Salam Alykoum,
With the growing challenges of traditional academic publishing—lengthy peer review processes, high rejection rates, and access restrictions—should we reconsider the role of personal dissemination of research?
Imagine a model where researchers publish their work directly on personal platforms or open repositories, bypassing journals and peer reviewers. Feedback and evaluation would occur through direct correspondence, open peer commentary, and community-driven reviews.
Could this approach democratize research dissemination, foster transparency, and speed up the exchange of ideas? Or would it compromise the rigor and credibility that traditional peer review ensures?
Let’s discuss: Is it time to rethink the norms of scholarly publishing and embrace personal dissemination as a viable alternative? What would be the risks and benefits of such a system?
Regards,
Dr. Fatih CHELLAI
On one hand, I agree with you because there is some discrimination from certain journals, and some topics may be rejected not due to the poor quality of the work but because the subject might not attract readers' interest, out of fear of lowering the journal's impact factor. There is another type of discrimination when the researcher is unknown, meaning they are at the beginning of their academic career and belong to an unrecognized institution, which may lead to rejection, unlike established researchers. On the other hand, I disagree with you because publications need to be organized; otherwise, it would become random and fail to reflect the advancement of scientific research or the credibility of studies.
Hello !
Research findings should be share with stakeholders and wider audience, because research is a systematic way to find out new trends and spread new knowledge and information. Research Dissemination sets new trends for researchers to fulfill research gaps.
Scholarly Publishing Won’t Be Saved by Incremental Change
We’re stuck in a moribund scholarly publishing ecosystem. Acts of refusal by academic researchers and faculty may be our only way out...
"Individual users have already begun adapting to and resisting the wicked problem of scholarly publishing by, for example, circumventing paywalls using Sci-Hub, posting preprints and PDFs despite publisher restrictions, and using AI to replace academic labor in an austerity environment.
Organizations like ScholarLed, a consortium of open access book publishers, seeks ways to “scale small” rather than engage in the constant growth expected in the publishing industry. Conceived out of concern for the “lack of digital transition from the region’s journals,” Redalyc indexes and preserves diamond OA, academic-owned journals from around the world.
Initiatives such as these embody refusal out of both necessity and adherence to the values of open science.
For academics trapped in the moribund ecosystem of scholarly publishing and its various “transformative” models, which will come first—the collapse and ruin of decrepit budget models, or a collective refusal and commitment to build a system of our own?"
https://katinamagazine.org/content/article/open-knowledge/2025/scholarly-publishing-wont-be-saved-incremental-change
https://scholarled.org/
https://redalyc.org/
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Crystallography
- X-ray Diffraction