{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020905923344947737, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0027874564459930314, 'mean_word_length': 5.136752136752137, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Scientific Utopia: That Which Cannot Exist?

Thomas More’s social critique of 16th-century English and European society coined the word “utopia.” In its original Latin it literally means “in no place”—that which cannot exist. Although the perfection More envisaged may be unachievable, his powers of imagination allow us to think something better is possible. From our perspectives as the Director of a large university press with 25 years’ experience in scholarly publishing and a behavioral scientist with extensive publishing and journal editorial experience in social psychology, we agree with Brian A. Nosek and Yoav Bar-Anan’s (this issue) basic case that much can and should be done to improve the openness and speed of scientific communication in the digital age. We do not attempt to respond point by point to Nosek and Bar-Anan but rather focus on three key areas which we believe require further consideration. We start with a discussion of the function of scholarly journals in the scientific community, which in turn informs a deeper review of the cultural constraints to change. We argue that the critical role that “branded” journals have acquired in professional recognition and career advancement make it challenging to return journal publishing to its original exclusive role of scholarly communication. Finally, we argue that Nosek and BarAnan underestimate both the financial barriers to and consequences of change.