All voices welcome at Matter ‘open mic’
2022; Elsevier BV; Volume: 5; Issue: 8 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1016/j.matt.2022.07.007
ISSN2590-2393
Autores Tópico(s)scientometrics and bibliometrics research
ResumoLast year (Matter volume 4, issue 8), we released our inaugural “Researcher’s Choice” special issue, consisting of only previews, i.e., an issue with no original peer-reviewed research or review articles. Our motivation then was a bit of a trial experiment, to see what kind of scope we would cover if we removed the editorial bias from our content and invited authors to highlight whatever they wished in materials science. It was a resounding success with 42 contributed Previews highlighting 42 research works across 42 independent global laboratories, covering articles from 24 distinct journals across multiple publishers. If anything, it proved that a single journal cannot claim a monopoly on exciting materials science; there is simply too much innovation happening across the field. This year, the editorial team is repeating the concept, but with a slightly different motivation: maximizing the voice of the materials science community. Scientific publishing is, at its root, all about science dissemination and communication. The ultimate goal as an author is to have your work widely read, and the ultimate goal as a publisher is to have as many readers as possible. It is a simple concept at the core. Unfortunately, modern scientific publishing has developed into a complex system of submissions, revisions, peer review, subscription, open access, transfers, rebuttals, reformatting, copyright, preprints, embargos, etc. Moreover, intrinsic competition between journals (and authors) has led to self-selectivity, bias, and the accountability of impact (for better and for worse). While still the primary platform for scientific dissemination, current academic publishing erects significant barriers between the research and the reader. Through our second Researcher’s Choice issue, the editorial team at Matter hands the control (at least temporarily) to the authors. With this idea in mind, the team thought about platforms/events where people openly could lend their voices—e.g., debates, protests, social media, etc.—looking for allegorical inspiration (and a potential cover design). Then it hit us: Open Mic Nights. For the unaware, an open mic night is a live show at a venue such as a coffeehouse, nightclub, comedy club, or pub, in which (typically volunteer) audience members plan to perform on stage whether they are amateurs or professionals, often for the first time or to promote an upcoming performance. The “open mic” is short for “open microphone,” which commonly remains live onstage, and passed between performers. In effect, the owners of the venue give up control, and let the acts decide what will be performed. Similarly, we have given editorial control of this special issue to the authors, letting them decide what to highlight, without editorial screening or influence. There are more direct comparisons that one can make for this issue and open mic nights, including:1.A low(er) barrier for entry. Open mics provide an opportunity for emerging musicians to gain experience performing to a live audience without having to go through the process of getting normal music gigs, which is very difficult to do without experience or a demo recording. Similarly, in this special issue, articles were not peer reviewed and authors were free to present their own takes on the papers. Moreover, a variety of career and experience levels contributed, from grad students (akin to amateur musicians) to established researchers (akin to professional performers). Like open mic nights, the only barrier was a willingness to “take the stage.”2.Practice and flexibility. Indeed, if you are a performer, open mic nights offer great opportunities to practice and find your voice and sharpen your musical acumen. Similarly, in science communication, previews provide a low-risk exercise to practice scientific writing. For those more experienced, it can provide a more flexible outlet to discuss ideas that the strict framework of research articles does not provide, perhaps exploring tangential ideas and topics that are difficult to address in the lab.3.Original works not required. Beginning musicians typically hone their skills by playing other’s works, i.e., musical “covers”. Previews are similar in that the basic concepts are not the author’s own, but borrowed from another research article. Like musicians, there is also benefit in learning about many styles, and learning what best suits one’s own talents.4.Interpretation and innovation. Regarding covers, the performance of someone else’s music at open mic nights allows one’s own unique interpretation that differs from the original artist. A preview can suggest new directions and implications for a particular result, perhaps missed by the original authors, and contribute additional creative insights.5.More variety. Performers at open mic nights are typically limited to a song or two, to maximize the number of acts. For the audience this ensures more variety, and if they do not enjoy a typical musical style, genre, or individual performance, they can wait until the next act. In our special issue, it is not expected one reads all of the previews—you can skip to the subjects (genres) you enjoy and perhaps take some inspiration. The parallels between open mic nights and this special issue were clear, so we integrated it into the cover. The concept was simple: an empty stage from a ramshackle bar was envisioned, the Matter logo graffitied on a brick wall, a neon “Open Mic” sign aglow, a single microphone and stool awaiting a performer (perhaps with some science/chemistry apparatus). Completing the picture would be a poster listing the evening’s performers. This allows room to inject some creativity! Rather than list trendy materials, the thought was to lean on the music analogy and invent some “material bands”, such as Lady GalliumGallium, and OLED Zeppelin. Indeed, the editorial team initially messaged some of our Cell Press peers, and multiple examples were generated. It was actually pretty fun … so we decided to involve the community! To this end, we posted a request on Twitter, to contribute more “material bands” ideas for Matter. In less than 24 h, the tweet received over 20,000 impressions, over 100 likes, 20 retweets, and countless puns, including Cardi Boron and rage against the machine learning (my personal fav was The Notorious B.3.L.Y.P.). Some of these suggestions are included in the cover. Here are 10 of our favorites with a shout out to the Twitter contributors (in no particular order):Nine Ångström Nails @lonepair(in)organic! At the Disco @Andrew_S_RosenElectro-Luminescent Orchestra @arndt_ericVanadium Halen @SarbajitBanerj1Fluorescence and the Machine @MOFSotonGreen Dye @jianbo_tangNanowar @buerviper[1,0,1] Direction @KFrohnaMOF-ley Crue @GriceChemistryMoS2 Def @profericpop We thank everyone who had a little fun with the idea. Perhaps we will see a science-themed cover band emerge from one of these suggestions. Although the “science band names” was a fun creative exercise, the link between music and research is clear—balancing creativity and skill with practice and dedication, with the ultimate goal of sharing with an audience to inspire. This special issue is very much like a compilation album, “Now That’s What I Call Materials Science!” Indeed, across 60 previews in this issue (and three Matter of Opinion articles), there are more than 170 authors that can now be considered part of the Matter community, many of whom had never published with us before. We’re looking forward to their potential greatest hits. Now enough with the introduction… … here’s Wonderwall…
Referência(s)