A simple recipe for a truly open, prestigious, society-owned journal

Is there anything wrong with the current model of scientific publishing, and, if so, can we, practising researchers, do anything about it? I argue that the answer to both questions is yes. The publication costs charged by scientific journals are often frustratingly high, and the growing flood of articles published each week makes it increasingly difficult to maintain high peer review standards, putting the credibility of science in threat. But I also argue that we have the power to change this, it is just a matter of taking a couple of rather simple steps. And I think it’s our responsibility to take them. 

So, let us start with a more detailed diagnosis of what is wrong. It can be summarised in two interrelated points.  

1)      The current publication environment dominated by for-profit publishers makes science exclusive in two ways. Firstly, journal subscriptions have become an increasing strain on libraries budgets and have always been hard to afford in low-income countries. Secondly, the open access model which was supposed to remedy this problem, creates instead a barrier to researchers from low- and middle-income countries (LaMiC), because major journals impose article processing charges (APCs) they cannot afford (see here for evidence).

2)    The number of scientific publications is increasing more than the number of active researchers (see here), contributing to the difficulties journals face in eliciting quality reviews (see here). And substandard review (due to the lack of time or due to recruitment of reviewers of unverified quality) opens gates to scientific incompetence and even fraud (read more). Indeed, forged articles have been spotted even in high-impact journals (if you still believe in IF; see examples here and here), sometimes making their stealthy way into journals via stolen identity of respectable reviewers (read more).

The two above problems are interrelated because APCs motivate publishers to accept more articles (compare the increase in the number of for-profit open access MDPI or Frontiers with that of non-profit PloS at this link; but even non-profit publishers can be affected, see here). This increases the number of published papers and makes it more difficult to control their quality through peer review, which in turn makes it easier to sneak in even more papers as long as the authors pay for their publication. Sounds like a vicious circle, doesn’t it? Is there a way out?

It looks like the solution would be journals which are open access but not levy APCs, a solution called diamond open access. Such journals can be supported by institutions, charities, or membership fees, and they do exist! From a taxpayer/donor point of view, publication in such journals would be a great save. According to a recent estimate, the per article cost in subscription journals is around 4000 euros, but only about 15% is the actual cost of publishing! So, what we (or, more precisely, taxpayers and charities) pay for is mostly costs that commercial publishers incur by competing against each other and their fat profit margins (some 30-40%). Many funders (including my own) require grant holders to publish open access and cover the costs, so they could save some 85% of taxpayers/donators money.

Given above, why do we researchers tolerate the currently prevailing model? Primarily because we want our work to be visible and we strive to publish it in established prestigious journals that are mostly owned by commercial publishers. So, willingly or not, we pay for the prestige (and pay more formore prestige!). But this realisation suggests a way out! After all, it is us who decide which journals are considered prestigious!

So, this is what I think we should do:

■       Select/create diamond open-access journal (e.g., scientific society-based)

■       Make sure the journal offers high review standards.

■       Send your best work there! If most of us do, this will be the most prestigious journal!

Sounds good, but would never work in practice? Wrong! Some nice success stories are described in this article. And some good steps have already been taken to make it easier. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), embraced by many important institutions, including the ERC, bans the use of paper number and impact factors in individual assessments, so we should not lose much publishing in the diamond open access journal of our choice even if it does not have IF comparable to journals currently considered prestigious. And if you care about IF, I would bet that it is ‘not comparable yet’, as the success stories of journals created to escape the excessive publication costs imposed by commercial publishers show that they can quickly over-complete them in this regard, too. And things are happening: The DIAMAS project may be a first step towards institutional support for diamond open access model journals.

How can we improve the peer-review process after we achieve this? I think open review is what we need to ensure reliability and to give credit to those who do a great and hard job peer-reviewing papers. But more details will follow in a future blog. Meanwhile, I would like you to take an anonymous survey: Would you send your best work to a diamond open-access society-owned journal provided that you knew that most of your peers declare to do the same? Please take 30 seconds to fill out the survey at this link.

Thanks!

Jacek