Gnaiger 2019 MitoFit Preprints Editorial

MitoFit Preprint Archives editorial team (2019) A vision on preprints - for mitochondrial physiology and bioenergetics. MitoFit Preprint Archives in prep.

MitoFit Preprint Archives editorial team (2019) MitoFit Preprint Archives

Abstract: A manuscript prepared for traditional journal publication on ‘Mitochondrial states and rates’ is the first preprint published in ‘MitoFit Preprint Archives’ [1]. It actually triggered the initiation of a preprint server for mitochondrial physiology and bioenergetics. In this editorial we tell the story behind starting another preprint server, explain the rationale of integrating it within the Bioblast and MitoPedia websites, and develop a vision of science communication beyond traditional journal and preprint publication from the perspectives of unsustainable exponential growth of increasingly fragmented literature, challenges of priority and reproducibility, and the struggle with relevant data, irrelevant information and revelation of knowledge.

Labels:

From a MitoEAGLE preprint to the MitoFit preprint server

In prep

Bioblast, MitoPedia, and Gentle Science

In prep

An industry of scientific publication

Science is progressively turning into an industry with unchecked floods of publications in the business channels of scientific journals. A recent whirl of commercial Open Access journals and the non-profit wave of accelerated preprint publication leads to further swelling of the stream. Many labs used to celebrate a new team publication with a toast. The number of scientific publications posted per day is growing faster than the motivation to throw another party and overrides the capacity to turn scientific innovation into knowledge. Publications as a currency of scientific output are subject to an increasing inflation rate, just as economic inflation is driven by excessive money supply. Publications should be seen as a currency, in contrast to scientific output in terms of goods and services provided by research. Reproducible results, reliable databases, relevant information, meaningful knowledge obtained by putting information into context lead to scientific output, such as a diagnostic test for early Alzheimer diagnosis and treatment of dement patients, or effective preservation of environmental resources.

Distinguishing scientific goods and services from inflation of the publication currency

A scientist lists her or his publication record to obtain an academic degree and position or to support a grant application. Publications in research may be compared to a bank account in the world of investors. Evaluation of a currency depends on how much money can buy. Of course, the Syrian pound (SYP) is not rated equal to British pound (GBP); a paper in a local journal is not rated equal to a publication in a globally distributed international journal. Academic productivity is measured by widely applied publication metrics, such as the journal-impact factor or h-index [2]. The focus on publication currencies, however, detracts from the question, which goods the currency can buy. Irreproducible results published in traditional journals or preprints have a negative impact on society, if any. Is the number of patents a better metric for innovation [3] compared to publications? What is the value-impact on society of a high journal-impact publication, versus the value of a preprint that may be influential irrespective of conventional publication metrics? Good measures of scientific impact on society may not yet be available and a value-impact factor is difficult to define. But this should not detract us from searching for intelligent solutions, their optimization and implementation. Both, traditional journal publications and preprints contribute towards progress in improving the scientific goods and services, even at an increased inflation rate and decline of the currency value of each unit of scientific publication.

Worthless but useful – are publications comparable to nails?

PubMed lists 8, 13, 26, and 46 publications per day in 1988, 1998, 2018, and 2018, when searching for ‘mitochondr*’. How many of those did I miss without being aware of their possible relevance for my research or the manuscript currently in preparation for submission? Is another ‘paper’ added to the masses still considered as a potential building block of human culture? Reviews have been a help in science and teaching. But a review published today will be outdated tomorrow. So what’s the point of reading or even citing it?

We need intelligent tools that help to bring validated data into focus . This requires software-supported screening for results that (1) have been reproduced by different research groups; (2) are backed up with a rigorous quality management, such as pre-publication of time stamped protocols, access to raw data of the complete data set, including calibration procedures and data analysis algorithms; (3) are published explicitly by including negative results, which can be compared with corresponding positive results. Similarly, intelligent tools should become available which put a red flag to publications with conclusions drawn on false statistics. Based upon such and other quality control measures, software detecting plagiarism may be developed further by machine learning into powerful tools for improved filtering of specific research topics, generating databases and context of segmented publications. This will not make scientist redundant, but re-searchers will have the task to validate such databases as indispensable tools for the advancement of science. A corresponding output metric will be the measurement of the impact of a publication on a database, the value-impact of a database on the knowledge system, and the cultural and socio-economic impact. The publication currency may lose the power to buy the opinion of granting agencies or to serve as an index of scientific prestige. A paper will be traded: many papers are needed to by a valuable tool or gadget. Even if the individual paper is of little value, many papers together are essential for the whole thing. An industrially produced nail is not worthwhile picking from the street. In context, all publications are potential nails, which need an architect’s plan, quality control for being straight, having the right length, and being made of the proper material. Together with the nails a hammer is needed to build a meaningful structure. Many more nails are needed of sufficient quality and properly inserted to build a structure and hold it together.

References

1. Gnaiger E, Aasander Frostner E, Abdul Karim N, Abumrad NAet al (2019) Mitochondrial respiratory states and rates. MitoFit Preprint Arch doi:10.26124/mitofit:190001.
2. Carpenter CR, Cone DC, Sarli CC (2014) Using publication metrics to highlight academic productivity and research impact. Acad Emerg Med 21:1160-72 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25308141
3. Silver N (2012) The signal and the noise. The art and science of prediction. Penguin Press:534 pp.