Open access solutions for biodiversity journals: Do not replace one problem with another

Peterson, A. Townsend; Anderson, Robert P.; Beger, Maria; Bolliger, Janine; Brotons, Lluı́s; Burridge, Christopher P.; Cobos, Marlon E.; Cuervo-Robayo, Ángela P.; Minin, Enrico Di; Diez, Jeffrey M.; Elith, Jane; Embling, Clare B.; Escobar, Luis E.; Essl, Franz; Feeley, Kenneth J.; Hawkes, Lucy; Jiménez, Laura; Green, David M.; Knop, Eva; Kühn, Ingolf; Lahoz‐Monfort, José J.; Lira‐Noriega, Andrés; Lobo, Jorge M.; Loyola, Rafael; Nally, Ralph Mac; Machado‐Stredel, Fernando; Martínez‐Meyer, Enrique; McCarthy, Michael A.; Merow, Cory; Nori, Javier; Nuñez‐Penichet, Claudia; Osorio‐Olvera, Luis; Pyšek, Petr; Rejmánek, Marcel; Ricciardi, Anthony; Robertson, Mark P.; Rojas-Soto, Octavio R.; Romero-Álvarez, Daniel; Roura‐Pascual, Núria; Santini, Luca; Schoeman, David S.; Schröder, Boris; Soberón, Jorge; Strubbe, Diederik; Thuiller, Wilfried; Traveset, Anna; Treml, Eric A.; Václavík, Tomáš; Varela, Sara; Watson, James; Wiersma, Yolanda F.; Wintle, Brendan A.; Yáñez‐Arenas, Carlos; Zurell, Damaris

doi:10.1111/ddi.12885

Cited by 26 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a shift would have costs, though. Some are financial: the costs of publication is sometimes shifted from the readers to the authors, which can leave the problem of authors or their sponsoring organisations not having sufficient funds to pay the article processing charges levied by publishers for publishing in an open access journal (Siler et al, 2018;Peterson et al, 2019). One top-end estimate for how much a shift to open access would cost (for conservation science papers 2000-2013) is $51m (Fuller, Lee & Watson, 2014), funds that arguably could be better spent on conservation practice itself.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Access to scientific literature by the conservation community

Larios

Brooks

Macfarlane

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Access to the scientific literature is perceived to be a challenge to the biodiversity conservation community, but actual level of literature access relative to needs has never been assessed globally. We examined this question by surveying the constituency of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a proxy for the conservation community, generating 2,285 responses. Of these respondents, ∼97% need to use the scientific literature in order to support their IUCN-related conservation work, with ∼50% needing to do so at least once per week. The crux of the survey revolved around the question, “How easy is it for you currently to obtain the scientific literature you need to carry out your IUCN-related work?” and revealed that roughly half (49%) of the respondents find it not easy or not at all easy to access scientific literature. We fitted a binary logistic regression model to explore factors predicting ease of literature access. Whether the respondent had institutional literature access (55% do) is the strongest predictor, with region (Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and sex (male) also significant predictors. Approximately 60% of respondents from Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have institutional access compared to ∼50% in Asia and Latin America, and ∼40% in Eastern Europe and in Africa. Nevertheless, accessing free online material is a popular means of accessing literature for both those with and without institutional access. The four journals most frequently mentioned when asked which journal access would deliver the greatest improvements to the respondent’s IUCN-related work were Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, Nature, and Science. The majority prefer to read journal articles on screen but books in hard copy. Overall, it is apparent that access to the literature is a challenge facing roughly half of the conservation community worldwide.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Access to scientific literature by the conservation community

Larios

Brooks

Macfarlane

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such a shift would have costs, though. Some are financial: the costs of publication is sometimes shifted from the readers to the authors, which can leave the problem of authors or their sponsoring organizations not having sufficient funds to pay the article processing charges levied by publishers for publishing in an open access journal (Siler et al, 2018; Peterson et al, 2019). One top-end estimate for how much a shift to open access would cost (for conservation science papers 2000–2013) is $51m (Fuller et al, 2014), funds that arguably could be better spent on conservation practice itself.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Access to Scientific Literature by the Conservation Community

Larios¹,

Brooks²,

Macfarlane³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

13Access to the scientific literature is perceived to be a challenge to the biodiversity conservation 14 community, but actual level of literature access relative to needs has never been assessed 15 globally. We examined this question by surveying the constituency of the International Union for 16 Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a proxy for the conservation community, generating 2,285 17 responses. Of these respondents, ~97% need to use the scientific literature in order to support 18 their IUCN-related conservation work, with ~50% needing to do so at least once per week. The 19 crux of the survey revolved around the question, "How easy is it for you currently to obtain the 20 scientific literature you need to carry out your IUCN-related work?" and revealed that roughly 21 half (49%) of the respondents find it not easy or not at all easy to access scientific literature. We 22 fitted a binary logistic regression model to explore factors predicting ease of literature access.23

show abstract

“…Furthermore, APCs—which are used to fund most major OA journals—are problematic as a funding mechanism as they exacerbate access barriers for many prospective authors with limited funding (Bolick et al., ; Burgman, ; Peterson et al., ). However, barriers already exist at many journals in the form of page fees, and the same techniques publishers use to minimize barriers created by page fees (e.g., waivers and reduced fees for members, graduate students, and researchers outside North America and western Europe) can be applied to APCs.…”

Section: Potential Drawbacks Of Oamentioning

confidence: 99%

Open access principles and practices benefit conservation

Alston

2019

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open access is often contentious in the scientific community, but its implications for conservation are under‐discussed or omitted entirely from scientific discourse. Access to literature is a key factor impeding implementation of conservation research, and many open access models and concepts that are little‐known by most conservation researchers may facilitate implementation. Conservation professionals working outside academic institutions should have more access to research so that conservation is better supported by current science. In this perspective, I present elements missing from current discussions of open access and suggest potential pathways for journal publishers and researchers to make conservation publications more open. There are many promising avenues for open access to play a larger role in conservation research, including archiving pre‐prints and post‐prints, more permissive “green” open access policies, and increasing access to older articles. Collectively supporting open access practices will benefit our profession and the species we are working to protect.

show abstract

Open access solutions for biodiversity journals: Do not replace one problem with another

Cited by 26 publications

References 7 publications

Access to scientific literature by the conservation community

Access to scientific literature by the conservation community

Access to Scientific Literature by the Conservation Community

Open access principles and practices benefit conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About