Now a days almost all the publishers provide option to publish open access or print. According to you which publication is better and why? .
I too prefer open access to get better visibility, impact and citation.
Hi,
Most print journals have a digital counterpart, so, there is no difference in visibility between a print journal that has a digital format, and an open access journal. Choosing an open access journal for publication demand that you check carefully what type of journal it is. Except for few OA journals, most of the OA journals have a low impact factor.
'Open Access' is always best w. r. t. 'Visibility' at large & Information via 'Academic Values' secured 'Global Values'
That depends on your overall goal. Certain subscription only journals are more prestigious than open-access journals, but open access allows for wider dissemination.
all depends on the writer, their goals, the topic of their research and the standpoint in their career. One important thing to keep in mind is that subscription journals that publish in the traditional format still tend to have a higher level of prestige as measured by impact factors. But, this seems to be changing due to the increasing quality of some of the OA journals.
So the question then is not so much which is better, open access or traditional publishing. The question is which publication format is best for Your particular paper at a particular time.
If you are more worried about your RG score than disseminating your knowledge then OA.
I am wary of OA. The few articles I've read disturb me. Too many times the authors don't know what they are writing about (when it's an area I am expert in) so it makes me question the validity of the rest of the paper. The editorial boards often contain no one with experience in the subject matter. This only hurts future research.
I'll only consider OA if it is from an established publisher. e.g., Elsevier offer OA options for many of their journals. I know that the editorial board will ensure knowledgeable referees are used.
Too many publishers and authors have already tainted the OA landscape. I've seen the quality of published research deteriorate dramatically since I first published over 30 years ago.
I see this happening at conferences, too. There's an ignorance of already published research and the amount of fundamentally wrong science is alarming.
Note, I'm independent. I'm not part of an academic institution or a corporation. I cannot afford subscriptions or to pay for papers. But I value the integrity of peer-reviewed literature. It's at risk.
Someone guided with utilitarianism will say 'end justifies the mean. I see fast citations by open access. Academics are now guided with the citation index as they are using it for promotion, renewal of contracts and fulfilling KPIs. However in case of John Francis Miller, these are not the end purpose of any research and eventual publication rather knowledge development to service larger stakeholders. It has it's own significance and therefore sincerity, integrity, quality and professionalism matters.
I will rather argue again to leave the issue to the individuals but there should not be a compromise and any trade off once it comes honesty and integrity in pursuit of knowledge either ways.....print or open access.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher