Publishing in the field of neuroscience: Scientists at the University of Minnesota Institute for Translational Neuroscience describe problems and potential solutions

Abstract

Publishing in the field of neuroscience is a chaotic, inefficient, and increasingly difficult process to navigate. Scientists disagree on the value of traditional publishing versus Open Access publishing, predatory journals pollute the literature, and researchers suffer from the widespread practice of submitting to high-impact journals, facing rejection, and delaying publications. To gain a better understanding of how neuroscientists navigate this process, I interviewed ten researchers at the University of Minnesota Institute for Translational Neuroscience. Through interviewing investigators with varying levels of publishing experience—graduate students, beginning investigators, and senior investigators—I aimed to 1.) gain a more complete picture of how researchers approach the publishing process, cope with the associated problems, and view potential changes to the system; 2.) generate a more concrete notion of what changes might best suit the future field of neuroscience; and 3.) understand how predatory journals fit into the transitional state of neuroscience publishing. To create a better publishing system, I suggest that we apply the research findings of economist Elinor Ostrom, integrate conversations about publishing within graduate neuroscience programs, and utilize research from the field of Scientific and Technical Communication.