Beyond online preprints: formalization of open initiatives in China

A growing number of online journals and academic platforms are adopting light peer review or ‘publish then fi lter’ models of scholarly communication. These approaches have the advantage of enabling instant exchanges of knowledge between academics and are part of a wider search for alternatives to traditional peer review and certifi cation processes in scholarly publishing. However, establishing credibility and identifying the correct balance between communication and scholarly rigour remains an important challenge for digital communication platforms targeting academic communities. This paper looks at a highly infl uential, government-backed, open publishing platform in China: Science Paper Online, which is using transparent post-publication peerreview processes to encourage innovation and address systemic problems in China’s traditional academic publishing system. There can be little doubt that the Chinese academic publishing landscape differs in important ways from counterparts in the United States and Western Europe. However, this article suggests that developments in China also provide important lessons about the potential of digital technology and government policy to facilitate a large-scale shift towards more open and networked models of scholarly communication. Introduction Scholarly publishing is being confronted with the challenges and opportunities of a postWeb 2.0 age. The list of digital publishing platforms employing ‘publish then fi lter’ or light/ open/social peer-review approaches is lengthy and growing: arXiv,1 Nature Proceedings,2 Liquid Publications,3 and PLoSONE4 are just four of the better-known platforms using such approaches to enable open, instant and quality-controlled exchanges of scholarship and to enable sharing and collaboration among academics. These models have many advantages: they help to reduce delays associated with traditional publishing processes and mitigate the risk that good ideas may be prevented from entering scholarly discourses as a result of inappropriate fi ltering by gatekeepers. They are thus seen as a valuable strategy for faciliating ‘a dialogue between scientists without mediation or obstacles’.5 Commentators such as Surridge believe that the open, social, and collaborative affordances of digital technology perfectly complement scientifi c processes because scientifi c knowledge is built up by ‘crowd-sourcing’ the contributions of peers and then ‘refi ning that knowledge through open debate’.6 However, in practice much of the potential for more open knowledge certifi cation and peer-review approaches arising from digital technology remains latent in the world of academic publishing. Although some infl uential new platforms are beginning to emerge, the majority of academic publishing continues to operate according to traditional models of review and evaluation.7,8 A key reason for this is that the frameworks that academics must operate within continue to refl ect (and demand) more traditional approaches to scholarly communication. According to Ponte, although scholars themselves are broadly positive about collaborative and Web 2.0-inspired models of publishing, the combination of open approaches with robust and reliable quality© Xiang Ren 2013 Xiang Ren