The row about open-access journals continues
On the face of it, the idea of providing free access to scientific information seems eminently sensible, if we are committed to the idea of progress for all. The Public Library of Science (PLoS) was one of the first concerted attempts at providing such a service, launching in 2003 and providing free access to a range of peer-reviewed articles. The “open-access” approach has created controversy, though: in particular, some open-access journal publishers charge authors very high fees to publish their articles and there has been criticism over the quality of the peer-reviewing system. One contention is that the movement has encouraged the publication of more “junk science” or papers about trivial matters, almost devoid of novelty. Others argue that the effect of open-access publishing may eventually tip the balance against conventional publishers, as libraries and other subscribers discontinue subscriptions in favour of “free” sources.
OPEN ACCESS ≠ OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING: DON’T CONFLATE THEM
There are two ways to provide Open Access (OA) to peer-reviewed journal articles: (1) publishers make their version-of-record OA (“Gold OA”) and (2) authors make their peer-reviewed final drafts OA immediately upon acceptance for publication (“Green OA”).
Plans by universities and research funders to pay the costs of Open Access Publishing (“Gold OA”) are premature. Funds are short; 80% of journals (including virtually all the top journals) are still subscription-based, tying up the potential funds to pay for Gold OA; the asking price for Gold OA is still high; and there is concern that paying to publish may inflate acceptance rates and lower quality standards. What is needed now is for universities and funders to mandate OA self-archiving (of authors’ final peer-reviewed drafts, immediately upon acceptance for publication) (“Green OA”). That will provide immediate OA; and if and when universal Green OA should go on to make subscriptions unsustainable (because users are satisfied with just the Green OA versions) that will in turn induce journals to cut costs (print edition, online edition, access-provision, archiving), downsize to just providing the service of peer review, and convert to the Gold OA cost-recovery model; meanwhile, the subscription cancellations will have released the funds to pay these residual service costs. The natural way to charge for the service of peer review then will be on a “no-fault basis,” with the author’s institution or funder paying for each round of refereeing, regardless of outcome (acceptance, revision/re-refereeing, or rejection). This will minimize cost while protecting against inflated acceptance rates and decline in quality standards.
Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed. D-Lib Magazine 16 (7/8). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/