A Four-Layer Model of Open Scientific Communication
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59667/sjoranm.v31i2.14Keywords:
Open Science, Scientific Publishing, Peer Review, Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain, Open Access, Altmetrics, FAIR Principles, Decentralized Science, Future of Scientific CommunicationAbstract
Scientific publishing is entering a period of profound transformation driven by digital communication, artificial intelligence, decentralized technologies, and the global movement toward Open Science. While concepts such as Open Access, open peer review, FAIR data principles, altmetrics, and blockchain-based publishing have largely been discussed as independent developments, they may instead represent consecutive stages within a broader evolutionary process.
This editorial proposes a conceptual Four-Layer Model of Future Scientific Publishing.
The first layer begins with the scientist and emphasizes intellectual honesty, self-criticism, reproducibility, and the continuous questioning of one's own findings before publication. The second layer consists of the traditional editorial process, including peer review, methodological evaluation, ethical oversight, and permanent scientific archiving by journals. The third layer extends scientific communication beyond conventional publishing through decentralized, transparent, and censorship-resistant platforms that facilitate continuous post-publication discussion, replication, and community evaluation. The proposed fourth layer envisions a future ecosystem in which individual scientists communicate directly with the global scientific community through immutable, AI-supported publication channels, where scientific recognition is increasingly determined by transparency, reproducibility, public scientific discourse, and demonstrated long-term impact rather than by the historical prestige of the publishing journal.
Rather than predicting the disappearance of scientific journals, this model suggests a gradual shift from journal-centered prestige toward scientist-centered reputation. Future scientific publishing may evolve from a static process of publication into a dynamic, continuously evaluated ecosystem in which every scientific contribution remains openly accessible, permanently discussable, and transparently reassessed over time. The purpose of this editorial is not to provide definitive answers, but to stimulate discussion about the next evolutionary stage of scientific communication in medicine. For more than 350 years, scientific journals have been the primary guardians of scientific credibility. The coming decades may witness a gradual transition in which credibility increasingly emerges from transparent, continuous, and globally accessible scientific discourse itself.
References
1. Tennant JP, Waldner F, Jacques DC, Masuzzo P, Collister LB, Hartgerink CHJ. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research 2016;5:632. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3
2. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. J Doc2008;64(1):45-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150
3. Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman SD, Breckler SJ, Buck S, Chambers CD, Chin G, Christensen G, et al. Promoting an open research culture. Science 2015;348(6242):1422-1425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374
4. Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research 2017;6:588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
5. Heise C, Pearce JM. From Open Access to Open Science: The Path From Scientific Reality to Open Scientific Communication. SAGE Open. 2020;10(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020915900
6. Priem J, Piwowar HA, Hemminger BM. Altmetrics in the wild. arXiv 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1203.4745
7. Niya SR, Schmid S, Guenther D, Stiller B. A Blockchain-Based Scientific Publishing Platform. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC). 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBC51069.2021.9461121
8. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005;2(8):e124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
9. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 2016;3:160018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
10. Nielsen MA. Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400839452
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Frank Mosler, Gerd Nöldge, Keivan Daneshvar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This license requires that reusers give credit to the creator. It allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, even for commercial purposes.
