GeoLog

Open Access

Preprint power: changing the publishing scene

Preprint power: changing the publishing scene

Open access publishing has become common practice in the science community. In this guest post, David Fernández-Blanco, a contributor to the EGU Tectonics and Structural Geology Division blog, presents one facet of open access that is changing the publishing system for many geoscientists: preprints.

Open access initiatives confronting the publishing system

The idea of open access publishing and freely sharing research outputs is becoming widely embraced by the scientific community. The limitations of traditional publishing practices and the misuse of this system are some of the key drivers behind the rise of open access initiatives. Additionally, the open access movement has been pushed even further by current online capacities to widely share research as it is produced.

Efforts to make open access the norm in publishing have been active for quite some time now. For example, almost two decades ago, the European Geosciences Union (EGU) launched its first open access journals, which hold research papers open for interactive online discussion. The EGU also allows manuscripts to be reviewed online by anyone in the community, before finally published in their peer-reviewed journals.

This trend is also now starting to be reflected at an institutional level. For example, all publicly funded scientific papers in Europe could be free to access by 2020, thanks to a reform promoted in 2016 by Carlos Moedas, the European Union’s Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation.

More recently, in late 2017, around 200 German universities and research organisations cancelled the renewal of their Elsevier subscriptions due to unmet demands for lower prices and an open access policies. Similarly, French institutions refused a new deal with Springer in early 2018. Now, Swedish researchers have followed suit, deciding to cancel their agreement with Elsevier. All these international initiatives are confronting an accustomed publishing system.

The community-driven revolution

Within this context, it’s no surprise that the scientific community has come up with various exciting initiatives that promote open access, such as creating servers to share preprints. Preprints are scientific contributions ready to be shared with other scientists, but that are not yet (or are in the process of being) peer-reviewed. A preprint server is an online platform hosting preprints and making them freely available online.

Many journals that were slow to accept these servers are updating their policies to adapt to the steadily growing increase of preprint usage by a wide-range of scientific communities. Now most journals welcome manuscripts hosted by a preprint server. Even job postings and funding agencies are changing their policies. For example, the European Research Council (ERC) Starting and Consolidator Grants are now taking applicant preprints into consideration.

Preprints: changing the publishing system

ArXiv is the oldest and most established preprint server. It was created in 1991, initially directed towards physics research. The server receives on average 10,000 submissions per month and now hosts over one million manuscripts. Arxiv sets a precedent for preprints, and now servers covering other scientific fields have emerged, such as bioRxiv and ChemRxiv.

Credit: EarthArXiv

EarthArXiv was the first to fill the preprint gap for the Earth sciences. It was launched in October 2017 by Tom Narock, an assistant professor at Notre Dame of Maryland University in Baltimore (US), and Christopher Jackson, a professor at Imperial College London (UK). In the first 24 hours after its online launch, this preprint server already had nine submissions from geoscientists.

The server holds now more than 400 preprints, approved for publication after moderation, and gets around 1,600 downloads monthly. The platform’s policy may well contribute to its success – EarthArXiv is an independent preprint server strongly supported by the Earth sciences community, now run by 125 volunteers. The logo, for example, was a crowdsourcing effort. Through social media, EarthArXiv asked the online community to send their designs; then a poll was held to decide which one of the submitted logos would be selected. Additionally, the server’s Diversity Statement and Moderation Policy were both developed communally.

Credit: ESSOAr

In February 2018, some months after EarthArXiv went live, another platform serving the Earth sciences was born: the American Geophysical Union’s Earth and Space Science Open Archive, ESSOAr. The approach between both platforms is markedly different; ESSOAr is partially supported by Wiley, a publishing company, while EarthArXiv is independent of any publishers. The ESSOAr server is gaining momentum by hosting conference posters, while EarthArXiv plans to focus on preprint manuscripts, at least for the near future. The ESSOAr server hosts currently 120 posters and nine preprints.

What is the power of preprints?

How can researchers benefit from these new online sources?

No delays:

Preprint servers allow rapid dissemination. Through preprints, new scientific findings are shared directly with other scientists. The manuscript is immediately available after being uploaded, meaning it is searchable right away. There is no delay for peer-review, editorial decisions, or lengthy journal production.

Visibility:

A DOI is assigned to the work, so it is citable as soon as it is uploaded. This is especially helpful to early career scientists seeking for employment and funding opportunities, as they can show and prove their scholarly track record at any point.

Engagement:

Making research visible to the community can lead to helpful feedback and constructive, transparent discussions. Some servers and participating authors have promoted their preprints through social media, in many cases initiating productive conversations with fellow scientists. Hence, preprints promote not only healthy exchanges, but they may also lead to improvements to the initial manuscript. Also, through these exchanges, which occur outside of the journal-led peer-review route, it is possible to network and build collaborative links with fellow scientists.

No boundaries:

Preprints allow everyone to have access to science, making knowledge available across boundaries.

The servers are open without cost to everyone forever. This also means tax payers have free access to the science they pay for.

Backup:

Preprint servers are a useful way to self-archive documents.  Many preprint servers also host postprints, which are already published articles (after the embargo period applicable to some journals).

Given the difference between the publishing industry’s current model and preprint practices, it is not surprising to find an increasing number of scientists stirring the preprint movement. It is possible that many of such researchers are driven by a motivation to contribute to a transparent process and promote open science within their community and to the public. This motivation is indeed the true power of preprints.

Editor’s note: This is a guest blog post that expresses the opinion of its author, whose views may differ from those of the European Geosciences Union. We hope the post can serve to generate discussion and a civilised debate amongst our readers.

Uploading your 2018 General Assembly presentation

Uploading your 2018 General Assembly presentation

This year it is, once again, possible to upload your oral presentations, PICO presentations and posters from EGU 2018 for online publication alongside your abstract, giving all participants a chance to revisit your contribution  hurrah for open science!

Files can be in either PowerPoint or PDF format. Note that presentations will be distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Uploading your presentation is free of charge and is not followed by a review process. The upload form for your presentation, together with further information on the licence it will be distributed under, is available here. You will need to log in using your Copernicus Office User ID (using the ID of the Corresponding Author) to upload your presentation.

Presentations and posters will be linked to their corresponding abstracts. If your presentation didn’t have an abstract (this is the case for short courses and others), but you still want to share it with the wider community you can consider uploading your presentation to slideshare or figshare as a PDF to share it instead.

All legal and technical information, as well as the upload form, is available until 17 June 2018 at: http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/egu2018/abstractpresentation

Geosciences Column: Extreme snowfall potentially worsened Nepal’s 2015 earthquake-triggered avalanche

Geosciences Column: Extreme snowfall potentially worsened Nepal’s 2015 earthquake-triggered avalanche

Three years ago, an earthquake-induced avalanche and rockfalls buried an entire Nepalese village in ice, stone, and snow. Researchers now think the region’s heavy snowfall from the preceding winter may have intensified the avalanche’s disastrous effect.

The Langtang village, just 70 kilometres from Nepal’s capital Kathmandu, is nestled within a valley under the shadow of the Himalayas. The town was popular amongst trekking tourists, as the surrounding mountains offer breathtaking hiking opportunities.

But in April 2015, a 7.8-magnitude earthquake, also known as the Gorkha earthquake, triggered a massive avalanche and landslides, engulfing the village in debris.

Scientists estimate that the force of the avalanche was half as powerful the Hiroshima atomic bomb. The blast of air generated from the avalanche rushed through the site at more than 300 kilometres per hour, blowing down buildings and uprooting forests.

By the time the debris and wind had settled, only one village structure was left standing. The disaster claimed the lives of 350 people, with more than 100 bodies never located.

Before-and-after photographs of Nepal’s Langtang Valley showing the near-complete destruction of Langtang village. Photos from 2012 (pre-quake) and 2015 (post-quake) by David Breashears/GlacierWorks. Distributed via NASA Goddard on Flickr.

Since then, scientists have been trying to reconstruct the disaster’s timeline and determine what factors contributed to the village’s tragic demise.

Recently, researchers discovered that the region’s unusually heavy winter snowfall could have amplified the avalanche’s devastation. The research team, made up of scientists from Japan, Nepal, the Netherlands, Canada and the US, published their findings last year in the EGU’s open access journal Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences.

To reach their conclusions, the team drew from various observational sources. For example, the researchers created three-dimensional models and orthomosaic maps, showing the region both before it was hit by the coseismic events and afterwards. The models and maps were pieced together using data collected before the earthquake and aerial images of the affected area taken by helicopter and drones in the months following the avalanche.

They also interviewed 20 villagers local to the Langtang valley, questioning each person on where he or she was during the earthquake and how much time had passed between the earthquake and the first avalanche event. In addition, the researchers asked the village residents to describe the ice, snow and rock that blanketed Langtang, including details on the colour, wetness, and surface condition of the debris.  

Based on their own visual ice cliff observations by the Langtang river and the villager interviews, the scientists believe that the earthquake-triggered avalanche hit Langtang first, followed then by multiple rockfalls, which were possibly triggered by the earthquake’s aftershocks.

A three-dimensional view of the Langtang mountain and village surveyed in this study. Image: K. Fujita et al.

According to the researchers’ models, the primary avalanche event unleashed 6,810,000 cubic metres of ice and snow onto the village and the surrounding area, a frozen flood about two and a half times greater in volume than the Egyptian Great Pyramid of Giza. The following rockfalls then contributed 840,000 cubic metres of debris.  

The researchers discovered that the avalanche was made up mostly of snow, and furthermore realized that there was an unusually large amount of snow. They estimated that the average snow depth of the avalanche’s mountainous source was about 1.82 metres, which was similar to snow depth found on a neighboring glacier (1.28-1.52 metres).

A deeper analysis of the area’s long-term meteorological data revealed that the winter snowfall preceding the avalanche was an extreme event, likely only to occur once every 100 to 500 years. This uncommonly massive amount of snow accumulated from four major snowfall events in mid-October, mid-December, early January and early March.

From these lines of evidence, the team concluded that the region’s anomalous snowfall may have worsened the earthquake’s destructive impact on the village.

The researchers believe their results could help improve future avalanche dynamics models. According to the study, they also plan to provide the Langtang community with a avalanche hazard map based on their research findings.  

Further reading

Qiu, J. When mountains collapse… Geolog (2016).

Roberts Artal, L. Geosciences Column: An international effort to understand the hazard risk posed by Nepal’s 2015 Gorkha earthquake. Geolog (2016).