Summary of McKiernan's slides with links
Becoming “open”: is publishing in open access journals possible?
- 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
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 [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
- [`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, [], F1000 Research, and []. [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 Declaration on Research Assessment, pledging:
- Not to consider journal-based metrics (JIF) in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions
- The content of a paper will be weighed more heavily in evaluations than the journal in which it was published
- 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 [Commonwealth University] and the University of North Texas.
- Many funders now have open access or public access mandates, including: National Institutes of Health, The World Bank, [Councils UK], [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 [] 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 [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 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 []
- Seek out [for student and early career researchers]
- Learn about the [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
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 [et al. 2014])
- 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.
- [your rights - don't sign them away]
- In sum...don't lock up your research!
- 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.