Open-access Reviews: Pros and Cons

“Publish or perish” is the well-known injunction of researchers. While traditional publishing, like daily newspapers and periodicals, is based on payment by the reader, recently a new economic model has emerged based on the idea that it is the authors who finance and that readers access for free. Before we look at the pros and cons of open-access publishing, let’s quickly review the traditional model.

In the traditional model, typically, authors target a journal, generally backed by a learned society, send their article to the head of the scientific committee, who often appoints three reviewers who generally have one month to give their recommendations. Depending on their opinions, the article is sometimes rejected, rarely published as is, and most often accepted subject to small or substantial changes; in the latter case, several rounds can exist. Finally, publishers take care of the layout, printing and distribution to subscribers, often university libraries. The whole process can take 18 months, which is slow considering the international competition. For some listed journals, it is also necessary to wait up to two years between final acceptance and publication: untenable! And as a result, these journals are more like cemeteries of scientific knowledge bundles that are duly verified, but outdated. It should be noted that the publication of such journals is profitable; Indeed, are there many areas where raw material and quality control are free?

It is the potential of the Internet that has led to the creation of open-access journals[1], the main characteristics of which are as follows[2]: the cost of publication can reach 1000 dollars per article, often at the expense of laboratories, and greater ease of access, thus creating the conditions for a larger audience. It is no longer a scientific manager who is responsible for designating the reviewers, but an algorithm that matches the keywords given by the authors of the article and those of the members of the pool of possible reviewers. Often the evaluators have about ten days to give their recommendations. These last two aspects imply that quality control is not of high quality, especially since the authors have paid to be published: in case of refusal, they have lost their money and feel cheated even if the recommendations are successful.

For readers, according to their own documentary needs and following a quick search on the Internet, articles published in open-access journals are quickly mentioned and their access is immediate, while for others you have to pay to read. Although the quality is average, these items found will be cited, hence a snowball effect. From then on, the impact factor will be able to grow.

For authors, the speed of publication is an interesting asset; In addition, they are often offered the opportunity to become evaluators, even if they are junior researchers. The whole process can take 2 months.

There are two types of publishers. Some traditional publishers (Springer, Elsevier, Wiley, etc.) have taken this opportunity, but new players have appeared, such as MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute) and Frontiers. In order to be able to live and be profitable, they have to manage many titles, hence a headlong rush in the creation of new magazines: thus, each month sees the creation of new titles in specialized niches.

To conclude, we are witnessing an acceleration in the dissemination of scientific results with two implications. The first is beneficial for the economy, but the problem remains that of the quality of published research.

[1] For a list, see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_revues_en_acc%C3%A8s_libre or https://doaj.org/ or https://journalrw.org/scientific-journals-open-access-no-apc/ or https://phdtalks.org/2022/08/fast-publishing-open-access-journals-doaj.html

[2] https://www.openaccess.nl/en/what-is-open-access/pros-and-cons