The Highs and Lows of Scientific Publishing: The Work We Have to Do

Danielle H. Llaneza, MA^✉; Health Decision Making SIG

As a doctoral student and clinician-in-training, I am relatively new to scientific publishing. Yet, I have already experienced the triumphs and tribulations of the scientific publishing process. Reviewers have shared words of encouragement and the vague and less helpful, “this idea is not novel” remark. When The Atlantic published, “Scientific Publishing Is a Joke” I was intrigued. I chuckled at the cartoon depictions in the article and thought that the scientists who created these were accurate and relatable. However, thinking deeper, I realized there is nothing funny about “why scientific publishing is a joke.” In research and science, there is a clear publishing inequity that requires our attention.

The Atlantic piece shared that there are 200,000+ articles on COVID-19, which is a staggering amount of scientific knowledge. However, have we thought about whose work is getting published? While we may balk at the idea of 200,000+ articles on the same topic within a year, what is systematically more problematic is who gets their work published and who does not. Female authors and authors of color have seen a decrease in their publications, research projects, and overall scholarly productivity when compared to white male authors during the pandemic. For example, only 32% of first author and only 20% of last author contributors identified as women in flagship journals from July to October 2020.¹  Black authors continue to be significantly less likely to be published, funded, and reviewed as compared to their white counterparts.² This productivity inequity is in stark contrast to proof that diverse voices foster better work environments, solutions, and broader outcomes.^3,4 We need to focus on creating a publication system that values our scientific “aha” moments for all scientists, regardless of whether the results can be attributed to mainstream or local community level impacts.

How can we make changes to this system? One suggestion is to make part of our scientific duty the reduction of scientific publishing barriers faced by members of marginalized communities. As scientists, asking questions is part of the job, and we have the skills to ask questions that more directly address workplace and publishing inequities  to create change. We can examine the system, and the people, in place who review and reward our scientific work. We can address if we have enough diverse voices on editorial teams to make sure all types of work are equally assessed and valued. We can ask and discuss with our marginalized scientists if they have equitable support to get their work published.

Another suggestion is to expand the concept of “scholarly” publications. Writing for various audiences should be an integral part of our scientific training. Further, science communication should be distributed broadly and intentionally in public spaces (social media, media outlets, etc.). While “scholarly” publishing is intended for other researchers, students, and clinicians, public work should be equally valued. If we wish to make science more accessible, then experts need to take (and have) the time to provide their science to public audiences. Open dissemination of science must include production of layman articles; this can be part of our workday to provide informative science to more directly assist those in need. Science communication provides information to a larger audience; for example, patients can make more informed decisions about treatment options and feel empowered to collaborate with their care team. Office workers can discuss health innovations during their lunch break with colleagues to mobilize social supports.

At the moment, it can take up to 17 years for published science to be utilized in practice,⁵ depending on the discipline. If people are buying new cars and phones every two years, waiting 17 years for new applied science is faulty. We have an opportunity to create more sustainable, equitable change. And instead of leaning into “why scientific publishing is a joke,” let’s take this moment to collectively address the culpabilities in our system. With our data, let’s creatively dive into a system of expanded science reporting that is accessible and focused for the people who need it.

The author would like to acknowledge Amanda J. Llaneza and Virali Dave for their initial feedback and support for this article. The author would also like to thank Courtney Lynam Scherr, PhD for her thoughtful and straightforward edits and suggestions.

 

References

1. Mazer, B. (2021). Scientific Publishing Is a Joke. The Atlantic. Accessed at: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/05/xkcd-science-paper-meme-nails-academic-publishing/618810/
2. Ribarovska AK, Hutchinson MR, Pittman QJ, Pariante C, Spencer SJ. Gender inequality in publishing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Brain Behav Immun. 2021;91:1-3. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2020.11.022
3. ASAPbio. (2020). Racial disparities in science and publishing. ASAPbio News. Accessed at https://asapbio.org/racial-disparities
4. Hewlett, S.A., Marshall, M., & Sherbin, L. (2013). How Diversity Can Drive Innovation. The Harvard Review. Accessed at https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation
5. Levine, S.R. (2020). Diversity Confirmed To Boost Innovation And Financial Results. Forbes. Accessed at https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2020/01/15/diversity-confirmed-to-boost-innovation-and-financial-results/?sh=56d64e1fc4a6