Earlier today, Scott Collins, the president of the Ecological Society of America has announced that the society will now accept articles that have previously been posted on preprint servers. This comes on the heels of a growing discussion in our community. Ethan White has a good summary over on Jabberwocky Ecology.
Many voices have joined the discussion over the past month, and it is exciting and vindicating to see the Society engage and discuss these questions. With this announcement out, I thought I might share my original letter. Here’s the text of an email I sent on August 1st to Don Strong, editor-in-chief of Ecology and a friend to open science known for his bottom-up view that ecologists should show their publication preferences by their actions. Don kindly forwarded this email to other members of the board.
Dear Don,
Perhaps you have already seen the perspective appearing in Nature this week, “Geneticists eye the potential of Arxiv.” I must say it is particularly saddening to see the Ecological Society of America being singled out in the discussion as a professional society that opposes pre-prints, particularly given that ESA is not beholden to corporate publishers, and in the face a rising swell of interest in pre-print server capacity, as evidenced by the Nature article (which quotes our own Graham Coop), the emergence of an NCEAS working group to bring about a preprint server, and the extensive online discussions about ESA’s stance against pre-prints which was no doubt responsible for bringing ESA into the negative limelight of this perspective.
The discussion launched by Professor Ethan White on his blog suggests that ESA has in fact only recently removed a clause in the policies explicitly permitting the use of the arXiv. Meanwhile members of the NCEAS working group had considered approaching ESA to partner in their efforts to bring about a preprint server and culture, hoping to take advantage of the agility ESA has as a respected and independent society publisher. Ecology as a field has been a leading example of pushing for innovative and open publishing practices such as mandatory data archiving, and ESA has led this front for decades with innovations such as Ecological Archives and more recent Ecosphere. It shames me to see our society and our field painted as a backwater of regressive policies in such prominent magazines when even journals such as Nature, Science, & PNAS permit and encourage the use of preprint servers such as the arXiv. I would hate to see our most innovative research migrate away from the Society at a time when ESA could be leading our field through this academic publishing transition that is now discussed broadly in the NY Times, Guardian, Economist, & USA Today. This is a chance for the Ecological Society to both lead and flourish.
I hope that these issues can be discussed in some fashion with the input of our community at the annual meeting in Portland. The British Ecological Society already plans to use the meeting to discuss a digital future of their journals, surely ESA will be doing as much at it’s own meeting, formally or informally?
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help.
Cheers,
Carl