported by a large community of evolutionary biologists, mainly in Europe and North America, though it is quickly developing a world-wide range. Fast and thorough reviewing, rapid publication, and a high standard of article delivery are some of JEB's particular strengths. Informal feedback at meetings and elsewhere suggests that ESEB members still very much appreciate the journal, and that it is widely seen as serving the community well. Recruiting new editors and reviewers from around the world has been relatively easy, allowing for expansion into areas of evolutionary biology that have to date not been so well covered by the journal, such as genomics, gene evolution or gene networks. This further reflects good will towards, and ownership of, our journal. It is this community of active researchers that ultimately guarantees the functioning of the peer-review process, which is the critical and essential hallmark of science that ensures proper quality control. Of course, the long-established model of science dissemination is rapidly changing, and many traditional society journals are experiencing a hard squeeze in this age of Open Access. Continued emphasis on journal impact factors has led to the establishment of many new, often commercial, journals attempting to gain money and reputation by aspiring to be overly selective, a trend largely promoted by the main funding organizations and scientific publishers themselves. As long as funders, academic employers, politicians and the press keep focusing on journal impact metrics, academics will likely continue to submit their work there for understandable career reasons. This assumes that the review process of more generic, multidisciplinary ‘high-impact journals’ is thorough, professional and hence better, which in my experience is doubtful given high editorial rejection rates by non-specialists. At the same time, multiple run-of-the-mill journals, old and new, commercial or not, are now offering a potentially smoother route to publishing more ‘routine’ articles, which are plentiful. Surprisingly perhaps, high article processing charges (APCs) of open access (and hybrid) journals do not appear to be a strong disincentive for many authors, no doubt because science funders and universities will often pay for APCs. The recent, sometimes fierce discussions surrounding open access have meanwhile promoted a number of alternative business models for science publication and evaluation, some of which are being currently introduced at the highest political levels, e.g., Plan-S (https://www.coalition-s.org/), or university (pre- and post-) print servers (e.g., the University of Zurich's ZORA: https://www.zora.uzh.ch/). Other notable examples are web-based, non-commercial organizations offering scientific peer-review that is separated from the actual process of scientific publication, such as Peerage of Science (a Finnish initiative: https://www.peerageofscience.org/) or Peer Community In (PCI, a French initiative: https://peercommunityin.org/). Against this background, it has taken me two years and many discussions to introduce JEB's new Forum section for papers concerning science policy and related matters of interest to scientific societies (notably ESEB) and the scientific community of evolutionary biologists at large. We may as well—in fact, we must—discuss more openly such matters if we want to positively influence the future of our field and science in general. In addition to meta-scientific empirical studies, which JEB has occasionally published before, this new section provides a forum for papers and discussions on all kinds of issues affecting the workings and dissemination of science, evolutionary biology in particular. How should scientific research and data be published, presented, and peer-reviewed in the future? Should we simplify and further streamline the reporting of scientific findings? How open must or should science be? Who pays for what, and to whom? What is the role of scientific journals when work is no longer printed? Should journals, including our own journal, develop a clear profile, or should they publish all sound work in evolutionary biology? Should reviewing always be (double-)blind, or double-non-blind? If so, how do we credit reviewers, and how do we track their reputation as scientists? How can we distinguish 'fake science' from real science? How reproducible must or can empirical studies be? Should we mandate pre-registration of studies to avoid P-value fishing? When can we stop researching a particular topic or hypothesis, i.e., when do we have sufficient evidence for or against it? How do we, as scientists, best influence policy? What is the role of scientific societies in all this, and how can they raise funds to support their activities in the future? How should funding be allocated? How can we close the gender gap in science? These are some of the pressing questions to which we have to find answers in the near future, questions to be debated in our new Forum section. This issue of JEB features the first Forum paper by Meirmans et al. (2019) on how science funding should be allocated in evolutionary biology and beyond. I am hoping that many more such contributions will follow. Besides appointing a number of new deciding and reviewing editors for our Editorial Board, a number of further changes have been implemented at JEB during my tenure. Wiley-Blackwell, our publisher for many years, introduced significant presentational changes well visible on the JEB website. JEB's Editorial Assistants, Lia Curtin and Kevin Flores, are now based in Wiley's Oxford and Manila offices rather than within the institution of the EiC. So far this model is working well. Responding to the increasing necessity of promoting science directly to the public, JEB also recently introduced brief 'graphical abstracts' of all accepted papers for their more efficient promotion at conferences and online. It is likely that in the coming years, science publication will undergo further transformations. I personally foresee an entirely article-based publication system in the future, hopefully with a strong built-in review and quality control system directed by the traditional topical scientific societies. Until then, and beyond, we need to ensure that evolutionary societies such as ESEB remain strong and keep recruiting new members among our promising young scientists who will continue seeing their society journal as a publication venue of choice, and in fact use them. I hope that the new Forum section in JEB will contribute to fostering a sense of belonging to the society and to the community of evolutionary biologists at large.