So, why do we still have journals?

Abstract:

The academic article is a relic from a bygone age. Form and style have not changed much since the days of Einstein and Wegener, nor have the institutions that publish our academic knowledge.

When I google-scholar an article, I do not care if it was published in nature, PNAS, or the annals of the cambodian society of herbologists. I care about the scientific knowledge contained in the article, that I would like to use in my own work. So: why do we have journals again?

The journal-based system of scientific publication is cracking under its own weight. The publish or perish culture leads to an ever increasing number of articles, each containing less actual science, because spreading over multiple papers helps your career. Journal editors complain that the average number of scientists that they approach for reviewing has gone up because there is no incentive in being a reviewer, only in being reviewed. And finally: much research money is wasted because reviewers point out fundamental flaws in experiment setups after the fact.

In this talk, I will present a new way of publishing scientific knowledge. A departure of the classic systems, my way aims to keep the thoroughness of the peer reviewed system, increase the effective use of funding and make more scientific knowledge publically available. Also, it abolishes the need for journals.