Over the past decade, Open Science and the rise in digital publications together have facilitated a more agile ecosystem of research-sharing. For researchers, that means faster pathways to sharing their discoveries; greater transparency of assessments, which help increase reliability and public trust; and more opportunities for collaborations that accelerate advancements in the field.

According to the widely-discussed rumor, whose origin is unclear, the administration of President Donald Trump is drafting an executive order that would force the change in publishing practices. This would follow an effort led by European funders, called Plan S, which will require that research they fund be open access immediately on publication, with creative commons licensing terms.

Sharing the full story of your research

The future of publishing is incremental. Discovery occurs in stages, and the way we share and evaluate research should reflect that. Like pre-registrations, a series of linked publications could help exhibit the progression of research from the earliest stages of discovery to its outcomes. More options for linked publications could also offer a format for presenting additional findings, that may be tangential to the main study, but sparks important new venues of inquiry, allowing for more immediate, accurate, and complete scientific communications overall.

A typical research timeline could take years to develop, gather findings, analyze data, and seek suitable journal(s) for publication. When it comes to pressing issues like a pandemic outbreak and climate change, that seems like too long to wait. A segmented approach to research sharing would make information available faster. Preprints, for example, give authors more control over when their work becomes public.

The potential policy change, has fueled the fierce debate between scientists who favor open-access publishing and publishers of subscription journals, many of whom publish some open-access work but say they would struggle to make their business sustainable if all papers were published this way. That debate has intensified over the last year, as publishers and funders have negotiated over the proposal for Plan S.

A complete and more diverse array of outputs to choose from would enable a more dynamic system of credit where researchers receive recognition for their participation in each stage of the process. Options for publishing data, code, protocols, and other products of scientific inquiry, as distinct units also provide incentives for researchers to share more of their work by assigning proper review credit.

Redefining assessment

With technological advancement, new ways are being discovered for research assessments. As a consequence of the improved rendering of the research process, an assessment criterion for research can also be customized to each output that will lead towards a more robust system of evaluation, more aligned with the research aims.

With pre-registration formats, the allowed assessments improve investigations, by making the study design more vigorous from the very beginning. It also sets different expectations for the research outcomes, focusing peer-review on a strong study design, and an adherence to the study protocol. As a result of which, authors receive assessments, which are free from biases and emphasizes on scientific integrity.

Updated articles offer authors the opportunity to commence a line of inquiry and report back any new findings which might change the perspective of the study, or open new avenues for a novel line of inquiry, demonstrating more concretely that scientific discovery is not finite, but an ongoing progression of knowledge.