If you could reshape scientific exchange to meet your needs, what would you change? Would you restructure the format of the journal article? Would you eliminate the article altogether, opting for an open notebook approach? Take a minute to think about what you, as a scientist, would change if you had the opportunity to shape the future of scientific publishing.

Last night I had the opportunity to do just this. I was lucky enough to participate in a roundtable discussion at Springer, which sought to improve the scientific publication process by probing local scientists. The group was made up of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers from several universities in the New York area. All participants were actively participating in biomedical research, though their specialties varied. The discussion centered around two main questions. First, what aspects of the research process could be improved through online communication? Second, how is scientific publishing likely to change in the future?

Let’s go in order. The general consensus among the group was that a creditable source for troubleshooting a protocol was lacking and that the web is an excellent medium for communicating these issues. Though protocol sites such as Cold Spring Harbor Protocols offer a wealth of information, they lack troubleshooting capabilities. In turn, listserves like Bionet allow scientists to freely discuss protocols, but lack a central database. But you’re in luck. Springer has recently launched the Springer Protocols site, which allows users to post comments and questions on any available protocol. In essence, it functions in a similar manner to a customer review for a product you are interested in purchasing. Researchers can search the database and post questions or feedback on a particular protocol. It even has some cool features like video protocols and a free protocols section for those who don’t have a subscription.

We then went on to discuss the future of academic publishing. Most members of the group felt that the hard-copy journal article will become obsolete as web communication grows; thus, improving the online search is essential. Suggestions included reformatting the abstract so a reader can quickly identify relevant components of an article, such as the model system or the pathway of interest. Rather than hide those details within the text, they should be presented in a sort of keyword format for the reader to scan. Another group member even suggested adding a links section to an article, allowing readers to navigate to relevant sites easily. These changes would surely ease the research process.

So, I invite you now to offer your suggestions for improving scientific communication. It may shape the future of scientific exchange.