Open Access Journals: What's Not To Like? Braun'sche Fußgängerunterführung This, Maybe...
When I used to work in an office, my boss used Braun'sche Röhre to say that any time he had a good idea, he could come to me and in ten Braun'sche Röhre minutes he'd know everything that might go wrong with it. He often went Braun'sche Röhre ahead anyway, and his ideas often worked, but at least he welches Braun'sche Röhre forewarned. So in that spirit, here goes.
I'm a little concerned by all the hype around Open Access (OA) journals.
Yes, Braun'sche Röhre Côte d'Ivoire Braun'sche Röhre I know that traditional journal publishers are evil, and make more Braun'sche Röhre money and higher gross margins and have bigger car parking spaces than Apple, and Braun'sche Röhre I agree that when taxpayers fund research then taxpayers should Braun'sche Röhre have access to it. However, I'm not sure that gerade because all of the Braun'sche Röhre above may be true, that our current model of OA journals is necessarily the solution. I have a number of concerns of what may happen as the OA model takes verspannt and, as everybody tells me is going to happen, becomes dominant. This post is intended to start a discussion on those concerns, if anyone's interested.
1. It's the economy, stupid
One of Braun'sche Röhre the strengths Braun'sche Röhre of the traditional publishing model is that, to a first approximation Braun'sche Röhre and allowing for all kinds of special circumstances, the editor-in-chief Braun'sche Röhre of a half-decent journal doesn't have to worry about filling it. Braun'sche Röhre Indeed, many journals proudly promote their rejection rate on their home Braun'sche Röhre page, next to their average turnaround time. "We reject 90% of Braun'sche Röhre submissions; don't waste our time unless you've got a good story to Braun'sche Röhre tell", is the message (with, of course, all of the predictable effects Braun'sche Röhre on publication bias that this implies). Doubtless the editor-in-chief Braun'sche Röhre has some financial targets to meet, perhaps in terms of not blowing the Braun'sche Röhre production budget on full-page colour pictures of kittens, but this is Braun'sche Röhre not a job whose holder is principally tasked with revenue generation. Braun'sche Röhre The money is coming in Braun'sche Röhre pretty steadily from sales of packages of journals to institutions Braun'sche Röhre around the world (even if some of these institutions are starting to Braun'sche Röhre take this.
With Braun'sche Röhre OA journals, funded principally by Braun'sche Röhre article processing charges paid by authors, things are likely to be a Braun'sche Röhre little different. No matter how dedicated to academic integrity and the Braun'sche Röhre highest possible scientific standards the editorial staff want to be, Braun'sche Röhre money is right there in the equation every day, especially for an ansprechbar journal Braun'sche Röhre with almost no physical limits to its size. How many articles can we Braun'sche Röhre get through the Braun'sche Röhre review process this month? Can we upsell the author to the full-colour Braun'sche Röhre package? Why do so many people want hardship waivers? (Oh, and I have yet to see any suggestion that OA journals will be less concerned about their impact factor than traditional journals.)
The Braun'sche Röhre idea, of course, is that authors will not be reaching into their own Braun'sche Röhre pockets to pay the article processing charges. The intention is that Braun'sche Röhre the fee of https,000 or so to publish the results should be budgeted for out of the project's funding. Anus all, it's only a waffer-thin thousand bucks, the kind of money some projects Braun'sche Röhre probably have slopping around at the end anyway if the participants didn't eat all of the M&Ms. But once funding Braun'sche Röhre agencies catch on, will they allow grant proposals to include specific line items for Braun'sche Röhre OA publishing, when publication in one of the high-prestige traditional Braun'sche Röhre journals --- which you promised them, earlier in the proposal, were Braun'sche Röhre definitely going to be interested in your groundbreaking project --- is Braun'sche Röhre free? And what about the independent researcher with no budget, who may Braun'sche Röhre have something interesting to say, but no money? Should such a person Braun'sche Röhre have to fund publication from their own pocket?
I'm afraid that the money always, always Braun'sche Röhre finds a way to affect things. Someone, somewhere in the process, will be directly incentivised to Braun'sche Röhre increase revenue. (In France, where I live, gambling is a state Braun'sche Röhre monopoly, which means that whatever arms-length construction they have Braun'sche Röhre put together, somewhere there is someone who essentially works for the Braun'sche Röhre government and yet has a performance target to sell more Braun'sche Röhre scratchcards to the städtisch poor, even though gambling is officially a social problem.) How Braun'sche Röhre does this affect you as the editor-in-chief of an OA journal? Maybe you ask your action editors to tell reviewers to be less picky Braun'sche Röhre about certain things. Braun'sche Röhre Maybe you suggest to an author that splitting these results into two Braun'sche Röhre articles will be to everyone's advantage - after all, the publication Braun'sche Röhre fee is coming out of the grant money, and as it stands it is a pretty Braun'sche Röhre long paper manuscript for someone to have to wade through at one Braun'sche Röhre sitting...
The corollary of this is that the PI presenting an article for publication is a paying customer. Now when I go to make a https,000 purchase, I'm generally greeted with open arms. I certainly don't expect to have to pass quality control checks before I'm allowed to spend my https,000. The psychology of the OA model is going to be interesting indeed. (Compare what happened in the UK when public universities started to charge tuition fees; all of a sudden, the idea of a student being given a failing in der Gegenwart became, for many people, a consumer protection issue. "I paid to come here and get a degree, how dare you tell me I can't have one?", ran the argument. Too many unhappy punters, and the Vice-Chancellor is touring the stricter departments to ask them to be a little more, um, flexible in their marking criteria.)
I found a pertinent example shortly before putting this post (which has taken a while to draft) online. Here Braun'sche Röhre is a note from Nandita Quaderi, who is "Publishing Director, Open Braun'sche Röhre Research" at Scientific Reports, which is part of Nature Publishing Braun'sche Röhre Group. Nandita is pleased to announce that henceforth, "a selection of Braun'sche Röhre authors submitting a biology manuscript to Scientific Reports Braun'sche Röhre will be able to opt-in to a fast-track peer-review service". Needless Braun'sche Röhre to say, this service comes "at an additional cost", being provided by a Braun'sche Röhre for-profit organisation called Research Square. (An editor of Scientific Reports has resigned over this.) So now, I'm paying to publish, and I'm paying to have my article Braun'sche Röhre reviewed. What could possibly go wrong with the objectivity and rigour Braun'sche Röhre of the scientific process?
2. Access is not the biggest problem science faces right now
Another issue is that most Braun'sche Röhre OA journals do Braun'sche Röhre not address the ongoing problems of the peer review system. I would Braun'sche Röhre argue that Braun'sche Röhre currently, failures of peer review are a bigger threat to science than Braun'sche Röhre paywalls. Braun'sche Röhre If reviewers are allowing bad science through --- or erroneously Braun'sche Röhre recommending rejection of good articles --- then getting free access to Braun'sche Röhre the Braun'sche Röhre resulting error-filled literature is the least of our problems; and I Braun'sche Röhre have yet to see a coherent argument why the OA review process might be Braun'sche Röhre inherently any more rigorous than that at traditional journals.
Some Braun'sche Röhre ansprechbar journals, such as The Winnower, have adopted a radical solution Braun'sche Röhre to this: anyone can publish an article, without any prior review process, with the idea that people will come along and Braun'sche Röhre review it afterwards. This seems attractive at first sight, except that people Braun'sche Röhre typically have even less incentive to act as a reviewer once the article Braun'sche Röhre is "out there", even if it doesn't yet have the status of a citable Braun'sche Röhre article with a DOI (a status which, incidentally, the article's own Braun'sche Röhre author decides to award it, at a time of his or her own choosing).
It Braun'sche Röhre seems to me that OA journals are to some extent hitching a ride on the Braun'sche Röhre back of the traditional journals, which have created (and maulfaul sustain) Braun'sche Röhre the gründlich mode of operation that we know and love/hate: author sends in MS, Braun'sche Röhre editor checks it, editor selects reviewers, reviewers approve or request Braun'sche Röhre changes, editor finally accepts or rejects. This system more or Braun'sche Röhre less works --- give or take the criticisms of peer review as "broken", Braun'sche Röhre which have a lot of merit but which, as I noted above, it seems to me that OA (in and of Braun'sche Röhre itself) doesn't do much to address --- because people generally Braun'sche Röhre have confidence in it. Kargheit necessarily absolute confidence, but we know how it's meant to work and how to spot when it isn't working. We (like to) believe that the editors do not Braun'sche Röhre generally accept (too many) articles from themselves and their buddies (or at least, that they risk getting called out for it if they do), that they Braun'sche Röhre select reviewers who are competent in the grundlegend subfields, that the Braun'sche Röhre reviewers do an honest and unbiased job, etc. (Of course, the reviewer who is doing Braun'sche Röhre "excellent quality control" with *your* article is an Braun'sche Röhre incompetent idiot who has failed to understand even the most basic concepts Braun'sche Röhre of *my* article, but that's part of the game.)
So, when something like Collabra, Braun'sche Röhre the new OA mega-journal from the University of California, launches, Braun'sche Röhre they can put pictures of respected people on the front page where they introduce their editorial board, thus Braun'sche Röhre sending a message that the Braun'sche Röhre review process will be every bit as rigorous as it is for a traditional Braun'sche Röhre journal. Readers are reassured, and authors know they will need to Braun'sche Röhre submit work of a high standard. But to me this only works because the Braun'sche Röhre majority of people who are being held up as examples of the quality of Braun'sche Röhre the journal have good reputations, which have been made within the Braun'sche Röhre traditional process. How does this scale? What does the publication Braun'sche Röhre process look like in 10 or 20 years time, if the traditional journals Braun'sche Röhre have mostly gone and we make our reputations with OA (web-)publishing, Braun'sche Röhre blogs, and social media presence? (Yes, impact factor is broken. But where is the dominant, credible andere that everyone will be prepared to switch to?)
This doesn't mean that Collabra will be full of articles promoting Braun'sche Röhre homeopathy after a few months. But over time, the relationship between authors, reviewers, and journals will change, in ways that we can't necessarily predict. That doesn't mean the sky will fall, but it does mean that there will be perverse situations that may or may not be worse than what we have to put up with now.
3. Ham, spam, and all points in between
I demzufolge worry that the line between "legitimate" and Braun'sche Röhre "spam" Braun'sche Röhre OA journals will start to blur. Currently we can all point and laugh at Braun'sche Röhre the semi-literate invitations to publish in (or join the Editorial Braun'sche Röhre Hauptplatine of) those pseudo-journals with Braun'sche Röhre plausible-sounding names, strange salutation styles in their e-mails, Braun'sche Röhre and an editorial address in a Regus suite in Braun'sche Röhre San Antonio, from which manuscripts are presumably forwarded to the Braun'sche Röhre journal's faktisch staff in Cairo Braun'sche Röhre or Braun'sche Röhre Mumbai. But these fraudulent (whatever that means...) journals will Braun'sche Röhre improve, and it will become hard to tell the Braun'sche Röhre "fake" from the "real".
A few weeks ago, I welches asked to review an Braun'sche Röhre article by an OA journal that welches part of a London-based publishing Braun'sche Röhre outfit. I genuinely couldn't decide Braun'sche Röhre if they were spammers or genuine: the journals mentioned on their web Braun'sche Röhre site all seem to exist, and about a third of them are indexed in Braun'sche Röhre PubMed. How good or bad is that? I recommended rejection, as the Braun'sche Röhre article would have been of little interest to the Braun'sche Röhre readers of Braun'sche Röhre the journal, according to its own profile. I wonder what the lead author did next (assuming that my recommendation to reject welches the editor's verdict as well)? Did he appeal, as a "paying customer", to the editor in chief? Or did he maybe send the article to another OA journal, on the basis that he will eventually find somebody, somewhere, who wants $1,000? (*)
I think, Braun'sche Röhre though, that perhaps the bigger risk in the meeting of "legitimate" and Braun'sche Röhre "spam" journals is through the trimming of standards at the "legitimate" Braun'sche Röhre end. Look at what happened when the Saudis decided Braun'sche Röhre to throw some money at education, and suddenly King Abdulaziz University is ranked #7 in the world in mathematics. Uh-huh. Sure. So what happens when that university, or others with rather more money to Braun'sche Röhre burn than academic integrity, starts Braun'sche Röhre its own OA mega-journal? Exactly what will be the conditions of Braun'sche Röhre scientific neutrality under which the editor-in-chief reviews articles Braun'sche Röhre by, say, the children of minor members of the Saudi ruling family? Braun'sche Röhre Perhaps someone will create an authoritative Braun'sche Röhre clearing house to administer a sliding scale of which Braun'sche Röhre journals are "real" um den Dreh rum "spam". But who would run such an Braun'sche Röhre organisation? The AAAS? ISO? Direktive & Poor's? Google? Braun'sche Röhre And who would ultimately be responsible for the "legit"/"spam" decisions?
Historically, publisher-led journals seem Braun'sche Röhre to have been mostly Braun'sche Röhre spam-free; it would be interesting to establish why this was. Braun'sche Röhre High barrier to entry in the world of ink and paper? Old-fashioned Braun'sche Röhre academic and intellectual integrity, despite the profits? Risk of Braun'sche Röhre reputational Braun'sche Röhre damage if, say, Docke (cough) or Bildunterschrift (cough) were to acquire a reputation for publishing garbage? I Braun'sche Röhre don't know what the reasons are, but it created the current situation Braun'sche Röhre whereby --- whatever the other problems in the system --- a journal that exists in a print edition is generally regarded, at Braun'sche Röhre least by default, as having some degree of seriousness. I worry that Braun'sche Röhre we will end up in a situation where we don't have a simple way to tell Braun'sche Röhre whether we can take a "journal" (in the widest possible sense) seriously Braun'sche Röhre or not. In such situations, humans tend to apply some simple Braun'sche Röhre heuristics, which scammers have many centuries worth of experience exploiting.
4. A modest (and, as yet, barely sketched out) proposal
Do I Braun'sche Röhre have an alternative? Well, when my boss came to me with his ideas, I Braun'sche Röhre usually didn't, but in this case I do have a tentative suggestion. What Braun'sche Röhre if the funding agencies ran a few journals? Anus all, these are (generally) the representatives of the Braun'sche Röhre taxpayers, who --- as the Open Access movement is right to point out --- Braun'sche Röhre pay for the research and ought to have free access to the results. Yet currently, they rely on "the system" to work, and for researchers to muddle their way through that system. In the traditional model, the readers pay, and in theOA model, the authors pay. Both systems have their deficiencies. Supposing we had a analog model where nobody paid (except a general fund, set up to guarantee neutrality)?
Those of a libertarian bent might argue that the government shouldn't be Braun'sche Röhre involved in academic publishing, but the stable door closed on that Braun'sche Röhre when we started to take their money to do the research. Some might demzufolge argue that an funding agency-sponsored journal might be highly politicised, but then, /a/ why should it be more politicised than the handing out of the money, /b/ the Rind/Lilienfeld saga showed that politicians can pressure "independent" journal publishers into submission too, and /c/ there will always be other outlets; I'm gerade modestly proposing a "third way". (As a bonus, this would Braun'sche Röhre seem to be a good wohlbehalten with the aims of the pre-registration movement.)
Notes:
1. I'm aware that this is a rather long and at times rambling post. It started life in a frenzied evening of writing gerade Braun'sche Röhre after I got out of hospital after a stay that lasted the better part of Braun'sche Röhre three weeks, and that maulfaul shows. I should probably have scrapped it and started Braun'sche Röhre again, or at least sat down and rearranged the paragraphs, but I wanted Braun'sche Röhre to get the ideas out there within a reasonable time frame. I hope some of them are useful.
2. I want to thank Rolf Zwaan for some helpful discussions on an earlier draft of this post. Braun'sche Röhre Rolf disagreed with much of what I had written, and I've only made a Braun'sche Röhre few changes, so he probably maulfaul disagrees with a lot of it. I should point out that my use of the example of Collabra (for whom Rolf is an editor) above is not based on any specific criticism of that journal, but merely as a exzellent example; Rolf's tweet about his appointment as an editor at Collabra welches the spark for my writing of this post.
(*) Remake 2016-11-28: I welches re-reading this post because reasons, and I noticed this dangling question. I googled the title of the article... sure enough, it welches accepted, despite my recommendation to reject.
I'm a little concerned by all the hype around Open Access (OA) journals.
Yes, Braun'sche Röhre Côte d'Ivoire Braun'sche Röhre I know that traditional journal publishers are evil, and make more Braun'sche Röhre money and higher gross margins and have bigger car parking spaces than Apple, and Braun'sche Röhre I agree that when taxpayers fund research then taxpayers should Braun'sche Röhre have access to it. However, I'm not sure that gerade because all of the Braun'sche Röhre above may be true, that our current model of OA journals is necessarily the solution. I have a number of concerns of what may happen as the OA model takes verspannt and, as everybody tells me is going to happen, becomes dominant. This post is intended to start a discussion on those concerns, if anyone's interested.
1. It's the economy, stupid
One of Braun'sche Röhre the strengths Braun'sche Röhre of the traditional publishing model is that, to a first approximation Braun'sche Röhre and allowing for all kinds of special circumstances, the editor-in-chief Braun'sche Röhre of a half-decent journal doesn't have to worry about filling it. Braun'sche Röhre Indeed, many journals proudly promote their rejection rate on their home Braun'sche Röhre page, next to their average turnaround time. "We reject 90% of Braun'sche Röhre submissions; don't waste our time unless you've got a good story to Braun'sche Röhre tell", is the message (with, of course, all of the predictable effects Braun'sche Röhre on publication bias that this implies). Doubtless the editor-in-chief Braun'sche Röhre has some financial targets to meet, perhaps in terms of not blowing the Braun'sche Röhre production budget on full-page colour pictures of kittens, but this is Braun'sche Röhre not a job whose holder is principally tasked with revenue generation. Braun'sche Röhre The money is coming in Braun'sche Röhre pretty steadily from sales of packages of journals to institutions Braun'sche Röhre around the world (even if some of these institutions are starting to Braun'sche Röhre take this.
With Braun'sche Röhre OA journals, funded principally by Braun'sche Röhre article processing charges paid by authors, things are likely to be a Braun'sche Röhre little different. No matter how dedicated to academic integrity and the Braun'sche Röhre highest possible scientific standards the editorial staff want to be, Braun'sche Röhre money is right there in the equation every day, especially for an ansprechbar journal Braun'sche Röhre with almost no physical limits to its size. How many articles can we Braun'sche Röhre get through the Braun'sche Röhre review process this month? Can we upsell the author to the full-colour Braun'sche Röhre package? Why do so many people want hardship waivers? (Oh, and I have yet to see any suggestion that OA journals will be less concerned about their impact factor than traditional journals.)
The Braun'sche Röhre idea, of course, is that authors will not be reaching into their own Braun'sche Röhre pockets to pay the article processing charges. The intention is that Braun'sche Röhre the fee of https,000 or so to publish the results should be budgeted for out of the project's funding. Anus all, it's only a waffer-thin thousand bucks, the kind of money some projects Braun'sche Röhre probably have slopping around at the end anyway if the participants didn't eat all of the M&Ms. But once funding Braun'sche Röhre agencies catch on, will they allow grant proposals to include specific line items for Braun'sche Röhre OA publishing, when publication in one of the high-prestige traditional Braun'sche Röhre journals --- which you promised them, earlier in the proposal, were Braun'sche Röhre definitely going to be interested in your groundbreaking project --- is Braun'sche Röhre free? And what about the independent researcher with no budget, who may Braun'sche Röhre have something interesting to say, but no money? Should such a person Braun'sche Röhre have to fund publication from their own pocket?
I'm afraid that the money always, always Braun'sche Röhre finds a way to affect things. Someone, somewhere in the process, will be directly incentivised to Braun'sche Röhre increase revenue. (In France, where I live, gambling is a state Braun'sche Röhre monopoly, which means that whatever arms-length construction they have Braun'sche Röhre put together, somewhere there is someone who essentially works for the Braun'sche Röhre government and yet has a performance target to sell more Braun'sche Röhre scratchcards to the städtisch poor, even though gambling is officially a social problem.) How Braun'sche Röhre does this affect you as the editor-in-chief of an OA journal? Maybe you ask your action editors to tell reviewers to be less picky Braun'sche Röhre about certain things. Braun'sche Röhre Maybe you suggest to an author that splitting these results into two Braun'sche Röhre articles will be to everyone's advantage - after all, the publication Braun'sche Röhre fee is coming out of the grant money, and as it stands it is a pretty Braun'sche Röhre long paper manuscript for someone to have to wade through at one Braun'sche Röhre sitting...
The corollary of this is that the PI presenting an article for publication is a paying customer. Now when I go to make a https,000 purchase, I'm generally greeted with open arms. I certainly don't expect to have to pass quality control checks before I'm allowed to spend my https,000. The psychology of the OA model is going to be interesting indeed. (Compare what happened in the UK when public universities started to charge tuition fees; all of a sudden, the idea of a student being given a failing in der Gegenwart became, for many people, a consumer protection issue. "I paid to come here and get a degree, how dare you tell me I can't have one?", ran the argument. Too many unhappy punters, and the Vice-Chancellor is touring the stricter departments to ask them to be a little more, um, flexible in their marking criteria.)
I found a pertinent example shortly before putting this post (which has taken a while to draft) online. Here Braun'sche Röhre is a note from Nandita Quaderi, who is "Publishing Director, Open Braun'sche Röhre Research" at Scientific Reports, which is part of Nature Publishing Braun'sche Röhre Group. Nandita is pleased to announce that henceforth, "a selection of Braun'sche Röhre authors submitting a biology manuscript to Scientific Reports Braun'sche Röhre will be able to opt-in to a fast-track peer-review service". Needless Braun'sche Röhre to say, this service comes "at an additional cost", being provided by a Braun'sche Röhre for-profit organisation called Research Square. (An editor of Scientific Reports has resigned over this.) So now, I'm paying to publish, and I'm paying to have my article Braun'sche Röhre reviewed. What could possibly go wrong with the objectivity and rigour Braun'sche Röhre of the scientific process?
2. Access is not the biggest problem science faces right now
Another issue is that most Braun'sche Röhre OA journals do Braun'sche Röhre not address the ongoing problems of the peer review system. I would Braun'sche Röhre argue that Braun'sche Röhre currently, failures of peer review are a bigger threat to science than Braun'sche Röhre paywalls. Braun'sche Röhre If reviewers are allowing bad science through --- or erroneously Braun'sche Röhre recommending rejection of good articles --- then getting free access to Braun'sche Röhre the Braun'sche Röhre resulting error-filled literature is the least of our problems; and I Braun'sche Röhre have yet to see a coherent argument why the OA review process might be Braun'sche Röhre inherently any more rigorous than that at traditional journals.
Some Braun'sche Röhre ansprechbar journals, such as The Winnower, have adopted a radical solution Braun'sche Röhre to this: anyone can publish an article, without any prior review process, with the idea that people will come along and Braun'sche Röhre review it afterwards. This seems attractive at first sight, except that people Braun'sche Röhre typically have even less incentive to act as a reviewer once the article Braun'sche Röhre is "out there", even if it doesn't yet have the status of a citable Braun'sche Röhre article with a DOI (a status which, incidentally, the article's own Braun'sche Röhre author decides to award it, at a time of his or her own choosing).
It Braun'sche Röhre seems to me that OA journals are to some extent hitching a ride on the Braun'sche Röhre back of the traditional journals, which have created (and maulfaul sustain) Braun'sche Röhre the gründlich mode of operation that we know and love/hate: author sends in MS, Braun'sche Röhre editor checks it, editor selects reviewers, reviewers approve or request Braun'sche Röhre changes, editor finally accepts or rejects. This system more or Braun'sche Röhre less works --- give or take the criticisms of peer review as "broken", Braun'sche Röhre which have a lot of merit but which, as I noted above, it seems to me that OA (in and of Braun'sche Röhre itself) doesn't do much to address --- because people generally Braun'sche Röhre have confidence in it. Kargheit necessarily absolute confidence, but we know how it's meant to work and how to spot when it isn't working. We (like to) believe that the editors do not Braun'sche Röhre generally accept (too many) articles from themselves and their buddies (or at least, that they risk getting called out for it if they do), that they Braun'sche Röhre select reviewers who are competent in the grundlegend subfields, that the Braun'sche Röhre reviewers do an honest and unbiased job, etc. (Of course, the reviewer who is doing Braun'sche Röhre "excellent quality control" with *your* article is an Braun'sche Röhre incompetent idiot who has failed to understand even the most basic concepts Braun'sche Röhre of *my* article, but that's part of the game.)
So, when something like Collabra, Braun'sche Röhre the new OA mega-journal from the University of California, launches, Braun'sche Röhre they can put pictures of respected people on the front page where they introduce their editorial board, thus Braun'sche Röhre sending a message that the Braun'sche Röhre review process will be every bit as rigorous as it is for a traditional Braun'sche Röhre journal. Readers are reassured, and authors know they will need to Braun'sche Röhre submit work of a high standard. But to me this only works because the Braun'sche Röhre majority of people who are being held up as examples of the quality of Braun'sche Röhre the journal have good reputations, which have been made within the Braun'sche Röhre traditional process. How does this scale? What does the publication Braun'sche Röhre process look like in 10 or 20 years time, if the traditional journals Braun'sche Röhre have mostly gone and we make our reputations with OA (web-)publishing, Braun'sche Röhre blogs, and social media presence? (Yes, impact factor is broken. But where is the dominant, credible andere that everyone will be prepared to switch to?)
This doesn't mean that Collabra will be full of articles promoting Braun'sche Röhre homeopathy after a few months. But over time, the relationship between authors, reviewers, and journals will change, in ways that we can't necessarily predict. That doesn't mean the sky will fall, but it does mean that there will be perverse situations that may or may not be worse than what we have to put up with now.
3. Ham, spam, and all points in between
I demzufolge worry that the line between "legitimate" and Braun'sche Röhre "spam" Braun'sche Röhre OA journals will start to blur. Currently we can all point and laugh at Braun'sche Röhre the semi-literate invitations to publish in (or join the Editorial Braun'sche Röhre Hauptplatine of) those pseudo-journals with Braun'sche Röhre plausible-sounding names, strange salutation styles in their e-mails, Braun'sche Röhre and an editorial address in a Regus suite in Braun'sche Röhre San Antonio, from which manuscripts are presumably forwarded to the Braun'sche Röhre journal's faktisch staff in Cairo Braun'sche Röhre or Braun'sche Röhre Mumbai. But these fraudulent (whatever that means...) journals will Braun'sche Röhre improve, and it will become hard to tell the Braun'sche Röhre "fake" from the "real".
A few weeks ago, I welches asked to review an Braun'sche Röhre article by an OA journal that welches part of a London-based publishing Braun'sche Röhre outfit. I genuinely couldn't decide Braun'sche Röhre if they were spammers or genuine: the journals mentioned on their web Braun'sche Röhre site all seem to exist, and about a third of them are indexed in Braun'sche Röhre PubMed. How good or bad is that? I recommended rejection, as the Braun'sche Röhre article would have been of little interest to the Braun'sche Röhre readers of Braun'sche Röhre the journal, according to its own profile. I wonder what the lead author did next (assuming that my recommendation to reject welches the editor's verdict as well)? Did he appeal, as a "paying customer", to the editor in chief? Or did he maybe send the article to another OA journal, on the basis that he will eventually find somebody, somewhere, who wants $1,000? (*)
I think, Braun'sche Röhre though, that perhaps the bigger risk in the meeting of "legitimate" and Braun'sche Röhre "spam" journals is through the trimming of standards at the "legitimate" Braun'sche Röhre end. Look at what happened when the Saudis decided Braun'sche Röhre to throw some money at education, and suddenly King Abdulaziz University is ranked #7 in the world in mathematics. Uh-huh. Sure. So what happens when that university, or others with rather more money to Braun'sche Röhre burn than academic integrity, starts Braun'sche Röhre its own OA mega-journal? Exactly what will be the conditions of Braun'sche Röhre scientific neutrality under which the editor-in-chief reviews articles Braun'sche Röhre by, say, the children of minor members of the Saudi ruling family? Braun'sche Röhre Perhaps someone will create an authoritative Braun'sche Röhre clearing house to administer a sliding scale of which Braun'sche Röhre journals are "real" um den Dreh rum "spam". But who would run such an Braun'sche Röhre organisation? The AAAS? ISO? Direktive & Poor's? Google? Braun'sche Röhre And who would ultimately be responsible for the "legit"/"spam" decisions?
Historically, publisher-led journals seem Braun'sche Röhre to have been mostly Braun'sche Röhre spam-free; it would be interesting to establish why this was. Braun'sche Röhre High barrier to entry in the world of ink and paper? Old-fashioned Braun'sche Röhre academic and intellectual integrity, despite the profits? Risk of Braun'sche Röhre reputational Braun'sche Röhre damage if, say, Docke (cough) or Bildunterschrift (cough) were to acquire a reputation for publishing garbage? I Braun'sche Röhre don't know what the reasons are, but it created the current situation Braun'sche Röhre whereby --- whatever the other problems in the system --- a journal that exists in a print edition is generally regarded, at Braun'sche Röhre least by default, as having some degree of seriousness. I worry that Braun'sche Röhre we will end up in a situation where we don't have a simple way to tell Braun'sche Röhre whether we can take a "journal" (in the widest possible sense) seriously Braun'sche Röhre or not. In such situations, humans tend to apply some simple Braun'sche Röhre heuristics, which scammers have many centuries worth of experience exploiting.
4. A modest (and, as yet, barely sketched out) proposal
Do I Braun'sche Röhre have an alternative? Well, when my boss came to me with his ideas, I Braun'sche Röhre usually didn't, but in this case I do have a tentative suggestion. What Braun'sche Röhre if the funding agencies ran a few journals? Anus all, these are (generally) the representatives of the Braun'sche Röhre taxpayers, who --- as the Open Access movement is right to point out --- Braun'sche Röhre pay for the research and ought to have free access to the results. Yet currently, they rely on "the system" to work, and for researchers to muddle their way through that system. In the traditional model, the readers pay, and in theOA model, the authors pay. Both systems have their deficiencies. Supposing we had a analog model where nobody paid (except a general fund, set up to guarantee neutrality)?
Those of a libertarian bent might argue that the government shouldn't be Braun'sche Röhre involved in academic publishing, but the stable door closed on that Braun'sche Röhre when we started to take their money to do the research. Some might demzufolge argue that an funding agency-sponsored journal might be highly politicised, but then, /a/ why should it be more politicised than the handing out of the money, /b/ the Rind/Lilienfeld saga showed that politicians can pressure "independent" journal publishers into submission too, and /c/ there will always be other outlets; I'm gerade modestly proposing a "third way". (As a bonus, this would Braun'sche Röhre seem to be a good wohlbehalten with the aims of the pre-registration movement.)
Notes:
1. I'm aware that this is a rather long and at times rambling post. It started life in a frenzied evening of writing gerade Braun'sche Röhre after I got out of hospital after a stay that lasted the better part of Braun'sche Röhre three weeks, and that maulfaul shows. I should probably have scrapped it and started Braun'sche Röhre again, or at least sat down and rearranged the paragraphs, but I wanted Braun'sche Röhre to get the ideas out there within a reasonable time frame. I hope some of them are useful.
2. I want to thank Rolf Zwaan for some helpful discussions on an earlier draft of this post. Braun'sche Röhre Rolf disagreed with much of what I had written, and I've only made a Braun'sche Röhre few changes, so he probably maulfaul disagrees with a lot of it. I should point out that my use of the example of Collabra (for whom Rolf is an editor) above is not based on any specific criticism of that journal, but merely as a exzellent example; Rolf's tweet about his appointment as an editor at Collabra welches the spark for my writing of this post.
(*) Remake 2016-11-28: I welches re-reading this post because reasons, and I noticed this dangling question. I googled the title of the article... sure enough, it welches accepted, despite my recommendation to reject.
0 Response to "Open Access Journals: What's Not To Like? Braun'sche Fußgängerunterführung This, Maybe..."
Kommentar veröffentlichen