How we should democratize scientific knowledge—and why
Written Progress
Unique grant writing services for sustainability and climate: lay the groundwork, then build your skills or hand it off.
In 15 seconds:
Peer review and paywalls were intended to encourage quality but are becoming barriers to democratic science. Conversely, open access principles accelerate progress, broaden access to vital knowledge, and compel equity.
In 10 minutes:
The peer review paradox
Peer review was initially established as a quality control mechanism but is becoming a bottleneck to scientific discovery. For journals like Science, the average time from submission to acceptance is around 123 days, not accounting for rejected manuscripts.[1] Reviewers—often volunteers—spend around four to five hours per review. The global time spent on peer reviews exceeded 100 million hours in 2020.[2] Inconsistencies in review decisions further complicate this process when previously accepted articles are unexpectedly rejected for subjective or vague reasons.[3] Meanwhile, journals are often sustained by a self-serving cycle. Who are the volunteers who can be relied on to perform the usually unpaid labor of reviewing for a journal? The researchers who are seduced by the hope of being published by that journal.
Paywalls: gatekeepers to knowledge
Publication paywalls theoretically cover publication costs while maintaining the integrity of scholarly journals. In practice, however, they betray the principles of open scientific inquiry. Worse, restricting access undermines public advocacy and policy development work.
For scientists, encountering paywalls is more than frustrating—it also limits their ability to stay informed about the latest research developments, which impacts their work and slows scientific progress. Moreover, the financial model underpinning many science journals, which relies heavily on subscription fees, has been criticized for making publicly funded research less available. Hoarding important and useful knowledge behind exorbitant paywalls compromises the return on investment and the accessibility of results theoretically intended for public benefit.
The open access (OA) community has emerged to present a more-just alternative grounded in open access principles. These are perhaps best summarized in the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities.[4] Signed in 2003, it emphasizes the need for immediate access to scientific publications. Naturally, OA faces obstacles as it tries to emerge into a space crowded with profit motives. Progress in fully implementing OA and dismantling paywall barriers has been gradual, facing challenges like resistance from traditional publishing models and the complexity of transitioning.e
But those challenges must be faced. OA is crucial for lobbying for policy changes and research funding, as research participants and the general public often expect the results of studies to be widely disseminated and used for the greater good.
Scientific research evaluation needs an overhaul ?
Traditionally, citation counts are the metric of 'success'. Research shows that the prestige of the publisher, institute, or university and the authors' reputation are key factors affecting this popular measure.[5] But what about real-world impact? In reality, metrics like citation counts and the h-index[6] often fail to capture the real-world impact of research, given the outsized biases that come with such deep academic influence.
When metrics are too-narrowly focused on knowledge dissemination, academic circles become and remain ignorant of opportunities for wider societal, economic, or legislative impacts. Research highlights that citation metrics poorly correlate with broader impact assessments when compared against more inclusive frameworks like the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF), which incorporates societal impact case studies.[7]
Enter alternative metrics (a.k.a. altmetrics.)
Altmetrics look beyond traditional analysis and at how research is used and shared online, providing insights into a study's influence well beyond academia. Altmetrics offer nuanced, context-rich evaluations of research impact and accumulate data rapidly, which benefits fields with slow citation growth and newer researchers. Platforms like Altmetric.com enhance the transparency and inclusiveness of research impact assessment.
While measuring societal impact remains challenging, altmetrics are an important tool for measuring complex societal impact. They are a path towards a more inclusive system that values societal relevance and practical applicability alongside academic discourse. The inclusion of altmetrics can also start to address some of the pervasive inequity issues that stymie scientific publishing.
Intersectionality matters
Science isn't just a collection of data; it's a tapestry woven from diverse experiences and knowledge. Scientific pursuits can and should overlap with the efforts to promote gender equality, racial diversity, and Indigenous knowledge systems—but Western scientific paradigms often overshadow non-Western perspectives and compound the other obstacles. This suppresses local and Indigenous knowledge that's vital for understanding complex socio-environmental challenges and opportunities.
There are often decades between indicators being noticed by Indigenous peoples and eventually being documented by researchers. For example, a Sanikiluaq-based publication from the early 1990s, Voices from the Bay,[8] reported the climate and ecosystem indicators that Inuit hunters were witnessing: changes in ice formation and seasonality, shifting marine mammal diets, and habitat degradation. Scientists were slow to study the changes, belatedly collecting evidence of what the Inuit observed decades ago.[9] If simply getting scientists to study local knowledge remains a barrier to scientific discovery, how much larger is the barrier to publishing and using this time-sensitive knowledge?
Gender bias further complicates this landscape. Women, already underrepresented within the research community, are also proportionally underrepresented in authorship and peer review, affecting their career advancement and limiting the breadth of research perspectives.
Similarly, racial diversity is lacking in scientific publishing, particularly in the Global South. Of the 100 most-cited climate science papers published between 2016 and 2020, only 1% were based in Africa,[10] despite those in the continent being particularly vulnerable to climate change. There is a strong bias favoring Western writing styles, placing an undue burden on those who are trying to express themselves across a cultural or linguistic divide. Researchers who have paid for translation services are frustrated to find their papers rejected and their findings left out of the global dialogue.
This pattern threatens to persist, given that researchers from minority backgrounds encounter pervasive barriers to funding, mentorship, and publication opportunities, affecting individual careers and narrowing the range of research topics and methodologies.[11]
Rethinking the status quo
Challenging the current status quo is essential for progress. Alternative philosophies like open access and post-publication peer review offer pathways toward more inclusive and rapid dissemination of knowledge. Disruptors like The Stacks Journal[12] actively champion alternatives; founder David Green, PhD argues, "…the hardest part about science should be doing sound research, not sharing it."
Democratizing scientific publishing requires including diverse voices and perspectives, recognizing and respecting different knowledge systems, including Indigenous wisdom, and creating equal opportunities for all researchers to contribute and access scientific knowledge.
领英推荐
What's Needed?
Transforming scientific publishing requires systemic change. Here are a few key actions:
Anyone can advocate for open access by doing their part to insist that knowledge is shared more broadly. If you're a researcher, consider: who does and doesn't have the ability to understand what you've discovered? Whose points of view are missing from your knowledge sources? Begin paying attention to how you can play a part in bridging that divide.
Wrapping Up:
Democratizing scientific knowledge is a matter of equity and progress. By breaking down traditional barriers in publishing, we can accelerate scientific innovation and ensure it serves a diverse global community. The future of science relies on our ability to embrace more inclusive, transparent, and impactful practices that reflect the world as it actually is—not just how it's been understood within traditional, exclusive domains.
What would help you broaden your impact?
There's no doubt about it: this work is inherently difficult. To share research equitably is to swim against the tide of institutional power (and underlying profit motives.) It requires a completely distinct skill set—one that you don't have to develop on your own.
We at Written Progress have been focusing on that other skill set: the ability to interpret ideas for new audiences in a way they can grasp and use. We want to learn from you about what obstacles you're facing.
Book a discovery call to discuss how your findings can reach places they haven't yet been.