Hello Adam, perhaps none of us would publish in a predator journal with eyes open.  But there is open access that does a review, but it may be so expensive.  Recently, I visited some friends at our Genome Institute, and I saw that they pay a few thousand ringgit (Malaysian dollar) to publish in an OA journal with some impact factor.  For some of us who do not have a research grant, or those who lose a grant due to economic crisis, the other option is to publish in journals without impact factor that still do a good review of our papers.  (In this post, Beall is saying avoid this predator OA journal at all costs.)

https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/03/03/a-true-predator-austin-publishing-group/#more-7009

Thank you  Mirinda for the interesting answer

U can acess to open acess journals

Paying for publication introduces a bias beyond the criteria which academically matter.

Personally, I would rather that OA publishing be free from any charges for the good of the science. Sometimes, it is frustrating to find work published but you cannot access the work without paying some considerable amount of money to access the publication. May be a modest annual access fee could be charged by journals that still want to charge for publishing. But bottom line, charges for OA publishing hampers the advancement of science.  

Hello Adam,

If you do not like to pay or cannot pay for publication fee, you can choose Journals with free of charge publication. Other choice, you or other funder can pay for journal with publication fee. The funder could be your institution or a grant from other agencies.

Open access will serve its purpose if it is made free for the scientific community.

Many funders and/or institutions cover publication costs which would probably include  article processing charges. If you cannot pay the charges due to shortage of funds, you can write to the journal requesting a total or partial fee waiver. Most reputed journals agree to waive off the article processing charges on request. For example, PLOS has a clear policy for fee assistance: https://www.plos.org/publications/publication-fees/plos-publication-fee-assistance/

If the journal is conducting a good peer review process and giving excellent academic inputs regarding your article, I think a nominal fees can be borne by the authors. But yes, some of the paid journals are only interested in financial implications that compromises the scientific content of the journal, I strongly feel that those journals should be avoided.

Interesting comments from everyone,Thanks for your contributions,  what is clear is that there is no single preferred route. We (www.desigfactors.ie)  have been approaching this from a few directions, choosing strategically what to publish and where.The Irish Design Community www.iterations.ie has proven successful so far as a green open access review which is double blind peer reviewed but it does still have limited impact internationally, As lead editor I and the editorial board are very conscious of the need to offer something alternative for Design Researchers and Design Practice . At a personal level for now as a Design Researcher I shall have to continue to share work in non OA journals and Author/Institution pays OA journals as well as in conferences and more design appropriate platforms.

Dear Adam de Eyto 

pls check the link.

http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Paying-open-access-charges-guidance.pdf

It was really helpful Dr Nirmala...Thanks

Hi Adam, of course, within the field of design there are two options that are reputable OA journals, with fees that are paid by an external organisation. These are the Int. J. of Design (http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/ and with an ISI impact factor), and She Ji (http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/ published by Elsevier). Several of the more traditional design journals allow self-archiving under certain conditions.

Paying should only be done when it is required and funded (or at least funded) by a sponsor, and/or when it makes sense. If a paper is very specialist, everyone who would want to read it probably has access through their institution. If you paper is relevant to a wider readership, e.g. industry, then making it open access will indeed increase your reach, and therefore make it worthwhile to hunt for funds. 

thanks dear Wever u expolained very important point in the publication. The open acess will increase your reach.

For formulating a  possible answer to your question, one has to know how funding is being handled . That is,  the grant that supports the Open Access paper , contributes a percentage to the relative Institution?  If yes, then it is a issue of bargaining a bit with the Institute's administration (i.e. on the percentage withheld), which then can cover the  publication expenses. If no, The authors should be fully charged.

A sidekick of your question though,  is that Open -Access journal DO NOT  pay their reviewers  ... 

If you are working in a project that is supported by a governmental research board you *have to* publish with an open access option. On the other hand, when you seek those grants you also are allowed to ask for extra money in order to pay for open access. So to some degree you could say that journals make a lot of money from our government simply by being lucky that our government has made this decision. On the other hand it means that everyone can read our beautiful scientific discoveries. ;-) 

 Sorry Michael but I do not share entirely your opinion .. the Open Access (OA) model has been recently introduced in our Academic lives .. so ... public grants do not necessarily imply an exclusive OA channel . Of course if you refer to OA journals with no Impact factor .. is another issue .. but public grants are usually  assigned on a merit-scale system. 

The fees required for OA journals are completely off-scale  (unfortunately it has become a solid business) ...and in order to "support" their readership many journals reject up to 70% of their submitted manuscripts. This means that it is not so easy to publish in this category as well ...

Institutions yes, but only after the paper has been accepted but authors absolutely not. For one I don't believe that I should be paying with money what I've already paid for in time effort and intellect. Another thing is that it feels like a bribe. At least one open access journal that I agreed to peer review for, obviously did not use my comments on a paper that was clearly not up to par and went ahead and published it. Likely because of the money they'd already gotten from the author? Also I find that many of the invitations I get to review or to submit are completely random, and have nothing to do with my subject at all. Open access being paid for by a funding institution is fine... provided, as I said before, this is an option offered and accepted after the acceptance of the paper is confirmed. And it goes without saying that the journal should be a reputable one and that their editorial board is bonafide. I once checked back with the professor identified  editor-in-chief of a journal who denied knowing anything about the journal or his name on it.

I truly hope that our comments can arrive at the proper destination  .. that is to various OA publishers . OA publishing has become a serious business ... with some interesting consequences which we will face in the near future. 

      Not only, as Neeraja was saying about front-end "editors" and randomly selected reviewers,  Institutions have to affront the enormous fees of a publication, but someone has to CONTROL why the OA channels have the publication fees they have . Why the publication of a paper in a respectable journal has to cost my team $ 2000 -3000 ?  On what criteria they have established that this is the way to publish science , etc  ? 

    Scientific Authoring till recently was possible even if a team did not have serious grants (one could avoid the price of the reprints). In the very near future .. this won't be possible since many standard publishers start to shift to the OA paradigm. This will mean that  only economically privileged groups will be able to  publish.

Some food for thought....  

I very much agree with the comments from Neeraja and Stavros.  Paying for publication introduces serious conflict of interest (COI) issues.  These COI issues can undermine the reliability, validity, and credibility of scientific discourse, eventually deteriorating real-world application of concepts and methods.  For example, in a recently conducted systematic review (the process of which required four students and another faculty member and I to come to consensus using 24 questions to analyze 41 blinded articles), we did not discover that two of the "journals" involved could not be verified by librarians at our Research Level 1 institution until we were in the final stages of manuscript writing and validating results.  Further, one of the two articles published in these pseudo "journals" was a blatant advertisement dressed up to look like a sophisticated research publication.  Had we not investigated the journals themselves, our systematic review conclusions would have included erroneous information that would have been passed on to unsuspecting practitioners. 

That is why all the people I know well publish in traditional journals only. Since our grant providers require us to publish with open access, we ask the grant providers to add money for the open access fees to pay those traditional journals; we'd rather publish where we usually publish, because we are acquainted with those who manage and read them, while open access-only journals may come and go from one day to the next - and let's face it: they are almost always worse in terms of their editorial board expertise, their choice of reviewers, and the quality of the typesetting. (Contradict me if you can! :-))

Elaine can you provide a link to your review paper  please ? It is very interesting. 

We are still in the process of manuscript submission.  The title of the study is Efficacy of Upper Extremity Mobilization Orthoses: A Systematic Review by

• Thomas F. Fisher, PhD, OTR, CCM, FAOTA
• Elaine Ewing Fess, OTD, MS, OTR, CHT, FAOTA
• Lindsay Baker, OTS
• Melissa Harber, OTS
• Murdick McLeod, OTS
• Harrison Meyers, OTS

 I will provide a link to the article once it is published.