Here is one for our "research career" series - more on the changing nature of scientific communications. Also, link to the scholarly kitchen website, a great way to follow this sort of thing.
jd
Can Open Access Journals Guarantee Sound Methods? « The Scholarly Kitchen
The post from the Scholarly Kitchen regarding open access journal was one that I could identify with for two reasons:
ReplyDeleteFirstly, growing up in a developing nation, subscriptions to the ‘elite’ journals would not always fit the budgets of several educational institutions. An online search for new knowledge would often abruptly end with a line that meant that I needed to be a member to read further on. This for a student would be a frustrating experience since it would signal an end to a knowledge quest. Contrastingly, the thrill of being able to read the complete text of an article, courtesy a ‘charitable’ open access journal is hard to describe.
The second reason the post particularly interested me was because of the dilemmas I often face as part of our academics. If a paper did not report any significant findings, what does the author do? As we have previously discussed in some of our case studies, should this compel authors to modify their results, or do media exist that would provide them with a platform to publicize their scientific literature?
Among the multitude of interesting arguments that opponents of open-access journals put forward, the most significant is of the OA journals lacking a scientific ‘gate-keeper’ or peer review function that would ensure the science and integrity of the work that is published. In contemporary times, this is clearly challenged by an increasing number of OA journals emphasizing on not only a stringent peer-review process, but expert editorial supervision, high production standards and other features that till some time back were the hallmarks of the pay-for-access journals. Examples in this case would be PLoS, BMC and several other that have recognized that dissemination of scientific knowledge is essential for the development of a society.
I agree that editors of the pay-for-access journals would have pressure of ensuring that the papers they publish need to draw a significant audience. This concern would leave little or no space for authors whose papers do not produce results that would guarantee the journals a substantial audience. At this juncture, the OA journals, unperturbed by the dynamics of market share, become an ideal platform.
I also agree that maintaining a journal of ‘reputation’ has its costs. Quality does come at a price, and it is this cost that pay-for-access journals are looking for readers to bear. However, from my reading into the situation, the brickbats that OA journals have faced in recent times may not entirely have to do with the science of research, but with the insecurity that pay-for-access journals face in terms of losing their subscription base. After all, with the advent of the internet and technology, the ‘monopoly’ over knowledge is fast wearing off!