Are we, as a scoentofoc community, get into a situation where where we compromise against the quality of the reaserch paper when the same is published in a journal by paying for each publication? The journals also might not view very stringently on the quality compared to the journals which are subscription-based.
Azad,
It depends - but I sense that you are suggesting that open access generally equates to poorer quality compared to subscription. That is not routinely the case. I would argue that most 'legitimate' open access journals (both new and more established) publish good quality research. In this case, they do not 'contaminate or compromise' research. I'm wondering if you might more be associating open access with 'predatory' journals? If that is the case, then all 'neophyte/new' researchers should be discouraged from submitting to them. They will pay money and their research is not viewed or valued by anyone (which counters your point on widespread dissemination). With reputable open access journals - such as Biomed's BMC series (I am an Associate Editor for BMC Public Health), then new researchers should be fully encouraged. These journals are often still competitive though - and often with good Impact Factors - so publication is not guaranteed - but there is a good chance of quality.
Paying for a journal article, in open access, does also not mean compromising oneself. Many internal and external research grants now accommodate addition al funding for publication in open access. It has advantages to the funders i.e. potentially quicker publication and more access/citation. There is also the recent 'backlash' against the expensive business model of some of the larger subscription publishing houses i.e. Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis etc.
Azad,
It depends - but I sense that you are suggesting that open access generally equates to poorer quality compared to subscription. That is not routinely the case. I would argue that most 'legitimate' open access journals (both new and more established) publish good quality research. In this case, they do not 'contaminate or compromise' research. I'm wondering if you might more be associating open access with 'predatory' journals? If that is the case, then all 'neophyte/new' researchers should be discouraged from submitting to them. They will pay money and their research is not viewed or valued by anyone (which counters your point on widespread dissemination). With reputable open access journals - such as Biomed's BMC series (I am an Associate Editor for BMC Public Health), then new researchers should be fully encouraged. These journals are often still competitive though - and often with good Impact Factors - so publication is not guaranteed - but there is a good chance of quality.
Paying for a journal article, in open access, does also not mean compromising oneself. Many internal and external research grants now accommodate addition al funding for publication in open access. It has advantages to the funders i.e. potentially quicker publication and more access/citation. There is also the recent 'backlash' against the expensive business model of some of the larger subscription publishing houses i.e. Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis etc.
Well, my point was not to say that all are sub-standard. Yes, your argument on some journals like the BMC you have mentioned, yes, they mostly care for the quality and quickness in responding. Also I agree on the point that some grants consider allocation of funds for publication which helps in paying for the publication to be out fairly quickly. But both of these exceptions should become more of generality. Thank you for the analysis and response Dear Dean
Dear Azad Ismail Saheb , I support Dean Whitehead contribution. Let me also bring some other challenges of open access! Good to read.
What can researchers do to help overcome some of the challenges?
I would encourage researchers to understand how publishing works and what open access involves. It may not be something that most people want to spend their evenings doing, but learn about licensing and your rights. As researchers we also need to look at what we’re rewarding within university career progression processes, to make sure that innovative approaches to publishing are valued as well as simply publishing in traditional formats. We also have a duty to help our students to learn how to get to grips with all of this, and particularly to help early-career researchers think about the best ways to publish their work openly. In a very rapidly changing environment it’s quite anxiety-inducing for people at the start of their career, who tend necessarily to be a bit more risk-adverse because they need to maximise their chances of getting a permanent job...
https://www.researchinformation.info/analysis-opinion/open-access-seems-such-seismic-change?utm_source=adestra&utm_medium=RINewsline&utm_campaign=March%20RI%20newsline
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism