Open access is a chance that an article will be read by scientists more frequently and get more attention. I do not see any harm. A few people may think that only predatory journals are open access, but this view is obviously not true. There is a good summary of the pros and cons of open access at https://www.openaccess.nl/en/what-is-open-access/pros-and-cons.

See also these previous RG discussions:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-a-open-access-journal-How-can-we-recognize-it-and-what-are-the-benefits-to-publish-a-journal-in-it

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_all_scientific_research_be_made_open_access

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Open_access_free_of_charge_should_we_change_the_roles_of_publishing

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Free_science_What_do_you_think_about_paying_to_read_a_scientific_article_even_though_you_know_that_its_authors_dont_get_paid_for_it

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Open_or_closed_access_journals_What_is_your_take

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-open-access-journal-is-better-to-publish

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Free_Articles_Downloads

One of the problems of open-access journals (and open-access papers in subscription-based journals) may be the higher APCs, which may prevent scientists in developing countries from publishing in such journals and may lead to a discrimination. This has been discussed here and in several other previous discussions:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_impact_of_high_article_processing_charges_on_research_publication_activities_in_low_and_middle_income_countries

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_does_Nature_Open_Access_charge_so_much_to_publish

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Publishing_open_access_for_1000

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_true_that_only_open_access_journals_charge_publication_fee_while_subscription_journals_do_not_charge

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientific_Journals_with_Open_Access_and_no_APC_free_charges_for_authors

Publishing articles in Open access journals/or open access articles having more benefits rather to closed/paid journals. Such benefits are:

· The research results made immediately available

· Increased citation and usage

· Faster Impact

· Share and link research data/findings

But articles should be published in reputed journals (Indexed in SCI/SSCI/PubMed/Scopus/Embase/DOAJ)

Whether the journal is open access are international publications, it is relevant to the subject, and the qualitative research method to the usefulness of the research paper is deciding the author's evaluation.

Wolfgang R. Dick

Thank you for your useful and rich answer.

Thank you, Shivendra Singh and Bheemashankar S Avanty for your responses.

Agree that open access is a chance that an article will be read by scientists more frequently and get more attention. However, While going for open access journal one must take care of the following:

1. Select the reputed Publishing house.

2. check the scope of the journal

3. See previously published work of your domain.

4. Check the publication process of the journal

5. In case you have more than one journal passing 1-4 criteria, go with a higher impact factor.

Good Luck!

Hi, Mustapha,

I would tend to agree with the responses you've received so far.

That is, I'd tend to say: the value of an open access journal might depend on the journal in question. Some open access journals may be more highly regarded within particular academic disciplines or within academia generally, than others. But I don't think that the simple fact of status as an open access journal, in itself, would necessarily tarnish the reputation of an article or author published there.

I think I can state correctly that in the United States, at least certainly within the professional librarian community, there is a movement toward promoting open access journals as the generally preferable model for the communication of scholarly information and findings. [I had some professors in LIS school who were rather militant on that point, in fact.] Generally speaking, the whole point of academic research and scholarship is to convey potentially useful findings to as large a potential target population of readers as possible. [A concept that goes way back at least to the rise of early academic journals in early modern France and England, and is subject of course to appropriate peer review requirements that were introduced around the same time. And, apologies if there are even earlier antecedents of which I am unaware.] Generally speaking, less-than-open-access tends to interfere with that spread of ideas and thus, arguably at least, interferes with that core purpose of academic research and discussion.

Some publishing houses have elected to try to maintain non-open access business models. They may have their reasons. However, I believe they've also run into some resistance for their stand against what may be the predominant trend toward open access. I believe that that the University of California system - collectively one of the biggest producers of academic research in the United States - has put pressure on non-open access publishers to move toward open access. [And certainly my former library school professors joined in that effort.] Similarly, Harvard University and MIT, collectively a major academic research powerhouse of global proportions, seems to have favored the open access approach, recognizing the new realities of the global Internet information universe in accepting that it's better to spread your message more broadly than to try to keep it behind a firewall for paid subscribers only. Another, related issue that has attracted attention in the United States as well as I'm sure other nations: why, for heaven's sake, should research that was publicly funded, at taxpayers' expense, wind up behind the firewall of a for-profit publisher?

Anyway, based on my (quite probably less than complete or perfect) knowledge and experience, I'd tend to say that publishing in an open access journal, by itself, is not likely to harm the reputation of an article or its author. A separate issue is the publication ranking system, which applies to both open-access and non-open-access journals, and which may be a story for another day .... [I have feelings and sentiments about that issue, also, but I need to pull them together better before I speak my mind on that topic. ;-) ]

What I personally feel is that as much as a published work reach the hands of more people and they read it and use it , the value of the paper increases. Earlier, access to printed journals were limited in comparison to e-journals which are freely accessible to all now. So automatically value of freely accessible e-journals will increase. However while selecting a e-journal proper care should be taken.

Thank you very much, Scott Dewey, for your rich and venerable response.

Thank you, Ashish Sachdeva and Pronab Kumar Barooah for your responses and interests.

Another factor that may be reluctant to publish in open access journals, even those with high impact factors, is that in many countries such publications are not taken into account when upgrading.

I'll just add, for the overall historical record: I suppose that we're all (globally!) still in the process of fighting the overall battle or war over open access, so it's a little early to see or say how things will "shake out" in that conflict. A good number of forces are generally organized on the "pro-open access" side" - but some others may be on the other side, and it's premature to say just who will "win." Because I am, philosophically and temperamentally, more inclined to favor the relatively free distribution of information, I am inclined to favor the open-access side in this particular debate - but, trust me, I've been on the losing side of some very major debates more than once in the past, so - if I'm on the wrong side of this one, it will disappoint me but actually won't surprise me. ;-)

Whether particular nations, or universities, or university departments, or professional/academic cultures respect open-access journals or not is yet another issue that scholars must confront in practice, regardless of pure "theory" on the matter. [In my current profession and position, I occasionally encounter usually young LIS scholars from other institutions whose work will not be credited or respected for professional advancement unless they publish in certain favored journals. Or, in other words, they might have interesting and useful things to say, and they could even get their work published in other journals, but it wouldn't count unless it's in one of the "right" journals. I rather regret this situation, and it's one I haven't had to confront personally, but it is a reality that I'm sure faces a good many scholars in a good many disciplines. Although professional cultures and academic or government standards might change over time, it would be Pollyannaish to hope that they will do so overnight, I'm sure. [However, for people who want their work publicized - even if it doesn't get them credit for promotion in their home country or at their home institution - publishing some material in non-favored journals might still help to shift the overall state of discourse on a given topic, and (I suppose, at least in theory?) might help such a scholar later to be published in one of the "chosen" journals? So hopefully there might still be some at least indirect utility to participation in the profession, and in publishing, even if not in the "chosen" journals?]] [Here I'm remembering a particular project where I was checking publications from a truly vast array of journals - as in, several hundred - but I was curious to find that a good number of the more interesting articles on the topic I was researching kept appearing in a journal that wasn't on my list, which was derived from other institutions' list and ranking system for LIS journals. Some of the people publishing in the less-favored journal were long-tenured and could publish anywhere they liked, though. I suppose, at least in theory, that publishing in less-favored journals could also help to add to a junior scholar's citation count - though again, if a national, institutional, or departmental culture did not credit citations in any journals outside a select list, that might not help a junior scholar with promotion or advancement. :-( ]

Yes I also agree with you. Newer journals are comming up every day. Further, to-day a new journal may not be indexed by leading global indexers like SCI or SCOPUS yet it has value and the same will be growing. In India mostly universities are insisting researchers to publish in UGC CARE Listed journals only ( for getting credit )where many subjects are having few numbers of journals only. So I feel one should be free to publish their research in any journals core to their area and not only in "favoured" journals.

Indeed, the open access journals are easier to access by the researcher, so it may get more citations.