I’ve written before about the need to experiment with how we share science to chart alternatives to the traditional journal system. To uncover promising approaches, every few months, I put out a call on social media to find scientists who are pushing the boundaries of how they share their research. I’m looking for those who communicate their work with radical transparency, making it easy for others to use, test, and build on their ideas. Those who aren’t waiting for permission to break the mold or the rules they were taught, because those rules make no sense.
A side effect of stepping off the well-worn path is that it tends to infect everything you do. You start noticing other routines and assumptions you’ve been following on autopilot that don’t make sense either. It becomes second nature to challenge conventions, act pragmatically, and unbottleneck your own research in many ways. People who operate like this often have a broader, outsized impact on the progress of science. These practices are contagious, too, so I hope there aren’t just a few of these pioneers in the world, but a few in every discipline, every region, every institution, and every lab, so they can spark a thousand fires of change.
I’ve been talking with the Experiment Foundation about how we can find and elevate these people, and I’m thrilled they’ll soon be giving out “Beyond the Journal” awards to recognize a few of these trailblazers. Of course, no one who operates in the ways they believe are best for science does it for awards or recognition. They do it because they can’t not do it. Still, surfacing and amplifying bold practices helps others rethink what’s possible and shifts the Overton window, the range of what’s considered acceptable, for how we share research.
If you know someone who’s an outlier in how they share their work and who’s leading by example, please nominate them so they can inspire others! These people are easy to spot. At first glance, they might look reckless. Like they’re exposing themselves to criticism or not protecting their ideas. But they’ll also look unburdened, a little less crushed by the mechanics of the scientific apparatus. They’re probably having more fun, in a profession we all entered, at least in part, because it’s fun. And if this sounds like you, don’t hesitate to self-nominate.
I’ll be amplifying the boundary-pushing efforts of others as I learn about them. I’m looking forward to seeing who we can unearth!
Nominate here: https://www.experiment.foundation/beyond
Just a note, on the submission page this statement is written about LK-99: "The entire cycle, from headline-grabbing discovery to thorough debunking, unfolded in about three weeks. Under the journal system, that process would likely have taken years.".
But there was a peer reviewed failure to replicate LK-99 published in October 2023, 3 months after the initial announcement. So this statement is wrong, even if the broader point that systems of traditional peer review often take more time is correct.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.3c06096
This was published in a non-profit journal run by the American Chemical Society.