Summary of McKiernan's slides with links

Becoming "open": is publishing in open access journals possible?[1]


What's wrong?

• Many academics/institutions don't have access to literature they need
• The cost of closed journals is often prohibitively high
• This lack of access is a global problem, especially in developing countries
• Closed journals may not be in the interest of the best research
• Researchers may lose rights to and control over their own work

Yet, the alternative of Open Access publishing holds many concerns, especially for early-career researchers, including:

• I will be hiding my work away in less visible (low prestige) journals.
• I must relegate my work to low impact (low IF) journals.
• Peer review will be of low quality.
• I will not get a job/grant/tenure.
• It will cost too much.

Myth 1: Open Access provides less visibility

• By being open, you may in fact get more exposure (Wagner 2010, Piwowar and Vision 2013)

Myth 2: It would require publishing in low Impact Factor journals

• The scientific community has begun to find IFs have extended well past their original intention, and can often hide more than they reveal about the quality of the research.
• But decide for yourself, and seek out journals with impacts you desire.

Myth 3: Peer review at OA journals is poor quality

• Retraction rate is highest in high IF subscription journals
• No controlled study comparing peer review in subscription vs. OA journals
• Bohannon `sting' did not look at peer review in subscription journals
• Bohannon `sting' found reputable OA publishers rejected spoof paper
• Peer review can be very transparent in OA journals. E.g. you may be able to read the entire peer review history (all reviews and changes)
• OA journals offering open peer review include BioMed Central, PeerJ, F1000 Research, and GigaScience. [And many others, such as the Journal of World-Systems Research]

Myth 4: I won't get a job, grants, or tenure

• Over 500 organizations and 12,000 individuals have signed the American Society for Cell Biology's [[am.ascb.org/dora|Declaration on Research Assessment]], pledging:

1. Not to consider journal-based metrics (JIF) in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions
2. The content of a paper will be weighed more heavily in evaluations than the journal in which it was published
3. To consider the value and impact of all research outputs

• Faculty in U.S universities are taking the issue up as well, for instance at the Virginia Commonwealth University and the [[openaccess.unt.edu/denton-declaration|University of North Texas]].
• Many funders now have open access or public access mandates, including: National Institutes of Health, The World Bank, Research Councils UK, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and Wellcome Trust.
• Alternatively, you can search for funder policies or make comparisons yourself.

Myth 5: OA publishing costs too much

• Many OA journals do not charge.
• Journals like PeerJ have one-time, low-cost membership fees.
• Many journals have waivers.
• Many institutions have OA publisher memberships.
• Many institutions have OA publishing funds.
• Some funders have started charities to cover OA fees.
• Self-archiving costs nothing and is a great way to be open. You have many options, such as through figshare, arxiv, bioRxiv , institutional repositories, and personal websites.
• There are increasingly more institutional repositories for open data across the globe, including [[lareferencia.redclara.net/rfr|LA Referencia]], REMERI, and Redalyc. These repositories also allow you to generate bibliometric and usage data for evaluation at no cost.

What it really means to publish openly

• Researchers in developing countries can see your work
• More exposure for your work
• Practitioners can apply your findings
• Higher citation rates
• Can influence policy
• The broader public can access your work
• Compliant with grant rules
• Taxpayers get value for money

Advice to Early Career Researchers (ECRs)

• Make a list of OA journals in your field - know your options.
• Discuss open access, preprints, self-archiving upfront with collaborators
• Blog about your science - write so those outside your field can understand
• Be active on social media to increase visibility
• Document your altmetrics
• Seek out support for student and early career researchers
• Learn about the creative commons

Discussing OA with your mentor

• Ask your mentor for a meeting to discuss publishing options
• Put together concise (15 mins max) presentation on benefits of OA
• Include data (lack of access worldwide, advancements made through open science, citation advantage)
• Explain how your work and the lab could benefit from being open
• Create a list of OA options and share this list with your mentor
• If your mentor insists on a toll access journal, discuss submitting an author addendum
• Start these discussions EARLY!!
• From interview with [[arcscon.tumblr.com/post/84942060277/advocating-for-openness|ARCSCon ]]

How to support ECRs in being open

• LISTEN! LISTEN! LISTEN!
• Lead by example - be open and others will see benefits
• Be receptive - answer emails, tweets, questions from ECRs about OA
• Say yes to giving tutorials, guest lectures, talks at meetings
• Do not consider where people publish in making hiring, grant, or tenure decisions
• Write open access publishing funds into your grants
• Create incentives for being open

How do we encourage sharing?

• Educate researchers
• Have clear policies on citation of primary data
• Recognize data sharing in tenure and promotion
• Provide financial support for data preparation
• Develop infrastructure for data deposit and storage (see Roche et al. 2014)

Take-home messages

• There does not have to be a conflict between being open and being successful.
• Being open does not have to hurt your career - it can help it!
• At any stage of your career, you have the right to stand up for your beliefs.
• If you believe in openness, stand up for it. Make it happen.
• Opening up academia starts with you and the choices you make.
• Know your rights - don't sign them away
• In sum...don't lock up your research!

Pledge to be open!

• I will not edit, review, or work for closed access journals.
• I will blog my work and post preprints, when possible.
• I will publish only in open access journals.
• I will not publish in Cell, Nature, or Science.
• I will pull my name off a paper if coauthors refuse to be open.
• If I am going to 'make it' in science, it has to be on terms I can live with.

---

[1] Adapted from McKiernan, Erin C. (2014). Culture change in academia: Making sharing the new norm. In: University of Pittsburgh Open Access Week 2014, 22 Oct 2014, Pittsburgh, USA. (Unpublished)