I agree with the issues raised about open access as far as the problems of publication cost and inequality go, or the fact that such journals seem to keep getting more expensive even when operational costs go down, etc. The issue of predatory open access journals also comes to mind.
But I really have a problem with statements qualifying “impact” of a paper as reason to publish somewhere. Let’s face it. The best taxonomy paper is lower impact than the most superficial paper on AIDS. That is not a function of the quality of the study itself, but of the way that impact is assessed by most metrics. Taxonomy as a whole is “low impact index” science. And even within that, a paper on a cool dinosaur based on a couple of bones has a much likelier chance to make it in Science, Nature or PNAS than the most complete taxonomic revision on the genus Proceraea (to name one close to my heart).
My point is that potential impact is a spectacularly subjective and unhelpful quantity that IMHO hinders the dissemination of science rather than qualify it for the better. Many people smarter than me have written on the subject already. I can understand a perfectly executed study not being adequate for a journal of a particular breadth or focus, but potential impact?
Just for the record, my experience with PLOS One (and my beef with it) is completely the opposite. I had a paper rejected because it was “descriptive” and because the system we were studying was “the exception” so our conclusions had “limited applicability.” The same reviewer commended us on the methods and suggested 4 other journals in which he/she was sure it would be easily published. The problem here was that PLOS One advertised precisely as a journal in which subject breadth and uniqueness were not going to be an issue when evaluating the manuscript.
I, for one, do not have a problem with the concept of a “clearing house” journal as long as the articles are peer-reviewed properly in terms of quality and completeness. Too many journals look at natural history or taxonomy as “lesser” ugly cousins of “real” experimental science already, so I like the idea of an even playing field (even if illusory). The fact that it is open access is also not a problem per se. The idea originated with its heart in the right place: so that everybody could have access to research findings. The problem is whether that access should cost 2,000 USD to an author, especially one from a financially disadvantaged origin. This is a different question, but one that every single journal (not just open access ones) has struggled with the moment that it places a cost on pages, memberships, or subscriptions.
Cheers,
Edwin
=================
Dr. Edwin Cruz-Rivera
Associate Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
University of the Virgin Islands
#2 John Brewers Bay
St. Thomas 00802
USVI
Tel: 1-340-693-1235
Fax: 1-340-693-1385
"It is not the same to hear the devil as to see him coming your way"
(Puerto Rican proverb)
From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu [mailto:annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Halanych
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:49 PM
To: Igor Jirkov <ampharete from yandex.ru>
Cc: annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu; Geoff Read <geoffrey.read from niwa.co.nz>; Chris Glasby <chris.glasby from nt.gov.au>
Subject: Re: [Annelida] Taxonomic papers at Marine Biology Research
I appreciate the impassioned pleas for open access. However, open access has some MAJOR down sides which are taking a toll on science and publishing. I love the idea of making work accessible. This is clearly important. However, the manor in which open access is being employed is problematic.
While the accessing a publication is easier, publishing has created an even bigger divide between the haves and the have nots due to the cost of Open Access - which is usually over $2000USD per article and in some casts (Nature Communications) up to $5200 USD. This number has been steadily increasing and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future (even though storage costs have decreased). Publishers say they waive the cost for scientist without funds, but this is not always true. The burden of cost is placed on the author which takes (significant amounts of) money from research or student support.
Importantly, a sizable percentage of these costs do not always go toward the cost of “your” publication. They go to supporting the other items. This is probably most true for large open access clearing houses like PLOS and BMC. I looked at PLOS’s financial statement a few weeks ago and was surprised how much of the open access fee was not going to the cost of maintaining articles (at least 25%). This should also be obvious from the cost in many of these journals — No reviewer costs and only the highest level editors get pay. Much of the cost is for journal staff and maintaining an electronic copy. As we know from things like DRYAD and FigShare, maintaining electronic is copies is not that expensive (especially given volume). Alternatively some publishers or brands have are using Open Access charges to support their over journals. At these big Open Access journals, given the volume of article, the automation in place, and the hands off nature of the process, it is not clear why articles are so expensive and becoming more so. Peer J is an exception in regards to cost.
Perhaps the most troubling issues tied with open access is the mentality about scientific quality and integrity. Obviously, I am not talking about an Open Access options at a society run journal, but about the big Open Access clearing houses. Places like PLOS and BMC explicitly state at publication criteria is only needs to be technically sound. The importance, scope, or impact of the paper does not matter. The editing is minimal meaning scientific issues are often not properly vetted. What this also means is that the scientific “publication space” has been flooding with low quality minimal impact submissions….and someone needs to review these placing a large reviewing burden on the scientific community - which we are expected to do for free. There are no longer page proofs at PLOSOne which all impacts quality of the final product. The decisions that go into deciding whom should review are often problematic (I can attest to this based on some of the items I have been asked to review by the Open Access clearing houses).
OK in full disclosure. I work with Biological Bulletin which offers Open Access but is a subscription journal. We have polices in place that make the journal accessible to those in developing countries. Those in the larger research countries access must be through a subscription (be it institutional or personal), but that is not that hard. Likewise getting a article from Marine Biology Research is not that hard to find access. Your model at the Bulletin is quite the opposite…we have NO page charges to authors and will (as mentioned above) make it accessible to developing countries. Importantly we the editors are very involved in working with authors and reviewers….and we still have a copy editor whom proofs and edits the paper.
I am also an Editor at BMC Evol Biology — while I oversee articles I do not submit to their mantra “as long as it is technically sound”.
As I mentioned, I like the idea of all having access, but we must acknowledge the Open Access (mainly these big OA clearing houses) have downsides in terms of costs, editing, and workload. These issues also need to be carefully weighted.
Ken
************************************
Kenneth M. Halanych
Schneller Chair, Alumni Professor
Curator of Marine Invertebrates
Biological Sciences Department
Life Sciences Bld. 101
Auburn University
Auburn, AL 36849
http://metazoan.auburn.edu/halanych/lab/index.html
Phone: (334)-844-3222
e-mail: ken from auburn.edu<mailto:ken from auburn.edu>
Editor-In-Chief The Biological Bulletin
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/bbl/current
************************************
_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida from net.bio.net<mailto:Annelida from net.bio.net>
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net
