Managing academics is like herding cats. However, funding agencies — if they wish to — have the power to herd the academic cats and drive them to embrace open science and early sharing of research findings through preprints.
Cite as: Kamoun, S. (2022). Herding cats — how to get biologists to preprint. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7380701
It’s often said that managing scientists is like herding cats. But, herding cats is no problem. Just put the food bowl in one corner and they’ll all go there.
Could this cat herding strategy be the solution to the lingering reluctance of biologists to preprint? It may very well be. For years, I thought that Plan U — funders preprint mandates—is the one and only solution to get biologists to preprint. I remain at loss as to why funding agencies — despite all that talk about open science — don’t require preprinting from their awardees. But, I have to admit that the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) may have come up with a more elegant solution.
HHMI is one of the most prestigious funders of biological and medical research. The Institute founded in 1953 by the eccentric business magnate Howard Hughes sits on an endowment of over $20 billion. HHMI’s Investigator Program supports hundreds of scientists to the tune of about $1 million per year. This is as good as it gets for US life scientists. The awards are often greeted with much fanfare and announced through celebratory press releases by the Investigator’s host institution. Even plant biologists have benefited from the largesse of the HHMI Investigator Program. In 2011, HHMI teamed up with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) to fund fifteen plant scientists, a first that was welcomed as incredibly exciting news for this traditionally under-funded community. “Plant Biologists Hit a $75 Million Jackpot,” wrote Science Magazine.
HHMI continues to lead and innovate. As neurobiologist and HMMI Vice President Leslie Voshall announced in a rousing Twitter thread posted in October 2022, HHMI made exciting changes to the 2024 Investigator Competition. With these changes, HHMI expects applicants to demonstrate through their track record a commitment to open science, DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), and inclusive mentoring. The message is loud and clear. If you wish to become an HHMI Investigator, you will need to describe what actions you have taken towards building a progressive research culture and demonstrate a firm commitment to open science.
What stood out from Vosshall’s epic tweets was the emphasis on preprinting as a major indicator of a commitment to open science. Indeed, the preprint movement is known as ASAPbio — reflecting the fact that preprints enable sharing new research and methods faster than traditional forms of publishing. Vosshall wrote that applicants will need to describe “specific lab practices that support early and/or open sharing of research results, tools or materials.” The applicant’s scientific contributions will need to be supported by “up to 4 articles — published or deposited in @biorxivpreprint or @medrxivpreprint.”
It reads like applicants will need to have preprinted their best work to stand a chance. If true, then HHMI would have devised a more subtle way to lure biologists into preprinting than the decidedly brutal Plan U mandate. By expecting applicants to demonstrate a commitment to open science in order to be competitive for the Investigator Awards, HHMI has essentially moved the food bowl to the preprint corner to herd the reluctant academic cats. Hurrah!
I’m writing this post as I’m heading to HHMI Janelia Farm for the #RecognizingPreprintReview Meeting, co-organized by ASAPbio, EMBO and HHMI. These progressive institutions are taking the lead into fully integrating preprints in the life sciences publishing ecosystem. Why not capture open peer-review of preprints in a format that the academic community can recognize. As stated, the goals of this meeting are “to promote community consensus and support for preprint peer review and to create funder, institutional, and journal policies that recognize both preprints with reviews, and reviews of preprints.”
We, academics, are infamous for cherishing our independence. We don’t like to be told what to do, and most of my colleagues cringe at funder mandates like Plan U even if they agree with its spirit. We are under the illusion that we operate in academia with full freedom. Is it true? Or is this an illusion of choice — the belief that we have more control over our lives than we actually do? Our academic traditions have been shaped by the intense competition for funding and the conflicts of interest inherent to the peer-review system. Our behavior is not the product of free choice but the result of the many variations of the Academic Prisonner’s Dilemma games we play. As a colleague told me a few years ago when I asked them about preprints, “I grew up learning how to play the publishing game and now you want to change the rules”.
Let’s see how the HHMI experiment pans out. It will be straightforward to evaluate the degree to which the preprinting habits of HHMI Investigators will evolve. Hopefully, the concept that grant applicants must provide documented evidence of their commitment to open science — via preprinting and/or other concrete actions — spreads to other science funders (hello UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), anyone listening?).
I would love to see Plan U widely implemented by funders. But if that’s too much for the independent-minded academic kitties, then let’s give the HHMI model a chance. After all, managing academics is herding cats, not taming tigers.
