I used to be an advocate of "Open Access" publishing. But in my new position as faculty, I'm changing my mind.

Open Access publishing can be very expensive. I recently opted to make a paper "Open Access" at a cost of $3000. In retrospect, I don't know that it was a wise use of funds. For the same cost I could have hired a co-op student for a term or sent a graduate student to an international conference. Given how hard we work to raise research dollars as new faculty, I am starting to resent all the pressure to spend thousands extra on each publication. Especially when you consider that most copyright agreements allow researchers to archive a pre-print or even post-print version on their websites.

Plus, if any person is curious to see an article I've written, all they need to do is e-mail me requesting a copy for research purposes. I am then entitled to share it with them, and generally respond within 24 hrs. Having another scientist contact me directly to request a paper I've written is a lovely experience. It connects us and could lead to all manner of fruitful collaborations. When we pay publishers to make our papers free on the internet, that incentive to reach out and directly contact other researchers in our discipline disappears. Maybe with "Open Access" we actually wind up more isolated?

I think you should always publish in open access journals, no matter which one: it is just fair make scientific information available for everyone, even more if you think that probably taxpayer money paid your research totally or partially; also, it will have a broader impact on science, reaching more public.

I agree with above answer, its good to publish in open access journals, as the knowledge is freely available to all the people, 'the scientific community' around the world. This will help the research to reach people worldwide rather than being restricted to few regions. Like here in India, many of the institutions don't have access to many international journals, mostly because of high subscription fee or sometimes also because you cannot subscribe to all the available journals, as the numbers are way too many. Because of which students sometimes miss out on an article which is important in their work or even if they ask the authors to mail, he/she will have to wait for a certain amount of time before he/she gets the article,

and sometimes you don't even get it.

Anyways, so publishing in open access journals, which are peer reviewed, is I think is the best way to spread science.

And regarding the IMPACT FACTOR; yeah I do agree that at initial stages of our career, we should be looking at the "IMPACT FACTOR" thing, but more than IF, I think what is important is the IMPACT of your research; on the people and on the society, whether directly or indirectly. If your research has that impact then your IMPACT FACTOR is definitely gonna rise.

But again, that's my view on the IMPACT FACTOR thing, yours can be different.

I used to be an advocate of "Open Access" publishing. But in my new position as faculty, I'm changing my mind.

Open Access publishing can be very expensive. I recently opted to make a paper "Open Access" at a cost of $3000. In retrospect, I don't know that it was a wise use of funds. For the same cost I could have hired a co-op student for a term or sent a graduate student to an international conference. Given how hard we work to raise research dollars as new faculty, I am starting to resent all the pressure to spend thousands extra on each publication. Especially when you consider that most copyright agreements allow researchers to archive a pre-print or even post-print version on their websites.

Plus, if any person is curious to see an article I've written, all they need to do is e-mail me requesting a copy for research purposes. I am then entitled to share it with them, and generally respond within 24 hrs. Having another scientist contact me directly to request a paper I've written is a lovely experience. It connects us and could lead to all manner of fruitful collaborations. When we pay publishers to make our papers free on the internet, that incentive to reach out and directly contact other researchers in our discipline disappears. Maybe with "Open Access" we actually wind up more isolated?

For Rebecca Rooney: besides the golden (author-pays) open access journals there exist also diamond (free for BOTH authors and readers, see e.g. the attached link for details) open access journals, so one can stick to the latter to avoid the problems you have mentioned.

http://www.jasonmkelly.com/2013/01/27/green-gold-and-diamond-a-short-primer-on-open-access/

Fundamental advantage of open access journals is their availability to colleagues whose institutions or they by themself are not able to pay high price for conventionally printed journals. However nothing is free it is just a question who is paying. classically readers are paying in open access authors are paying. I am in favor of open access journals but some of them are really charging to much - on the other hand there is a problem of fraud- so called "predatory journals" (see my separate question)

PeerJ is awesome in every respect. They are very professional people and the cost of article procesing is equal to nothing, especially for the people living in developed countries - only $99 for your life time. I think many of us often spend $99 in just a day on unimportant things. So once you pay $99, you can publish a paper every year throughout your life. PeerJ is quick - and their staff is helpful. Once I was not able to submit my article for review, I wrote a mail and though it might take a little while to get a reply from them - so I was relaxed and thought of preparing tea. By the time, I came back to desk, there was an unread message in the inbox. It was from PeerJ staff ....I was like wow! He sorted out all my problems in just a few minutes. Plus they are so polite. What else do you need in just $99?  Once you submit the article, they will reply quickly if they need some additional information....unlike traditional journals which take ages to respond. Moreover, they take care of your referencing style....their message is "PeerJ wants scientists and research to do research and innovation, not formatting and referencing." I love PeerJ and would like recommend it to every researcher in STM. 

Dear Aditya

PeerJ is unique journal. However, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerJ  "Authors are charged $99 to be able to publish one paper a year, $199 for two papers a year and $299 for unlimited publications." However, is there any other similar case? PLOS  journals, with high IF, do not belong to that group (personal experience)...

If someone would like to go through submission and editorial process smoothly, then one should definitely publish in PeerJ. The contact with editorial board is very good. Moreover, fee is affordable for most scientists. I also have a few papers published in Plos One (and some rejected as well). However, recently we stumbled across with such hilarious difficulties with submission process in Plos One that it is worth mentioning. We have been trying to submit revised version of our paper for almost two months... unsuccessfully. First, it was our fault as we did not realized that some guidelines for authors changed in this year. Nevertheless, after correcting necessary things (file name style) we have submitted paper again. However, the manuscript can't go further, to the academic editor as we still receive the response that "Please check and if necessary rename your figure and supporting information files so that they comply with PLOS file naming conventions. For figures please use the format "Fig#.file type" and for supporting information files please use the format "S#_Type.file type." For example, "Fig1.tif" or "S2_Dataset.xls"." We have been checking everything again and again, and still receive the same message. The response from the journal is with one ot two week time lag thus it takes a lot of time. We were really irritated at the beginning but now we start to believe there are computers/robots working instead real human beings;-). We also attempted they explained what is wrong in detail but we received the same message. Yes, contact with the editorial team does not exist or is confined to such irrational exchange of e-mails in this journal. It is astonishing they put so many troubles in front of authors of manuscripts that are not even evaluated on the scientific merit, before acceptance. I never found such troubles with other journals, including PeerJ. In the latter you dont have to care about such specific details as file names in the manuscript submission system.

Generally, I like the idea of open access journals like Plos, however for me Plos One is best of a bad job strategy when publishing papers. 

Best wishes and good luck with Plos One....

Piotr

I am in total agreement with Rebecca. I found myself in exactly similar situation. I was a huge proponent of open access till my PhD and Postdoc, but as soon as I became faculty, some harsh realities came into the existence. Its really really difficult to opt for open access unless your institute and director is fully supporting you. Cost of majority of open access journals start from 1200 dollars and reaches upto 3000-3500 dollar, which is a huge amount in almost all the developing country, including India. To bring funding and project for your research work itself is a "not so easy task" being a new faculty. In 3000 dollars I can hire one full time project fellow for an entire year. 

Another problem have started to arise by those opportunist publication houses that want to utilize current scenario for money making. If you search the internet hundreds of journals with tag of open access have sprouted in last few years. This is creating enormous reputation loss for open access model. Many people are questioning the credential of those open access journals without a significant impact factor (At least 2-3 IF). Also, to publish in a subject specific journal have their own added advantage.

I am still a supporter of open access scenario, but definitely would like to avoid them due to financial limitations. PeerJ is a good hope, only if it will be able to sustain itself in long run. 

I thought I had posted an answer here, but if so it has disappeared! I have to declare an interest as a retired but still active researcher, and as one working before I retired in circumstances where the institution would certainly not pay for my publications. Open access is a great convenience for me, perhaps especially PLoS one, but as an author I have great reservations. So far I have managed to publish in traditional journals, and my papers still manage to get cited. I fear that if open access becomes the norm, people like me will be squeezed out of publishing altogether, and ability to pay will become the main criterion applied. To me, this smacks of vanity publishing. It may also impose an accidental orthodoxy: only those in established and well-funded research groups will get published, and the self-funded maverick will be excluded.

I would like to see where the money we pay for open access publication is actually going. With editorial rotine almost fully automated, copy editing done by the authors, web publishing, and free review provided by us, I can't see the justification for charging  $3k for publishing a paper.

Most traditional journals offer publication at no cost that become open access after one year. for immediate access we can rely on preprints and post prints. I can't make myself pay the outrageous Plos One prices anymore.

I totally agree with Rebeca's and Robert's comments.  Perhaps complementary to the debate on “open access” is a debate on "peer review" process, discussed at length in very interesting article published in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2006;99:178–182  in 2006 by Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group.  One interesting quote from this article reads:  "There is an obvious irony in people charging for a process that is not proved to be effective, but that is how much the scientific community values its faith in peer review." 

I think OA articles are rather convenient depending on the circumstances. I would never pay for a considerable sum of money for making any of my papers OA in the most platforms (elsevier, wiley-blackwell, springer, etc.). Instead, I would prefer to submit my research to a good OA publisher, where the fees are considered fair, as PLOS ONE or PeerJ. I agree partially with Dr. Rebecca Rooney, that any paper should be (at least expected) to be reached straight from the authors.

I usually ask for reprints concerning my own research, and such practice has helped me to increase my research network, resulting in very productive partnerships.

I think keeping the standards of a good peer-review process is the key. Open peer-reviews would be very satisfactory, yet the most journals refrain from adopting this practice.

I think that not all OA journals were created equal.

While there is no doubt that journals such as PLOS ONE are doing very well, the fees are very high, impossible to pay to most authors, at least from developing countries.

This is also the case if one wishes to publish her/his paper as OA in traditional journals, thus perpetuating a model according to which if you have money, your paper will be freely available. If you don't, well, less folks are going to read it, not to say cite it.

In conclusion, money leads to information, and information, to power (money = power, as usual). Considering this, it seems more alluring to pay $99 for a paper per year for a lifetime (PEERJ) than any of the alternatives, including NOT paying anything in traditional journals that sell my paper to readers and don't give me a penny for it. At least, information will not be sold to readers.

However, I haven't submitted anything to PEERJ so far. I am including a link to a nice article I found online regarding this business model.

http://svpow.com/2015/03/27/peerj-cant-possibly-last-because-the-numbers-dont-add-up/

Generally, I do not publish my papers in Journals that charge the authors $$ for publication.  However, for a very specific reason, last year I submitted my manuscript to PEERJ with understanding that the cost of publication will be $99.  Shortly after the submission, each co-author was contacted by PJ, with invoice  demanding payment from every co-author.  I asked the editorial office to explain this, and it turned out that this is indeed PJ policy, which is buried deeply in legal jargon somewhere in the fine print.  In the end, I decided to withdraw our manuscript, and will never send my work to PJ again.    Indeed, PEERJ is widely advertising the cost of publication capped at $99, but in reality this is not the case. 

If I may from a librarian's perspective, OA journals are certainly good for our bottom line, however, as some of you have stated, you need to choose very carefully which you publish in.  Most ARE high quality and have the best of intentions.  They strive to make your research widely available at little or no cost, thus avoiding the astronomical prices of the well-known (and also already mostly respected) publishers.  There are ways of determining which OA publishers you definitely want to avoid.  Of course the one I would suggest is asking a librarian.  There is also a blog that Jeffrey Beall, an academic librarian from the University of Colorado, Denver, maintains on the subject of OA journals, predatory ones in particular, called Scholarly Open Access Critical analysis of scholarly open access publishing.  It can be found at the link I have added.  He posts frequently about individual OA journals that are likely predatory or have problems.  He also compiles a yearly list called Beall's List of "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers", which is quite extensive. It contains the names of and links to the publishers.  Those of you publishing in OA journals may already know of it.  I have added that link, as well as the link he published in 2016 showing the breakdown of the number of predatory journals per year as this medium has grown since he began the list four years ago.  All of this is available by doing simple Google searches.  I hope this information is of some use.

https://scholarlyoa.com/

https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/

I found this article as the strongest criticism of Open Access publishing.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.21111/abstract

Article How publishing in open access journals threatens science and...

For those balking at $3000 open access charges, I feel the same way, but you should check out PeerJ. They have cheaper costs/article, or you can buy into a membership for each author which covers one pub per year ($399 for a lifetime membership), two per year ($449), or 5 per year ($499). I recently had a paper accepted with three authors. I had some problems with uploads, but overall, I like their model.  If there are lots of authors who don't have memberships, then you can choose to do the per article option which was $695, but recently went up to $1095. Overall, that $1095 is less than many other journals. Also, if you have a lot of color figures, like we did, many traditional journals have per color figure costs that can end up costing you more than the open access journals.

Does PeerJ waive publication fee for researchers from developing countries?

Here is the pricing info:

https://peerj.com/pricing/

In the Frequently asked questions area it states

"We hope you agree that PeerJ's publication fees are already great value with the low APC and lifetime memberships! That said, we do recognize that some people are unable to pay this amount. Therefore, we offer a no questions asked fee waiver, on request, to anyone from countries that are classified by the World Bank as Low-income economies. The waiver simply applies to the publication in question, and is not a waiver for a full membership plan. We only allow one waiver per person per year.

In addition, any co-author who was an undergraduate at the time of the research may request a membership waiver (provided the paper has senior co-author(s) who have at least a Basic publishing plan, and provided the article passes peer review as normal). This is valid if paying through the Membership route rather than APC. Read more about this policy."

I hope this helps.

I work in a developing country and I feel open access is too expensive to me. We get limit budget with a high pressure to publish a good paper. My first choice always go to the good journal that free for both authors and readers (very rare journals, I found two, it is Journal of Equine Science from Japan, and Journal of Applied Animal Science, from Thailand) before going to journal with free for submission but reader must pay.

To publish to PeerJ, the editorial office requests the raw data. It is essential. If the data can not be released (due to license or some cause...), the submission will be rejected.

I have started to publish more and more often open access, when I can afford it. Given that a large group of European funders has launched an initiative in September 2019 to advance open-access ("Plan S") with China backing up (see Nature, 564:p 174-172, 2018), it seems a safe bet that open-access will become increasingly common in the near future.

As to online only open access journal such as PLOS, PeerJ, Frontiers, Sci Rep, etc., the crucial difference to pay-walled subscription journals is their lack of space limitations – which means that they are able to publish research regardless of whether or not it is perceived as important. Hence, the acceptance rate of PLOS etc. is much (!) higher.

This is both good and bad, depending on your perspective.

It’s good because you can (and should) publish all your results, i.e. also negative studies, which is one step on the way to solve the replicability crisis in science. So, it diminishes the amount of work that ends up never being published because of negative data. This means that you may publish more papers and at the same time help the research community by saving time, costs and resources because it allows others to adjust their future projects by avoiding “blind ends”. Another advantage of open access journals is that papers on average do get (some) more attention and (slightly more) citations, adjusted for impact factor, compared to papers behind a pay-wall. Indeed, I find myself increasingly more browsing Frontiers, PeerJ websites, simply because it’s more convenient to read the papers. Also, I think that the good open access journals have an equally robust review process as traditional subscription journals; indeed, many of the former make the review process increasingly more open by publishing reviewer’s names and even the reviews themselves (the most extreme example being F1000research). On the contrary, it’s bad because open-access journals are perceived (and probably rightly so) as less competitive – which may (probably unjustified) limit your chances for grant applications, etc. Thus, for the time being, when you feel that you really have game-changing data to publish, you will continue to look for a high impact traditional subscription-based journal (although people like you and me should try to change that). Also, publication costs are an important limiting factor – if you publish many papers, that quickly adds up. Lastly, always make sure that the journal you are submitting to is indexed in the common databases (e.g. PubMed), this is an important benchmark.

So, I believe PeerJ is a very valuable option given their much lesser costs as compared to e.g. Frontiers. Although their Neuroscience sections is not as strong as for instance their Paleontology section (fantastic for a wanna-be paleontologist like me!), I just submitted my first paper to PeerJ and I am considering doing it soon again. (Also, it’s the only journal that sends me mails saying, “Dear Daniel”, instead of “Dr. Kondziella” – it seems silly, but it does make me feel welcome.)

It is worth noting that PLoS journals are encountering financial difficulties, and are increasing their APCs. The OA scene has its problems, and I suspect that they will get worse.hh

Dear Dr Cameron. It sound amazing that of PloS journals encountering financial problems? They donot need any printing press/publication or paper cost. They required only limited manpower for operating computer software for managing review process, typesetting and online publication. For one paper they are charging 3000 dollars. This is no loss business. Why they are facing financial difficulties? What the problem of OA? Please elaborate sir.

Sure.

I got my information from the website "the Scholarly Kitchen" which is a forum for publishers and librarians.

Apparently PLoS is losing money. And the rate of submission to them has also declined. I do not know how they fail to cover costs, but this is apparently happening.

I can add that as a retired person, I have no institutional funds to help me participate in OA. If I publish without younger co-authors, I am likely to be silenced for being unable to pay APCs.

They say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. As far as OA is concerned, I begin to see the truth of this proverb.

Dear Robert, dear Rajesh

I don’t have any insider knowledge, but that PLOS may be losing money and submissions doesn’t seem so surprising. Remember that it was the very first scholarly OA journal with a unique business model – which now has been copied by a bunch of new competitors such as Sci Rep, eLife, Frontiers, and PeerJ. It’s no wonder, PLOS is losing market share. As in so many other areas of life, the pioneer with a new idea gains an advantage which is quickly being lost when this idea is copied (and improved) by others.

Also, remember that OA publishing is subject to all the costs that other online businesses encounter, including maintenance of a website, processing requests (i.e. submissions), interacting with customers (i.e. authors), storing a vast amount of data in e-clouds, staff salary, etc. (At the same time, costs for traditional printing have diminished substantially with the advent of print-on-demand and similar technologies.)

Aside from any possible difficulties that PLOS may encounter, I think that OA has come to stay. And it makes sense that publicly funded research should result in data that are publicly available. Someone must pay for this in any case, so the real challenge is to share the burden of these costs in a fair manner. Like you Robert, I don’t have funding enough to pay APCs for all my papers, although I am still at a relatively early stage of my career. Introducing more flexibility with APC waivers might help. As it is now, authors from low-income countries may apply for waivers but authors from high-income countries cannot, which includes those who are not sufficiently funded for whatever reasons. A solution might be that these authors ask their institution to cover publication costs, and the institution gets these costs reimbursed by state funders.

Again, in my opinion, the single most important advantage of OA is that negative data get published more easily, which reduces publication bias and one major reason for the replicability crisis of Science.

I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

Have a nice Sunday,

Daniel

Thank you, Daniel,

I am all in favour of OA as a general principle. However, there is an increasing problem for a number of specialist societies that have journals, and depend on subscription income. Much of their contents would be of little interest to those who are not members, or are not able to access institutions that subscribe. The gain in accessibility may be far less significant than the loss of income.

Publishing your article in an OA journal means that more people are likely to see it, simply because more people will be able to access it. Indeed, one study showed that full-text downloads of OA papers were 89% higher, PDF downloads were 42% higher, and unique visitors were 23% higher than those for subscription-access articles.

Additionally, a survey of both science and humanities/social science authors revealed that the belief that OA publications are read more widely is the second most common reason for deciding to publish in an OA journal. Although it is still uncertain whether this increase in downloads and visitors translates into an increased citation rate, the greater visibility achieved with OA may allow you to reach potential collaborators more easily.

Additionally, your data will be available to educators and the general public, most of whom do not have access to expensive journal subscriptions.

Robert A D Cameron I think you are right, but not completely. Like Archiv für Molluskenkunde, it's difficulty to obtain. But, OA is burden to younger researcher, a live person can publish non-OA paper and put them on Researchgate. Sometimes, I think it's better to publish a paper in Molluscan Research instead of Zookeys. Because it focuses on Malacology.

For Guoyi,

Yes. Zookeys is expensive. I am retired and cannot afford APCs. It is sad that it is difficult to get papers in Archiv, though you can contact authors directly.

We live in interesting times for specialist research, and I do not mean that as a compliment

As much of the labor in the editorial process is contributed freely by unpaid reviewers, perhaps OA journals could recognize those contributions by offering substantial discounts or even complete fee waivers to reviewers. Some do, but by no means all. I know that when I review a manuscript I put substantial time into the effort that, if charged for at a reasonable hourly rate, would pay for a fair portion of the APC at some of the less expensive OA journals.

Good idea, Carl. The really tough reviews take at least a working day, and I get 20-50 review requests a year, aside from equally unpaid editorial work that can take just as long if there are language issues. We are seeing a really radical change in outlook that, being a grumpy old man, I see as downgrading quality and the necessary help to young researchers. But i would want my credit to be portable, so that I retain my free choice of where to publish.

There were things that we did/still do for free as part of our professional duty.

O Tempora! O Mores!

End of grump.

Dear Robert, I am sorry to hear this. Given that OA is unlikely to go away in the near future, what are your suggestions on how to reconcile supporters of OA with those supporting traditional society-based subscription journals? Best, Daniel

Hi!

Nice discussion…

I think the impact factor and open access journal are highly controversial for a number of reasons. Many conventional journals are high ranked enough and do not require paying for publishing. Then, open access journals will rapidly increase their impact factor precisely because there are ‘open’, but only to download, not to publish. It is true that there are waivers, but for scientists like myself working in developing countries, it is quite difficult, not to say impossible, to pay an article-publishing fee. Then again there is the amount to pay, when I think of spending 3000 dollars on getting a paper published, I cannot avoid thinking I could use that money for field research or laboratory equipment, and that the paper will perfectly fit a conventional journal. Finally the impact factor: judging the paper (and the scientist) by the impact of the journal is, if anything, reductionist. Apart of publishing in ‘not highly ranked’ journals because we cannot pay, it will depend on the field. I am a malacologist, so if I want to publish some basic research on snails does it means I have to publish in PLoS Biology or SciRep? Pure Malacological journals do not have large impact factors, and it does not necessarily means they are bad journals; they are just focused in a reduced audience.

I know paying then for a paper that is not OA can be expensive, but I think (or want to believe) that a true scientist will put their research available upon request by a fellow researcher.

Cheers,

Antonio

For Antonio,

I am a malacologist too, and I am with you 100%. Most of my work is in Malacological journals and I cannot afford APCs

@Robert A D Cameron: You're correct that ZooKeys is expensive, but they do give partial fee waivers to recent reviewers and one full fee waiver per year for an article of up to 10 pages for reviewers who are retired scientists.

Thanks, Carl. A bit late for a multi-author paper now in review for a subscription journal where two of us have no visible means of support (retired), but if we have problems... But I have not reviewed for Zookeys, though a co-author may have. And it is more than 10 pages!

Have appreciated this discussion! The news about fee waivers for reviewers in ZooKeys is helpful for sure!@Carl C. Christensen

Why not publishing in Peer Community In...?

I believe that this is the option that we should follow. I leave you below the link for more detailed information!

https://peercommunityin.org/

Early researcher must publish in any kind of journal, OA or not. Now "conventional journals" are offering the open access option but at high cost. If your institution or project can cover the fee, then go a head. But foremost, focus on the fact that you are presenting a good and solid research in any kind of journal. Dont let the impact factor to fool you. The impact factor is just a measure of the popularity of the journal and not necessarily of its quality. Along your research career you likely will publish in high and low impact factor journals. Instead thinking about journal IF, I would advice early researchers to focus on the quality of your work.

Cheers

It is great reading the suggestions concerning publications. Thanks to everyone who posted comments. As a young researcher i have gotten some insights which i believe will help in my carreer.

Many universities now have deals with PeerJ to cover your publication costs, which is great due to PeerJ's pay structure. Once you're in their system, you can publish with them for life, even if you leave the university. Always check with your university before publishing anywhere, b/c you may be able to get fees waived or reduced.

Very helpful discussion, thanks for the useful comments