Open-access journal editors resign after alleged pressure to publish mediocre papers

Vrieze, Jop de

doi:10.1126/science.aav3129

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It has previously been argued that paying to publish constitutes a conflict of interest for researchers (Tennant et al, 2016). In addition to potentially biasing the editorial process (Beall, 2012(Beall, , 2013de Vrieze, 2018;Haspelmath, 2013), this also places authors in a potential conflict with the public interests (such as government or philanthropic funders) that support them. The author's own career interests and needs (more papers in more prestigious journals) may incentivise them to be more willing to pay an APC or to pay a higher APC, while as a steward of public funds they might be expected to publish using a lower cost open access model such as preprints or self-archiving.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Article Processing Charge Hyperinflation and Price Insensitivity: An Open Access Sequel to the Serials Crisis

Khoo

2019

LIBER

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open access publishing has frequently been proposed as a solution to the serials crisis, which involved unsustainable budgetary pressures on libraries due to hyperinflation of subscription costs. The majority of open access articles are published in a minority of journals that levy article processing charges (APCs) paid by authors or their institutions upon acceptance. Increases in APCs are proceeding at a rate three times that which would be expected if APCs were indexed according to inflation. As increasingly ambitious funder mandates are proposed, such as Plan S, it is important to evaluate whether authors show signs of price sensitivity in journal selection by avoiding journals that introduce or increase their APCs. Examining journals that introduced an APC 4-5 years after launch or when flipping from a subscription model to immediate open access model showed no evidence that APC introduction reduced article volumes. Multilevel modelling of APC sensitivity across 319 journals published by the four largest APC-funded dedicated commercial open access publishers (BMC, Frontiers, MDPI, and Hindawi) revealed that from 2012 to 2018 higher APCs were actually associated with increased article volumes. These findings indicate that APC hyperinflation is not suppressed through market competition and author choice. Instead, demand for scholarly journal publications may be more similar to demand for necessities, or even prestige goods, which will support APC hyperinflation to the detriment of researchers, institutions, and funders. Article Processing Charge Hyperinflation and Price Insensitivity

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Article Processing Charge Hyperinflation and Price Insensitivity: An Open Access Sequel to the Serials Crisis

Khoo

2019

LIBER

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The growth in the open access sector is not without its problems. New journals often are under pressure to grow and increase their impact factor, including open access journals [34]. The low overhead needed to publish an online journal and the demand for more open access alternatives has led to many new open access journals in recent years.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Access Publishing Trends in the Forest Sciences

O’Hara

2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open access models for academic publishing offer an alternative to traditional subscription-based journals. In the open access model, the author generally retains the copyright and the published articles are available free on the internet. Publication costs are either borne by the author as article processing charges, or are free for some journals published by societies or institutions. Traditional subscription-based journals are funded by subscription costs to libraries and individuals, the publisher retains the copyright, and these journals are generally not freely available to the public. This traditional model has created two problems: (1) many for-profit publishers control access in a form of oligopoly and impose high costs to subscribers; and (2) it limits access of scientific information to the public which disproportionately affects poorly funded research institutions and developing countries. Other subscription-based journals are published by scientific and professional societies but are not “for-profit”. In the forest sciences, several open access journals emerged in the last 10–15 years. These open access journals are published by for-profit publishing companies, research institutions, and professional societies. Some of these journals have been successful at attracting manuscript submissions, becoming indexed by various indexation services, and have seen metrics representing their importance increase over time. This paper documents these trends and assesses the viability of the open access model in the forest sciences and compares them to other types of journals.

show abstract

“…In one of our tests, the journals Crystals , Metals , and Materials from the publisher MDPI were complied with the most criteria from ET10R and ET10M, and yet, this publisher has appeared on Beall's list in the past (MDPI, ) and was accused of exerting pressure on the editorial board of one of its journals Nutrients to accept and publish articles of lower quality (de Vrieze, ; MDPI, ). In another test, journals from traditional publishing houses such as Elsevier, Springer, and Wiley did not meet some of the criteria.…”

Section: Proposed Solutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Not all the journals included in credible indices meet the ethical rules of COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME, and there may also be trustworthy journals excluded from these indices, which means they cannot be used as whitelists for trustworthy journals. Equally, the many methods suggested to determine trustworthiness are not reliable because they include questionable criteria. The question arises whether valid criteria for identifying an untrustworthy journal can be determined and whether other assessment procedures are necessary. Since 2017, the Masaryk University Campus Library has been developing a suitable evaluation method for journals. A list of 19 criteria based on those originally suggested by Beall, COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME were reduced to 10 objectively verifiable criteria following two workshops with librarians. An evaluation of 259 biomedical journals using both the list of 19 and then 10 criteria revealed that 74 journals may have been incorrectly assessed as untrustworthy using the longer list. The most common reason for failure to comply was in the provision of sufficient editorial information and declaration of article processing charges. However, our investigation revealed that no criteria can reliably identify predatory journals. Therefore, a complex evaluation is needed combining objectively verifiable criteria with analysis of a journal's content and knowledge of the journal's background.

show abstract

Open-access journal editors resign after alleged pressure to publish mediocre papers

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Article Processing Charge Hyperinflation and Price Insensitivity: An Open Access Sequel to the Serials Crisis

Article Processing Charge Hyperinflation and Price Insensitivity: An Open Access Sequel to the Serials Crisis

Open Access Publishing Trends in the Forest Sciences

Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About