Publish or perish. To researchers, the importance of scholarly publishing has always been clear. Academic publications, and their associated metrics, are critical in determining who enters and who succeeds in research. Because of this, a publishing process that is equitable, fair, and inclusive to authors of diverse identities is essential to fostering a more diverse scientific community, ensuring that no innovations are lost and allowing the maximum range of scientific issues to be captured.

Earlier this year, we organized a US National Science Foundation-funded community workshop (award #2209643) to explore the intersection between scholarly publishing and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). With expertise in publishing across science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, 50 professionals shared strategies, challenges, and successes for making scholarly publishing more accessible and inclusive. During workshop presentations, a recurring theme was the challenge of moving to open access. The accompanying shift in business models has created a new dynamic, transferring the cost of publishing from readers (library subscriptions) to authors (article processing charges, or APCs). The cost of publishing is a substantial barrier to many, but especially to those researchers of systematically oppressed groups. Indeed, according to our survey last summer of the ecology and environmental community (with more than 850 respondents), and in a world where there are still options for publishing that do not involve high fees, one-fifth of respondents are already paying their publication charges with personal funds. This number is even more discouraging when considering that three-quarters of respondents did not publish their last article as open access because they did not have the necessary funds. Even more distressing: multiple studies show that the author-pays model of publishing has disproportionate negative impacts depending on an author's career stage, gender, geography, and race.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) memo released in August 2022 (https://tinyurl.com/js6bukdz) is the most recent guidance in a 20-year march toward open access. After decades of discussion – by very motivated groups! – there are still no great solutions for expanding open access while providing financially sustainable peer review and production services across STEM publishing, or for making it fair and equitable to authors. So far, we have merely devised a series of band-aids such as waivers or transformational “read and publish” agreements with countries or institutions. These well-intentioned solutions fail to address the underlying problem, which is a clash between the values of the old system and the current values and needs of our society.

Subsequent manuscripts will delve further into the specifics of conversations at the workshop, but our conclusion after two days of discussion is that there is a fundamental mismatch between the system in place and how we want science and science communication to function in the 21st century. The system of peer review was built to safeguard validity and credibility, but that same system of gatekeeping has bred exclusion. With the crises facing society, it is imperative to share valid and scientifically sound information publicly. And now the OSTP memo demands it. The questions are how do we do it, who will pay for it, and how do we ensure that the system does not become more inequitable than it already is?

So perhaps it is how we publish that needs to perish. We need to think more broadly and creatively about how we communicate science – what qualifies as a publication, how we assign value to different types of publications, and how our professional incentive and reward systems manipulate that value. Technology has given us many tools to communicate; new publication formats such as preprints and data papers will be essential to modernizing how we share our science.

For change to occur, though, it is incumbent upon all of us in the research ecosystem to adjust our thinking. Higher education administrators need to revise their expectations in the tenure and promotion process. Funders need to provide adequate resources for grantees to share their data and findings. The ecological community must demand that open access models consider the true cost of publishing. And we all must work collectively to safeguard peer review and ensure high-quality science communication outlets. As we do so, we need to envision a more equitable future in which barriers to the publishing economy are not imposed upon so many, where access is granted regardless of whether one can pay. After all, it is those who are adaptable to change that survive.

要么出版，要么灭亡。对于研究人员来说，学术出版的重要性始终是显而易见的。学术出版物及其相关指标对于确定谁进入研究以及谁在研究中取得成功至关重要。因此，对不同身份的作者公平、公正和包容的出版过程对于培育更加多元化的科学界、确保不丢失任何创新并允许捕获最大范围的科学问题至关重要。

今年早些时候，我们组织了一次由美国国家科学基金会资助的社区研讨会（奖项#2209643），以探讨学术出版与多样性、公平和包容性 (DEI) 之间的交叉点。50 名专业人士凭借在科学、技术、工程和数学 (STEM) 学科出版方面的专业知识，分享了使学术出版更易于获取和包容的策略、挑战和成功经验。在研讨会的演讲中，一个反复出现的主题是转向开放获取的挑战。随之而来的商业模式转变创造了一种新的动态，将出版成本从读者（图书馆订阅）转移到作者（文章处理费，或 APC）。出版成本对许多人来说是一个巨大的障碍，尤其是对那些来自系统性受压迫群体的研究人员来说。事实上，根据我们去年夏天对生态和环境界的调查（超过 850 名受访者），在仍然存在不涉及高额费用的出版选择的世界中，五分之一的受访者已经支付了出版物费用以个人资金收费。考虑到四分之三的受访者由于没有必要的资金而没有将他们的上一篇文章作为开放获取发表，这一数字更加令人沮丧。更令人痛苦的是：多项研究表明，作者付费出版模式会根据作者的职业阶段、性别、地理位置和种族产生不成比例的负面影响。在仍然存在不涉及高额费用的出版选择的世界中，五分之一的受访者已经用个人资金支付出版费用。考虑到四分之三的受访者由于没有必要的资金而没有将他们的上一篇文章作为开放获取发表，这一数字更加令人沮丧。更令人痛苦的是：多项研究表明，作者付费出版模式会根据作者的职业阶段、性别、地理位置和种族产生不成比例的负面影响。在仍然存在不涉及高额费用的出版选择的世界中，五分之一的受访者已经用个人资金支付出版费用。考虑到四分之三的受访者由于没有必要的资金而没有将他们的上一篇文章作为开放获取发表，这一数字更加令人沮丧。更令人痛苦的是：多项研究表明，作者付费出版模式会根据作者的职业阶段、性别、地理位置和种族产生不成比例的负面影响。考虑到四分之三的受访者由于没有必要的资金而没有将他们的上一篇文章作为开放获取发表，这一数字更加令人沮丧。更令人痛苦的是：多项研究表明，作者付费出版模式会根据作者的职业阶段、性别、地理位置和种族产生不成比例的负面影响。考虑到四分之三的受访者由于没有必要的资金而没有将他们的上一篇文章作为开放获取发表，这一数字更加令人沮丧。更令人痛苦的是：多项研究表明，作者付费出版模式会根据作者的职业阶段、性别、地理位置和种族产生不成比例的负面影响。

白宫科学技术政策办公室 (OSTP) 于 2022 年 8 月发布的备忘录 (https://tinyurl.com/js6bukdz) 是 20 年开放获取进程中的最新指南。经过数十年的讨论——由非常积极的团体进行！– 仍然没有很好的解决方案来扩大开放获取，同时在 STEM 出版领域提供经济上可持续的同行评审和制作服务，或者使其对作者公平公正。到目前为止，我们只是设计了一系列创可贴，例如与国家或机构的豁免或变革性“阅读和发布”协议。这些善意的解决方案未能解决根本问题，即旧制度的价值观与我们社会当前的价值观和需求之间的冲突。

后续手稿将进一步深入探讨研讨会上对话的细节，但经过两天的讨论后我们得出的结论是，现有的系统与我们希望科学和科学传播在 21 世纪如何运作之间存在根本性的不匹配。同行评审制度的建立是为了保障有效性和可信度，但同样的把关制度也滋生了排斥。随着社会面临危机，公开分享有效且科学合理的信息势在必行。现在 OSTP 备忘录要求这样做。问题是我们如何做到这一点，谁来支付费用，以及我们如何确保系统不会变得比现在更加不平等？

因此，也许我们的出版方式需要消亡。我们需要更广泛、更具创造性地思考如何传播科学——什么才算是出版物，我们如何为不同类型的出版物分配价值，以及我们的专业激励和奖励系统如何操纵该价值。技术为我们提供了许多沟通工具；预印本和数据论文等新的出版格式对于实现我们分享科学的现代化方式至关重要。

然而，为了发生变化，研究生态系统中的所有人都有责任调整我们的思维。高等教育管理者需要修改他们对终身教职和晋升过程的期望。资助者需要为受资助者提供足够的资源来分享他们的数据和发现。生态社区必须要求开放获取模型考虑出版的真实成本。我们所有人必须共同努力维护同行评审并确保高质量的科学传播渠道。当我们这样做时，我们需要设想一个更加公平的未来，在这个未来中，出版经济的障碍不会强加给那么多人，无论人们是否有能力付费，都可以获得访问权。毕竟，那些能够适应变化的人才能生存。