Publication police and how to choose where to publish

“I confess, I published behind a paywall.  I’m sorry, sir, I didn’t want to, but but but I’m almost out of funds and and …..<suspect’s voice fades>”             Publication Police files, Nov.3 2024

Will peer pressure eventually lead to discrimination against those who publish behind a paywall?  Is it now a moral imperative that we publish everything open access?  If so, is that not simply morality by majority (a dangerous proposition at the best of times), or worse, morality by the most vocal?

I’m often asked “Where should I publish this?” and I must admit that “In an open access journal” is not my first response.  This is simply because there is a higher standard than mere open access (as great as that is).  Where to publish is first and foremost the answer to the question “Where will it get the attention it deserves?”  Of course, this is where ego can raise its ugly head and, worse, I have colleagues who think this means the journal with the highest impact factor, but those distractions aside, it is still the most important question.

Most of our science is simply an incremental step building on what is going before.  Most of the time it is of interest to a relatively small group of fellow researchers or those whose profession is impacted on by the research.  Furthermore, it will probably be of interest only for a short period of time before someone else builds upon it. The “attention a paper deserves” is the attention that these people for whom it has most meaning give it.  For this reason, it should be published in a manner which makes it easy for these people to read about it and access it. This will probably mean one of the professional society journals and/or one of the most read journals in the field.  In the fields of Critical Care and Nephrology where I’ve published most recently this will probably mean a European or American journal which has high readership in those jurisdictions because this is where most of the research is being done.    Of course, this does not mean my manuscript will necessarily be accepted by those journals, but if I deem it has something important to say, then that is where I should send it first.

Comparatively few of those journals are open access only, but all offer an open access option.  This tends to come with a publishing fee in the range of US$1500 to US$3000.  My budget does not stretch to paying such a fee for every publication. I am forced to be pragmatic. If my manuscript is accepted into one of those more high profile journals I have to pick and choose.  The more important I think the findings the more likely I will take the open access option.  Also, if I think the message has immediate application for clinicians (i.e. not just the narrow group of researchers in my field) I am more likely to choose open access.

There is, of course, the option to publish in more general online journals (PlosOne, PeerJ, F1000 etc) and I have done so.  However, my impression at this stage it that these do not rapidly reach the inbox of most of the very very busy researchers and clinicians in the fields I publish in.  A few (like myself), may have set up automatic search strategies or use social media to follow journals in their field, and, of course, if people are conducting PubMed or the like searches they may come across those articles.  However, their lack of specialisation and reliance on someone making more effort over and above reading the specialised professional journals they have always read, mitigates somewhat their usefulness to me to “getting the message out.”  Of course, I could choose to be a “early adopter” or “pioneer” and publish in a low cost open access journal (if my fellow authors would let me) with the hope that this will change the publishing culture of paywalls and high publishing fees elsewhere.  However, it would be at the cost of less exposure of my research to those who are most interested and active in the field.  For some of what I publish I must balance my obligation to advance the field the most by maximising the chances of exposure amongst those for whom it is likely to be of immediate interest with the more philosophical desire for open access to all and sundry from now to eternity.

________________________________________________________________

sponsors_4

 

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Publication police and how to choose where to publish

  1. David Roberts

    Actually most open access journals do not charge anything to publish in. This is well-established. The issue is whether the journals indoor area are representative in this regard. And don’t forget, there’s always the option of archiving papers (ie Green OA). Oh, and waivers for article processing fees.

    Reply
  2. Peter Suber

    You assume that all or most peer-reviewed OA journals charge publication fees. This is untrue. According to the Directory of Open Access Journals , only about 30% of peer-reviewed OA journals charge publication fees today. You also assume that when OA journals do charge fees, all or most of the fees are paid by authors out of pocket. This is also untrue. The fees are usually paid by the author’s funder (59%) or employer (24%), and rarely by the author out of pocket (12%). See Table 4 of the SOAP study . You also assume that all or most OA is delivered by journals, when in most fields most OA is delivered by repositories , and you overlook the fact that most non-OA journals give standing permission for their authors to make their work OA through repositories . One result of these assumptions is a false dilemma: that to make your work OA, you must either pay a big fee out of pocket or publish in a second-rate journal. One alternative is to publish in a high-quality, low-fee or no-fee OA journal. If you can’t find one in your field, then another alternative is to publish in the best journal that will accept your work; if it’s not OA, then deposit your peer-reviewed manuscript in an OA repository. For more details, see my guide on how to make your own work OA .

    Reply
  3. Peter Suber

    Sorry. The previous version of my comments had the links stripped out. Here’s another version with the links restored.

    You assume that all or most peer-reviewed OA journals charge publication fees. This is untrue. According to the Directory of Open Access Journals [ http://www.doaj.org/ ], only about 30% of peer-reviewed OA journals charge publication fees today. You also assume that when OA journals do charge fees, all or most of the fees are paid by authors out of pocket. This is also untrue. The fees are usually paid by the author’s funder (59%) or employer (24%), and rarely by the author out of pocket (12%). See Table 4 of the SOAP study [ http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260 ]. You also assume that all or most OA is delivered by journals, when in most fields most OA is delivered by repositories [ http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/340294/ ], and you overlook the fact that most non-OA journals give standing permission for their authors to make their work OA through repositories [ http://goo.gl/ZLxsXV ]. One result of these assumptions is a false dilemma: that to make your work OA, you must either pay a big fee out of pocket or publish in a second-rate journal. One alternative is to publish in a high-quality, low-fee or no-fee OA journal. If you can’t find one in your field, then another alternative is to publish in the best journal that will accept your work; if it’s not OA, then deposit your peer-reviewed manuscript in an OA repository. For more details, see my guide on how to make your own work OA [ http://bit.ly/how-oa ].

    Reply
    1. John Pickering Post author

      Thanks for this. It’s interesting and helpful. My argument is really that the (moral) imperative to get the research in front of those for whom it is most meaningful trumps open access, but both would be best. In the fields I publish this is definitely expensive. However, I certainly buy the argument that this is “field dependent” and not necessarily expensive for everyone.

      ps. By “My budget” I didn’t mean my personal one, but the one I’ve cobbled together from grant funds – alas definitely limited.

      Reply
  4. Jeffrey Beall

    Actually, there are many thousands of open-access journals that are not included in DOAJ, and I don’t think it’s fair to exclude them in any analysis of article processing charges as is done here. I have over six hundred companies on my list of questionable publishers, and they are all OA, and many of them publish over one hundred journals each. Few are included in DOAJ; the overlap is small. Moreover, most all of them impose article processing charges on authors; they are commercial operations that seek to earn as much money from researchers as possible. Therefore, statements such as “Actually most open access journals do not charge anything to publish in” are just not true. Predatory journals dominate the market, and they almost always charge an APC (they sometimes waive fees for newly launched journals). Because they spam so much, they are an issue for everyone. Therefore, saying most OA journals don’t charge APCs is like saying most people in Nordic countries don’t suffer from dengue fever. I wish that open-access advocates would stop acting like used-car salesmen and would begin to tell the whole story about open-access, not just the selected portions that make for a good sales pitch.

    Reply
  5. Pingback: Cheesecake files: Just how deadly is it? | $100 Dialysis

Got something to say? Don't be shy

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s