Key Principles For Scientific Publishing

Key Principles
for Scientific
Publishing
AND THE EXTENT
TO WHICH THEY
ARE OBSERVED
1
© International Science Council, 2023.
These principles are published by The International Science Council,
5 rue Auguste Vacquerie, 75116 Paris, France
To cite this document:

Title: Key Principles for Scientific Publishing
URL: https://council.science/publications/key-principles-for-scientific-publishing
Publisher: International Science Council
Publication date: 17/11/2023
DOI: 10.24948/2023.13
About the International Science Council

The International Science Council (ISC) works at the global level to catalyze and convene
scientific expertise, advice and influence on issues of major concern to both science
and society. The ISC has a growing global membership that brings together over 245
organizations, including international scientific unions and associations from natural and
social sciences, and the humanities, and national and regional scientific organizations
such as academies and research councils.
These principles have been developed by International Science Council members as part
of the Council’s Future of Publishing project and are a companion piece to “The Case
for Reform of Scientific Publishing”, https://council.science/publications/reform-of-
scientific-publishing
Cover Illustration: Harryarts / Freepik
Graphic Design: Mr. Clinton
THE EIGHT KEY PRINCIPLES FOR SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING
Background to the Principles

In 2019, shortly after the creation of the International Science Council, its members,
primarily international scientific Unions and Associations, national and regional scientific
organizations including Academies and Research Councils, and international Federations
and Societies, were asked to identify what they considered to be the most important
contemporary issues for science.
Scientific publishing was most frequently identified as the single most important issue
of “policy for science” and was adopted as a priority for the ISC’s first action plan for
2019-2021. The ISC Governing Board then set up an international working group with the
composition shown below, with the remit to suggest principles for scientific publishing
required to serve the needs of science, and to evaluate the extent to which reform might
be needed.
Substantive work was undertaken by the group during 2020, including three consultation
workshops with ISC members in late 2020 to gain feedback on the project. The paper
concluded that reform was needed and should be based on seven key principles, with which
between 80% and 90% of members concurred. A revised document was then presented
for review to an expert team generously convened by the U.S. National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, and further revised before being submitted to the
ISC Governing Board, which agreed that it should be published as an ISC Report: Opening
the Record of Science: making scholarly publication work for science in the digital era (doi.
org/10.24948/2021.01). Subsequent discussions added an eighth principle, that scientific
publishing should in some way be accountable to the scientific community.
This paper summarises the eight principles that were laid before the General Assembly
of the International Science Council in October 2021, when they were overwhelmingly
endorsed.
The following discussion paper which sits as a companion to these principles, Two: The
Case for Reform of Scientific Publishing, evaluates the extent to which the principles are
attained in practice, thereby identifying issues for reform.
International working group

– Bianca Amaro, Brazil – Mary Lee Kennedy, USA
– Dominique Babini, Argentina – Nathalie Lemarchand, France
– Michael Barber, Australia – Anna Mauranen, Finland
– Geoffrey Boulton, UK (Chair) – Dr Ravi Murugesan, India
– Robin Crew, South Africa – Joseph Mwelwa, Botswana
– Luke Drury, Ireland – François Robida, France
– Professor Martin, UK – Peter Strickland, UK
– Sari Hanafi, Lebanon – Zhang Xiaolin, China
3

4
1. The rapid and global circulation of ideas is central to the scientific
process. There should be universal, prompt open access to the
record of science1, both for authors and readers, with no barriers to
participation, in particular those based on ability to pay, institutional
privilege, language or geography. Excessive prices place much of the
record of science beyond the reach of many authors and readers. True open access
is affordable to both readers and authors. The commercial publishing business
model is based on evaluations of scientific quality using indirect, proxy, bibliometric
measures that incentivise publication in excessively costly journals which sell indices
of status that are not directly based on the quality of science. This process drives up
the cost of commercial publications and is unaffordable by many, thereby fracturing
the international science community, and creating an obsession with publication that
works to the detriment of other vital scientific activities. This sale of status indicators
by major commercial journals is in danger of displacing efficient and effective regional
publishing systems. The indexes that record scientific publication are agents of
discovery of scientific work. They are biased towards the output of the “global north”,
thus rendering invisible much of the knowledge produced in the “south”.
2. Scientific publications should have a default position of carrying

open licences that permit reuse and text and data mining. Too much
of the record of science is inaccessible for reuse and the application of
modern methods of knowledge discovery because of restrictive licences
that sustain high paywalls. Some publishers monopolize metadata by
limiting access to knowledge.
3. Rigorous, timely and ongoing peer review must continue to play a

key role in creating and maintaining the public record of science.
Peer review is crumbling under the weight of demand. It is too limited
in its scope, and often slow and inconsistent with scientific rigour. More
efficient, scalable processes of open peer review already exist, which can
also be used in pre- and post-publication systems of review that can enhance the
development of scientific concepts, rather than being an ephemeral pre-publication
time slice, bring benefit to reviewers, better utilize the resources of scientific
institutions and mobilize the potential of automated procedures.
1 The “record of science” is the record of scientific knowledge and understanding from the earliest days of
scientific inquiry to the present. It is continually refreshed, renewed and re-evaluated across the disci-
plines of science by new experiments, new observations and new theoretical insights. Perennial scruti-
ny is at the core of the value of science. It can invalidate, but cannot validate; it is the basis of so-called
scientific self-correction.
5
4. The data and observations on which a published truth claim is based
should be concurrently accessible to scrutiny and supported by
necessary metadata. It is a fundamental tenet of the scientific method
that evidence supporting a published claim must be concurrently available
for peer scrutiny. Data should be accessible under FAIR (Findable–Accessible–
Interoperable–Reusable) principles and with appropriate safeguards for safety,
security, or privacy.
5. The record of science should be maintained in such a way as to

ensure open access by future generations. Sorting algorithms already
exist that can be applied to create an inclusive “record of versions”
accessible to researchers in ways that do not merely direct them to an
exclusive “version of record”. Such a shift is vital. It would circumvent the
processes that direct researchers along limiting pathways towards the “high impact”
journals of the “global north” with much of the southern output becoming invisible.
6. Modes of publication and bibliodiversities in different disciplines

and regions need to be adapted to relevant needs, but in
ways that also to facilitate inter-operability between different
disciplines and regions, including procedures for multi-lingual
communication. Technological developments on both fronts are now able to
address these issues. There should be a concerted programme for such innovations.
7. Publication systems should be designed to continually adapt to

new opportunities for beneficial change rather than embedding
inflexible systems that inhibit change. Outmoded models of
publication derived from the print era should be displaced by more rapid,
efficient, flexible open-source forms and other functionalities of the digital
age. Such a transition is vital for the needs of science and society.
8. Governance of the processes of dissemination of scientific

knowledge should be accountable to the scientific community.
Access to scientific knowledge and to research assessment indicators
is increasingly monopolized by major commercial publishers and
technology companies whose principal responsibility is to their investors
rather than to science or the public good. As data and artificial intelligence
technologies play an increasing role in science, it is more vital than ever that the
interests of science take priority through accountability for key standards to the
science community.

Key Principles For Scientific Publishing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Key Principles For Scientific Publishing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Key Principles For Scientific Publishing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Key Principles

To cite this document:

About the International Science Council

Background to the Principles

International working group

2. Scientific publications should have a default position of carrying

3. Rigorous, timely and ongoing peer review must continue to play a

5. The record of science should be maintained in such a way as to

6. Modes of publication and bibliodiversities in different disciplines

7. Publication systems should be designed to continually adapt to

8. Governance of the processes of dissemination of scientific

You might also like