文章认为目前的期刊出版有很多问题阻碍科学家及时发表科学发现。因此提出三项改革主张：

1. 允许科学家们把他们的学术论文和实验数据一起放到可公开访问的“知识库”中，然后送到期刊上。这将使其他研究人员能够毫不拖延地利用这些发现。

2. 改进同行评审的过程。期刊目前负责组织匿名审稿人的系统，对新研究作出判断。但是这个过程很模糊。更好的是公布评审人员的名字和出版评审意见。

3.最后，科学需要停止如此多地依靠期刊出版物作为研究者唯一认可的凭证和职业发展的唯一途径。如现有的许多其他工具报告了预印本被查看的频率，或临床数据集是不是被医生指南引用。支付了研究费用的大学和政府机构应该使用这些工具。

原文如下：

The Economist explainsThe problem with scientific publishing

And how to fix it

PERIODICAL journals have been the principal means of disseminating science since the 17th century. Over the intervening three-and-a-half centuries journals have established conventions for publication—such as insisting on independent (and usually anonymous) peer review of submissions—that are intended to preserve the integrity of the scientific process. But they have come under increasing attack in recent years. What is wrong with scientific publishing in journals, and how can it be fixed?

The problems stem from the fact that journal publication now plays a role that was not part of the original job description: as indicators of a researcher’s prowess, and thus determinants of academic careers. The incentive to withhold results for months or years until research is published is therefore powerful. But such delays can do real harm: during the Zika crisis, sponsors of research had to persuade publishers to declare that scientists would not be penalised for releasing their findings early. Nor are elite journals (such as Nature and Science) the guardians of quality that they often claim to be. The number of papers so flawed that they need to be retracted has risen sharply in the past two decades, with glitzier journals pulling more papers than lower-profile counterparts. Worse, studies in elite journals are no more statistically robust than those in lesser ones.

Three sensible reforms could change this system, ensuring that researchers’ results are made public more quickly and without any compromise on quality. Step one is for scientists to put their academic papers, along with experimental data, in publicly accessible “repositories” before they are sent to a journal. That would allow other researchers to make use of the findings without delay. Step two is to improve the process of peer review. Journals currently administer a system of organising anonymous reviewers to pass judgment on new research. But this process is murky. Better that reviewers are named and that the reviews themselves are published. Last, science needs to stop relying so much on journal publication as the only recognised credential for researchers and the only path to career progression. Tools exist that report how often a preprint has been viewed or whether a clinical data set has been cited in guidelines for doctors. Universities and government agencies that pay for research should use them.

If these reforms are taken up, they could improve and accelerate science. More importantly, it would help health agencies respond more quickly to epidemics and speed the development of new treatments, for example. That could save lives. "Whereas there is nothing more necessary for promoting the improvement of Philosophical Matters, than the communication of such." So began the first issue of the world’s first scientific journal, Philosophical Transactions, on March 6th, 1665. Those words remain true. Journal publication, however, is no longer the best way of achieving that aim.