Personal Note From Patrick, The Editor

Dear Reader,it’s a pleasure to see you again.

Today, we address a rarely covered topic when it comes to sustainability.

Scientific publishing, one of the most lucrative industries in the world.

Nevertheless, very little has been done in terms of sustainability-related optimization.

Yet, both internally and for the scientific community, publishers have significant opportunities to minimize their environmental footprints.

Let’s explore what could be changed for the better.

Number Of The Day

In 2023 alone, Elsevier was able to turn profits of about 1.17 Billion USD. While society publishing is on its decline, companies like Elsevier with about 2900 journals in its portfolio increase market share ever more. The profit margin (how much of the revenue is profit) lies at 38%, higher than Amazon or Alphabet!

1 170 000 000

The Role of Publishers in Sustainability

After a manuscript has been submitted to a publisher, an editor checks for a proper fit with the journal’s scope. Organization of peer reviewers and managing revision(s) follow. Finally, the publisher handles typesetting and the final design of the paper.

Of course, the publisher also cooperates with organizations like ORCID to enable listing of scholarly work.

Although this may seem straightforward, it leaves considerable room for sustainable practices.

The Direct Footprint

Let us begin with the obvious: Switching from obsolete print to digital formats is a step many publishers have already taken. It saves costs and reduces resource usage.

However, this transition comes with increased electricity costs. Therefore, choosing the right servers and software partners is a crucial step for publishers in reducing their environmental footprint.

Regulations like the CSRD are likely to drive change in this area, given that these factors will be their main emission sources.

When offering online access to papers, the interface becomes another important, often overlooked, factor. For example, inefficient web services that load entire PDFs with full-size images every time are costly, in terms of time and energy.

Considering user habits as well as the optimization of backend code are probably actions that can decrease unnecessary emissions.

The Main Mission

However, before a paper is published, the publishers have to decide what research gets shared.

Although this has not traditionally been a focus, with increasing numbers of papers published and rising energy demands, balancing resource use against paper impact could become necessary.

Of course, such decisions are not easy, just consider how important it might be to quickly publish studies that might challenge established narratives.

That said, making science sustainable will never mean limiting the publication of important studies.

Nevertheless, the heavy emphasis on Impact Factor encourages mass-publishing to boost metrics rather than genuine scientific advancement.

Of note, although responsibility also lies with scientists, how journals market and communicate the importance of Impact Factor influences priorities, especially for young scientists who are still developing their research ethos.

Up the Ladder - Editors

Another reduction option relates to publishers when manuscripts are edited - as feedback often involves additional experiments.

Editors and reviewers have a substantial responsibility here. It’s up to them to balance the need for thorough peer review with avoiding unnecessary experiments.

Requesting additional experiments can be important to ensure robust implications. Extending results to cover a range of concentrations or samples may require additional experiments but can make findings more comparable across studies (keyword: scientific sustainability). Young scientists also benefit from exposure to perspectives beyond their own labs, enhancing future experimental designs.

However, editors should carefully evaluate requests from reviewers for additional experiments, given that overdoing science is possible. Even if results can be replicated in one lab, they may not work elsewhere.

Overloading authors with requests also reduces the likelihood they will adhere to best practices – there is always leeway to make results look a certain way.

Referring back to the previous section, this also means that for less impactful studies, every additional experiment is a waste of resources—maybe such papers should not have been accepted in the first place. However, letting these papers go to more questionable instutions has to be avoided too!

Combating Malpractice

Predatory publishers—journals that publish without proper peer review while prioritizing profits—and paper mills, i.e., sources of fake or fabricated data, are increasingly infiltrating the scientific community.

Their environmental impact goes beyond electricity use (servers, AI, phishing); when scientists overlook malpractice, it can lead to unnecessary studies while genuine research published in obscure journals loses visibility, basically requiring a complete repetition.

Publishers must therefore create an environment that identifies and ideally eliminates this malpractice. For example, requiring raw data submissions is a powerful tool against data fabrication.

A more subtle issue is handling retracted studies. With the number of retracted studies rising, preventing authors from citing these works is essential. This means both working with authors before publication and, as retractions occur, creating live trackers to update readers on retracted work.

Preventing false claims from spreading will be one of the biggest challenges for making science robust and sustainable, especially since AI-generated papers become harder to detect.

Sharing Sustainability

A major challenge in sustainability is the dissemination of knowledge. An innovative idea includes the support of publishers. They could allow for the addition of a section on sustainable practices within the methods or supplementary materials.

Imagine that, alongside replicating methods, researchers could also learn how to conduct these experiments more sustainably. Furthermore, these sections might provide inspiration for sustainable practices and also provide the urgently needed DOIs for citing green protocols (imagine being able to cite a paper to show a certain sample could be stored at -70°C instead of -80°C!).

Not to mention that such a section would be a significant step in terms of raising awareness for sustainability within scientific research.

Applying The Knowledge

Unfortunately, the role of publishers remains underappreciated and may take a few more years to come into the spotlight. However, preparations for sustainability related reporting cannot be taking early enough!

For (young) paper authors, I would like to point out that interactions with editors should be a discussion, not a top-down directive. You can, and should, challenge suggestions if reviewer-proposed experiments seem unnecessary or excessive. The goal is to create a high-quality paper, not to prove anyone’s expertise.

For reviewers and editors, your job is to enhance each paper you work on, but resource consumption is a factor to consider. If additional experiments are absolutely necessary, suggesting sustainable practices for those not aware or discussing options for for smaller sample sizes can be impactful.

Upcoming Lesson:

How The Scientific Community Can Contribute To Sustainability

Asking You

How many biomedical papers were published in 2023 alone?

How We Feel Today

If you have a wish or a question, feel free to reply to this Email.​
Otherwise, wish you a beatiful week!
See you again the 7th : )

Find the previous lesson click - here -​

​
Edited by Patrick Penndorf
Connection@ReAdvance.com
If you think we do a bad job: Unsubscribe​