WASP: Is open access publishing the way forward? A review of the different ways in which research papers can be published

doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.02.017

Early Human Development

Volume 121, June 2018, Pages 54-57

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.02.017 Get rights and content

Abstract

Academics have a duty towards peers and scholars alike to engage in research work and to publish their findings. This also assists in establishing personal academic success as well as the attainment of research grants. In the past, authors used to publish their research articles for free but access to these articles was restricted to subscription users only. Recently, open access publishing has gained momentum, whereby such articles are made freely accessible online. However open access publishing comes with a price tag for the author through article processing charges. Open access may also question a journal's credibility within the academic world if improperly implemented. This is particularly so following the unsolicited bombardment of researchers' email accounts with invitations for submissions to predatory open access journals. For these reasons, authors needs to rigorously weigh the pros and cons of whether to choose a subscription based or an open access journal for publication.

Introduction

Academics have a duty towards peers and scholars alike to engage in research work and publish their findings. This also helps in establishing personal academic success as well as helps to obtain research grants. Different research metrics have been established to try to quantify the academic-researcher research output. An author's research output is typically calculated through citation counts and indices extrapolated from such citation are used, for example the h-index [1]. Therefore it is imperative for authors to publish their research regularly and in well-established, prominent and prestigious journals.

Up to a few decades ago, the publishing of research articles was a laborious task with limited global publishing prominence. Printed journals were only distributed directly to individual subscribers or to subscribing libraries. With the introduction of the World Wide Web, journals shifted from printed format to a paperless and online submission and access format, with printed articles becoming virtually redundant. Up till the 1990’s, the publishing of research articles was free for the author but access to research articles was through a subscription fee or a pay-per-download fee. Hence, all research articles could only be accessed by those (institution or individuals) paying the subscription fee. This modality limits research prominence since it is not sustainable for an institution or an individual to pay subscription fees for all the journals available in a particular field.

In the 2000's, the pioneers BioMed Central and PLoS introduced a new publishing concept of Open Access (OA) with the potential for article processing charges (APCs). Journals opting for this publishing modality offered all published articles for free to anyone accessing the journal online while the research author paid the publishing fees. This has taken the publishing ecosystem by storm and academic-researchers strive for open access provided that funding for this is available.

The aim of this review is to compare and contrast the two publishing modalities and establish a good understanding of which publishing modality best suits the academic-researcher prior to embarking on the publishing journey.

Section snippets

Traditionally published journals

The traditional publishing modality offers free submission, peer-review and publication. However, full access to the article is through a subscription fee. The copyright of the research article is typically handed over to the publisher through a Copyright Transfer Agreement, which is usually signed as part of the submission process. This copyright transfer hinders the author's ability to re-use the published research [2].

The traditional publishing modality tends to have a long “paper wait” from

Open access (OA)

The main rationale of open access publishing is to facilitate widespread access of the research findings with a rapid publishing process [2]. There are two different OA modalities as described below.

Open access vs. traditionally published journals

Publishing research articles requires not only a high research output manuscript but also identifying a trustworthy journal that meets the author's expectations. The choice of publishing either within a traditional subscription based journal or an open access journal depends on the author's requirements and finance. Table 1 compares the pros and cons of traditional publishing journals against publishing in open access journals.

Conclusion

Authors aspire for high accessibility and visibility of their research work in order to gain academic-research acknowledgement and proceed in their career. Submitting their research article in a high impact journal and gaining high citation counts is the prime goal of each author. There are two main publication modalities that authors can chose from, either subscription based or open access journals. An author needs to find the best publication format for that particular article at that

Acknowledgment

The inspiration for this paper is the international Write a Scientific Paper course (WASP – http://www.ithams.com/wasp). Indeed, all of the topics in the papers in this WASP series are discussed in the WASP course [29,30].

Conflict of interest statement

There are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.

References (30)

J.E. Hirsch
An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output
PNAS
(2005)
J.P. Tennant et al.
The academic, economic and societal impacts of open access: an evidence-based review
F1000Research
(2016)
P. Suber
Open Access
(2012)
A. Agarwal et al.
Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics
Asian J. Androl.
(2016)
J.W. Houghton et al.
The economic implications of alternative publishing models
Prometheus
(2010)
S. Dallmeier-Tiessen et al.
Open Access Publishing - Models and Attributes
When and how to comply | publicaccess
D.J. Solomon et al.
Publication fees in open access publishing: sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal
J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol.
(2012)
N. Gilbert
Editor will quit over hoax paper
Nature
(June 2009)
B.-C. Björk et al.
Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact
BMC Med.
(2012)

B. Brembs et al.

Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

(2013)

Journal selector

J. Bohannon

Who's afraid of peer review?

Science

(2013)

R. Van Noorden

Funders punish open-access dodgers

Nature

(2014)

About the licenses - creative commons

Cited by (20)

Future trends and patterns in leachate biological treatment research from a bibliometric perspective
2022, Journal of Environmental Management
Leachate has become a great deal of concern due to its complex properties which are primarily caused by the high concentrations of organics and ammonia. Thus, proper leachate treatment is required prior to its discharge. Leachate can be treated in various ways, and biological treatment is one of the approaches. This treatment has been shown to be both effective and cost-efficient while offering the possibility of resource recovery in the form of bioenergy. In this study, the underlying patterns in publications related to leachate biological treatment were uncovered through bibliometric analysis. This study also lays the groundwork for a deeper understanding of the past, current, and future trends of the leachate biological treatment. Research publications from 1974 to 2021 were retrieved from the Scopus database, and it was identified that 2013 articles were published in the span of 47 years. From the analyzed publications, China played a leading role in publishing leachate biological treatment research articles as well as having the most productive institutions and authors. Meanwhile, the USA was found to be the most active country in initiating international collaborations with 33 countries. The research hotspots were also successfully identified using keyword co-occurrences analysis. Anaerobic digestion and constructed wetland were revealed to be the research hotspots. The critical role of biological treatment in removing nitrogen from leachate was also highlighted. Besides, numerous research gaps were identified in the application of aerobic granular sludge (AGS) for leachate treatment. This can be a potential area for research in the future. Finally, future research should be encouraged to focus on the use of sustainable treatment systems in which energy recovery in the form of biogases is promoted.
Predatory Journals- The Power of the Predator Versus the Integrity of the Honest
2022, Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology
Citation Excerpt :
Nevertheless, studies have shown that the reliability and quality of the peer review of OA journals are improving, with some exhibiting more rigorous peer review than their traditional counterparts.9 Malkawi L et al,10 conducted a study where they compared the impact measurements between OA and subscription published journals in radiology, in addition to comparing the citation metrics between the two. As per the 2017 Scopus report, there were 265 radiology journals that were published by the following publishers- Elsevier (n = 65, 25%), Springer Nature (n = 45, 17%), Wiley-Blackwell (n = 21, 8%), Wolters Kluwer (n = 16, 6%) and SAGE (n = 10, 4%).
Over the last few decades, the authenticity and confidence of scientific work from around the world has been systematically corrupted by predatory journals and their affiliated publication houses. These journals predominantly prey on both aspiring and established academics and researchers from around the world, but primarily on individuals from developing countries, by aggressively soliciting manuscripts for a nominal publication fee without providing a robust editorial service or peer review system and ultimately promising fast track publication in a few days to weeks. Such journals may also diminish the opportunity for authors in developing countries from getting their original work published in legitimate journals. A majority of the work published in these pseudo journals aside from being incorrect and mundane, provide no advancement to science. But more importantly, the negative impact of these journals can have direct implications on patient health care and research.
International nursing research collaboration: Visualizing the output and impact of a Fulbright Award
2021, International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences
Fulbright Awards were initiated in 1946 and are designed to increase understanding between people of the United States and other countries through research, teaching, and/or practice. While hundreds of individuals have received such award, little is known about the impact of such engagement. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent and impact of a Fulbright Award by examining the primary publications emanating from research collaborations at one university. The paper presents global use of these primary works (n = 11) from 2012 to 2019 based on a bibliometric analysis of retrieved citations, as well as altmetric analyses. The primary referenced works included quantitative (n = 3), qualitative (n = 2), a review, and 5 discourse papers. Nine databases were searched to determine use of reference works. Analyses revealed that these primary sources were cited 42 times with lead authors most often from the South Africa or the United States. The main disciplines represented by first authors in these citing articles were nursing (n = 28, 66.6%), followed by midwifery (n = 11, 26.1%) and psychology/psychiatry (n = 8, 19%). Central keywords focused on healthcare systems, concept analysis, relationships, nursing/midwifery, and relationship centered. Citing articles were primarily quantitative (n = 15), qualitative (n = 11), reviews (n = 6), mixed methods (n = 1), and discourse papers which included concept analyses and policy papers n = 10). All papers demonstrated team science. Additional secondary analysis was conducted to identify the non-scientific use and potential impact of primary sources; three works demonstrated significant downstream utilization which correlated with those referenced citations with high citation counts. Determination of the extent to which scholarly works emanating from collaborative work by researchers impacted scientific and non-scientific sources provides powerful evidence of the value of a Fulbright Award. Additional qualitative research is needed to determine the less than obvious impact of presentations and non-scientific uses on Fulbright collaborations.
The future of medical publication as we move towards the second half of the 21<sup>st</sup> century
2020, Injury
Open access publishing and soil science – Trends and developments
2019, Geoderma Regional
Citation Excerpt :
Some charge an article processing charge (APC) upon submission of a paper, but most charge once the paper has been accepted, and the range is about $1000 to over $4000 per published paper. Estimations of the actual costs of publication are much lower and they have been estimated at under $900 per paper (Wang et al., 2019) although by some estimates it is as low as $10 per paper (Cuschieri, 2018). Obviously, such margins have made it highly attractive to start a publishing business, and to accept as many papers as possible.
About 42,000 soil papers are annually published, and the number of papers almost doubled in the past 10 years. Most growth has come from China, and about one-third of all soil papers are presently from China compared to 4% in 1999. The increase in papers has been accompanied by higher impact factors of the core soil science journals. There has been a proliferation of new publishers and journals, and some 1500 new internet publishers have been established. Scientific publishing is big and profiteable business. Open access publishing started in the early 2000s. In the top four soil science journals only 1% of the papers were published open access in 2008, but currently 5 to 20% of the papers are open access papers. Across all scientific disciplines the share of open access papers is about 28%. Some preliminary analysis suggests that open access papers in soil science tend to be more cited. The current cost of an open access paper in one of the 25 top soil science journals ranges from $750 to $4000. Funding agencies, some universities and scientific organizations are pushing towards a total open access approach of scientific publishing. Soil scientists should become involved in these discussions as it affects the way we disseminate our findings.
Looking Forward: Amplifying the Journal of Adolescent Health's Impact on Adolescent and Young Adult Health
2019, Journal of Adolescent Health

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

WASP: Is open access publishing the way forward? A review of the different ways in which research papers can be published

Abstract

Introduction

Section snippets

Traditionally published journals

Open access (OA)

Open access vs. traditionally published journals

Conclusion

Acknowledgment

Conflict of interest statement

An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output

PNAS

The academic, economic and societal impacts of open access: an evidence-based review

F1000Research

Open Access

Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics

Asian J. Androl.

The economic implications of alternative publishing models

Prometheus

Open Access Publishing - Models and Attributes

When and how to comply | publicaccess

Publication fees in open access publishing: sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol.

Editor will quit over hoax paper

Nature

Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact

BMC Med.

Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Journal selector

Who's afraid of peer review?

Science

Funders punish open-access dodgers

Nature

About the licenses - creative commons