Open access publishing - noble intention, flawed reality

Understanding author choices in the current conservation publishing landscape

Conservation literature addresses a broad spectrum of interdisciplinary questions and benefits. Conservation science benefits most when a diverse range of authors are represented, particularly those from countries where much conservation work is focused. In other disciplines, it is well known that barriers and biases exist in the academic publishing sphere, which can affect research dissemination and an author's career development. We used a discrete choice experiment to determine how 7 journal attributes affect authors' choices of where to publish in conservation. We targeted authors directly by contacting authors published in 18 target journals and indirectly via communication channels for conservation organizations. We only included respondents who had previously published in a conservation-related journal. We used a multinomial logit model and a latent class model to investigate preferences for all respondents and distinct subpopulations. We identified 3 demographic groups across 1038 respondents (older authors from predominantly middle-income countries, younger authors from predominantly middle-income countries, and younger authors from high-income countries) who had published in conservation journals. Each group exhibited different publishing preferences. Only 2 attributes showed a consistent response across groups: cost to publish negatively affected journal choice, including authors in high-income countries, and authors had a consistent preference for double-blind review. Authors from middle-income countries were willing to pay more for society-owned journals, unlike authors from high-income countries. Journals with a broad geographical scope that were open access and that had relatively high impact factors were preferred by 2 of the 3 demographic groups. However, journal scope and open access were more important in dictating journal choice than impact factor. Overall, different demographics had different preferences for journals and were limited in their selection based on attributes such as open access policy. However, the scarcity of respondents from low-income countries (2% of respondents) highlights the pervasive barriers to representation in conservation research. We recommend journals offer double-blind review, reduce or remove open access fees, investigate options for free editorial support, and better acknowledge the value of local-scale single-species studies. Academic societies in particular must reflect on how their journals support conservation and conservation professionals.

Open Access: Opening or Closing Doors for Junior Faculty?

The Open Access movement has transformed the landscape of medical publishing. Federal regulations regarding Open Access have expanded in the USA, and journals have adapted by offering a variety of Open Access models that range widely in cost and accessibility. For junior faculty with little to no funding, navigating this ever-changing landscape while simultaneously balancing the pressures of publication and promotion may present a particular challenge. Open Access provides the opportunity to amplify the reach and impact of scientific research, yet it often comes at a cost that may not be universally affordable. In this perspective, we discuss the impact of Open Access through the lens of junior faculty in general internal medicine. We describe the potential benefits and pitfalls of Open Access on junior faculty with a focus on research dissemination and cost. Finally, we propose sustainable solutions at the individual and systems-level to help navigate the world of Open Access to promote career growth and development.

Impact of Open Access status on journal metrics in infectious diseases and clinical microbiology - A cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

While Open Access (OA) journals provide free access to articles, they entail high article processing charges (APC), limiting opportunities for young researchers and those from low-middle income countries to publish OA.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study, evaluating APC and academic impact of full OA (FOA) journals in infectious diseases (ID) and clinical microbiology (CM) compared to hybrid journals. Data were collected from Journal Citation Reports and journals' websites.

RESULTS

Among 255 journals, median APC was 2850 (interquartile range [IQR] 1325-3654$). Median APC for 120 FOA journals was significantly lower than for 119 hybrid journals (2000, IQR 648-2767$ versus 3550, IQR 2948-4120$, p < 0.001). FOA journals had lower citation numbers and impact metrics compared to hybrid journals.

CONCLUSION

While FOA ID/CM journals have lower APCs, they also lower academic impact compared to hybrid journals. These findings highlight the need for reforms in the publication process in view of achieving equitable data dissemination.

Academic publishing requires linguistically inclusive policies

Scientific knowledge is produced in multiple languages but is predominantly published in English. This practice creates a language barrier to generate and transfer scientific knowledge between communities with diverse linguistic backgrounds, hindering the ability of scholars and communities to address global challenges and achieve diversity and equity in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). To overcome those barriers, publishers and journals should provide a fair system that supports non-native English speakers and disseminates knowledge across the globe. We surveyed policies of 736 journals in biological sciences to assess their linguistic inclusivity, identify predictors of inclusivity, and propose actions to overcome language barriers in academic publishing. Our assessment revealed a grim landscape where most journals were making minimal efforts to overcome language barriers. The impact factor of journals was negatively associated with adopting a number of inclusive policies whereas ownership by a scientific society tended to have a positive association. Contrary to our expectations, the proportion of both open access articles and editors based in non-English speaking countries did not have a major positive association with the adoption of linguistically inclusive policies. We proposed a set of actions to overcome language barriers in academic publishing, including the renegotiation of power dynamics between publishers and editorial boards.

An analysis of retracted COVID-19 articles published by one medical publisher with multiple journals

Background

The retraction of medical articles periodically occurs in most medical journals and can involve multiple article types. These retractions are beneficial if they remove flawed or fraudulent information from the medical literature. However, retractions may also decrease confidence in the medical literature and require significant amounts of time by editors.

Methods

One publisher (Hindawi) announced that it will retract over 1200 articles. Given this, the PubMed database was searched to identify retracted publications on or related to COVID-19, and articles retracted by journals sponsored by the publisher Hindawi were then identified.

Results

These journals retracted 25 articles and, in most cases, did not provide an exact explanation about the particular problem(s) resulting in the retraction. The time to retraction was 468.7 ± 109.8 days (median =  446 days). These articles had 9.3 ± 9.9 citations.

Conclusion

Analysis of the titles and abstracts of the articles suggests that their removal from the medical literature would have limited effects on the near-term management decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, retraction of medical articles creates uncertainty in medical care and science and in the public regarding the validity of medical research and related publications and the level of professionalism of the individuals submitting these articles.

OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING — “SO NEAR AND YET SO FAR”

Scientific knowledge needs to be widely disseminated across the globe, for it to be critically analyzed or to be built upon for future studies. The conventional publication model has been less accessible due to prohibitive subscription costs and hence the need arose for the open access model where the readers would have free access. The Open Science movement is not only about open-access journals but also includes open source, open data and methodology, open peer review, open-access indexing, and archiving. The prototype open access model is the gold model where researchers (themselves or supported by grants or funding agencies) pay certain article processing charges and the readers have free access to the content without any restrictions. Additionally, there is a need for free-to-use open-access platforms or repositories like PubMed Central to archive the open-access content. Institutional repository is another way for collecting, archiving, and distributing the scholarly contents of an academic institution. Preprint servers allow archiving manuscripts before they are submitted to or undergo review for publication, and they offer an important platform for freely sharing knowledge. While open-access model looks attractive, it has its challenges. Currently, the change to open-access model has meant the transfer of the financial burden, earlier borne by the readers, to the authors in the form of APCs. Irrespective of the model, there is a need to reconsider the high subscription costs and the article processing charges which are often prohibitive for many. Science must be accessible to the researchers and the public at a reasonable cost without delay.