In defence of author-pays business models
Image by cameronneylon via Flickr
There has been an awful lot recently written and said about author-pays business models for scholarly publishing and a lot of it has focussed on PLoS ONE. Most recently Kent Anderson has written a piece on Scholarly Kitchen that contains a number of fairly serious misconceptions about the processes of PLoS ONE. This is a shame because I feel this has muddled the much more interesting question that was intended to be the focus of his piece. Nonetheless here I want to give a robust defence of author pays models and of PLoS ONE in particular. Hopefully I can deal with the more interesting question, how radical should or could PLoS be, in a later post.
A common charge leveled at author-payment funded journals is that they are pushed in the direction of being non-selective. The figure that PLoS ONE publishes around 70% of the papers it receives is often given as a demonstration of this. There are a range of reasons why this is nonsense. The first and simplest is that the evidence we have suggests that of papers rejected from journals between 50% and 95% of them are ultimately published elsewhere [1, 2 (pdf), 3, 4]. The cost of this trickle down, a result of the use of subjective selection criteria of “importance”, is enormous in authors’ and referees’ time and represents a significant potential opportunity cost in terms of lost time. PLoS ONE seeks to remove this cost by simply asking “should this be published?” In the light of the figures above it seems that 70% is a reasonable proportion of papers that are probably “basically ok but might need some work”.
The second presumption is that the peer review process is somehow “light touch”. This is perhaps the result of some mis-messaging that went on early in the history of PLoS ONE but it is absolute nonsense. As both an academic editor and an author I would argue that the peer review process is as rigorous as I have experienced at any other journal (and I do mean any other journal).
As an author I have two papers published in PLoS ONE, both went through at least one round of revision, and one was initially rejected. As an editor I have seen two papers withdrawn after the initial round of peer review, presumably not because the authors felt that the required changes represented a “light touch”. I have rejected one and have never accepted a paper without revision. Every paper I have edited has had at least one external peer reviewer and I try to get at least two. Several papers have gone through more than one cycle of revision with one going through four. Figures provided by Pete Binfield (comment from Pete about 20 comments in) suggest that this kind of proportion is about average for PLoS ONE Academic Editors. The difference between PLoS ONE and other journals is that I look for what is publishable in a submission and work with the authors to bring that out rather than taking delight in rejecting some arbitrary proportion of submissions and imagining that this equates to a quality filter. I see my role as providing a service.
The more insidious claim made is that there is a link between this supposed light touch review and the author pays models; that there is pressure on those who make the publication decision to publish as much as possible. Let me put this as simply as possible. The decision whether to publish is mine as an Academic Editor and mine alone. I have never so much as discussed my decision on a paper with the professional staff at PLoS and I have never received any payment whatsoever from PLoS (with the possible exception of two lunches and one night’s accommodation for a PLoS meeting I attended – and I missed the drinks reception…). If I ever perceived pressure to accept or was offered inducements to accept papers I would resign immediately and publicly as an AE.
That an author pays model has the potential to create a conflict of interest is clear. That is why, within reputable publishers, structures are put in place to reduce that risk as far as is possible, divorcing the financial side from editorial decision making, creating Chinese walls between editorial and financial staff within the publisher. The suggestion that my editorial decisions are influenced by the fact the authors will pay is, to be frank, offensive, calling into serious question my professional integrity and that of the other AEs. It is also a slightly strange suggestion. I have no financial stake in PLoS. If it were to go under tomorrow it would make no difference to my take home pay and no difference to my finances. I would be disappointed, but not poorer.
Another point that is rarely raised is that the author pays model is much more widely used than people generally admit. Page charges and colour charges for many disciplines are of the same order as Open Access publication charges. The Journal of Biological Chemistry has been charging page rates for years while increasing publication volume. Author fees of one sort or another are very common right across the biological and medical sciences literature. And it is not new. Bill Hooker’s analysis (here and here) of these hidden charges bears reading.
But the core of the argument for author payments is that the market for scholarly publishing is badly broken. Until the pain of the costs of publication is directly felt by those making the choice of where to (try to) publish we will never change the system. The market is also the right place to have this out. It is value for money that we should be optimising. Let me illustrate with an example. I have heard figures of around £25,000 given as the level of author charge that would be required to sustain Cell, Nature, or Science as Open Access APC supported journals. This is usually followed by a statement to the effect “so they can’t possibly go OA because authors would never pay that much”.
Let’s unpack that statement.
If authors were forced to make a choice between the cost of publishing in these top journals versus putting that money back into their research they would choose the latter. If the customer actually had to make the choice to pay the true costs of publishing in these journals, they wouldn’t…if journals believed that authors would see the real cost as good value for money, many of them would have made that switch years ago. Subscription charges as a business model have allowed an appallingly wasteful situation to continue unchecked because authors can pretend that there is no difference in cost to where they publish, they accept that premium offerings are value for money because they don’t have to pay for them. Make them make the choice between publishing in a “top” journal vs a “quality” journal and getting another few months of postdoc time and the equation changes radically. Maybe £25k is good value for money. But it would be interesting to find out how many people think that.
We need a market where the true costs are a factor in the choices of where, or indeed whether, to formally publish scholarly work. Today, we do not have that market and there is little to no pressure to bring down publisher costs. That is why we need to move towards an author pays system.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=749e5b9a-36a0-4403-828a-fb58411f75b4)
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
liking ‘cos can’t love!
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
This is very good.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
quote "We need a market where the true costs are a factor in the choices of where, or indeed whether, to formally publish scholarly work. Today, we do not have that market and there is little to no pressure to bring down publisher costs."
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
"We need a market where the true costs are a factor in the choices of where, or indeed whether, to formally publish scholarly work. Today, we do not have that market and there is little to no pressure to bring down publisher costs."
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
quote: "The suggestion that my editorial decisions are influenced by the fact the authors will pay is, to be frank, offensive," – I couldnt agree more strongly, and the comments by Bjoern, Ramy (who, incidentally, received far from constructive responses to his thoughtful post) and Fanelli underline this fact. The Academic Editors (not the publisher) are in *sole* control of every decision that is made, and they have no insight whatsoever, or knowledge of, the payment behavior of the authors. To suggest any kind of pressure or commercial influence in this process is indeed an insult to every one of our 982 Academic Editors.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
What I liked most is: "I see my role as providing a service." This is how I exactly perceive my role as an editor, reviewer, or even teacher. I don’t teach to "fail the students" but to help them to pass "my exams." You can expand the analogy to editing: we’re not just "gate keepers of the holy land of science, but rather people who help scientists make their papers better, using the help of other experts"
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
What I liked most is: " I see my role as providing a service"
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
@Ramy – as do I. As a career professional publisher in PLoS (and one who has previously worked at the Institute of Physics Publishing, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Springer and most recently Sage Publications, running over 350 journals in total) I see my role as providing a valuable and professional service to academia, *for* academia, and based on the needs and desires of academics.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
I also like/agree with: "In the light of the figures above it seems that 70% is a reasonable proportion of papers that are probably ‘basically ok but might need some work’”. In fact, 70% is the statistically more reasonable proportion. Journals that accept 10% are those who only take "A+" papers and reject the rest. If quality follows a normal distribution curve (and there is no reason it shouldn’t), then the sensible way is to allow the average +/- standard deviation number of papers to be published (after revision of course). Actually the 69% acceptance rate of PLoS ONE is awesome– See: http://bit.ly/dzRnKh and http://bit.ly/99Vmxp
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
I also like/agree with: "In the light of the figures above it seems that 70% is a reasonable proportion of papers that are probably ‘basically ok but might need some work’”. In fact, 70% is the statistically more reasonable proportion. Journals that accept 10% are those who only take "A+" papers and reject the rest. If quality follows a normal distribution curve (and there is no reason it shouldn’t), then the sensible way is to allow the average +/- standard deviation number of papers to be published (after revision of course). Actually the 69% acceptance rate of PLoS ONE is awesome and maybe needs to increase up to 84%– See: http://bit.ly/dzRnKh and http://bit.ly/99Vmxp
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Liked “In defence of author-pays business models” http://ff.im/-jyjot
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Excellent.
There is not a word in this post that I don't agree with, notably those about the role of AEs in PLoS ONE, and the unjustified attack on their integrity and expertise.
Thanks Cameron
In defence of author-pays business models http://bit.ly/9R6m4t
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Regarding editorial decisions and whether the author pays or not, it should also be noted that in fact the AE doesn't even know if an individual author pays – as the author may have requested a fee waiver.
This whole discussion about ‘quality’ has brought up a new slogan for me: scientific discoveries are like orgasms: there are no bad ones!
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
[...] (hope for?) a future of machine learning, trending topics. We can talk all we want about the merits of PLoS One, but to some degree, PLoS One’s biggest impact was that it was a journal designed [...]
@Ramy – I toned that line down a bit in fact it started off as "I see my role as providing a service, not handing out abuse" but I thought that might be a bit strong. Also realized that I made many of the same points you did in your comment – I saw your comment after I’d drafted the post but before I posted it.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
@Pete, it’s actually bordering on libel, certainly I found it offensive. I really struggled not to make some comment along the lines of conflicts of interest for professional editors but I guess it remained implicit in me saying _I_ had no financial interest. Trying to avoid kneejerk reactions.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
There might be the kernel of a libel lawsuit in there, especially in the UK. Be interesting to see what happened if PLoS started sabre-rattling. Impugning peer-review practices is SRS BZNS to an academic publisher.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
There might be the kernel of a libel lawsuit in there, especially in the UK. Be interesting to see what happened if PLoS started sabre-rattling.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Indeed I believe the professional editorial staff don't even know whether a
waiver is requested or granted. Again, you set up management arrangements so
that any potential conflict of interest is avoided.
Thanks Ramy. I also note that your comment on the post itself makes many of
the same points. I didn't see your comment until I'd written my post but
they're worth reading together I think.
In defence of author-pays business models http://icio.us/vnsylj
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Cameron – Completely correct. Only our finance staff see that info
+1 Dorothea I’d also like to thank Kent for renewing my interest to volunteer my time as an editor for PLoSONE.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
+1 Dorothea
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
[...] pay and no difference to my finances. I would be disappointed, but not poorer.cameronneylon.net, Science in the Open » Blog Archive » In defence of author-pays business models, Apr [...]
To be honest, I agree with the initial piece on PLoS at Scholarly Kitchen. I think Cameron is way off in his rebuttal. But, hey, who am I? No one.
This comment was originally posted on Synthesis
There’s room for people to take either side of this debate overall, but the fact that some things are broken is not debated by anyone. The reason I posted the excerpt I did was to call out the rudeness of the suggestion that anyone who has published in PLoSONE has a meaningless vanity publication and that the editors were upping the acceptance rate to rake in money.
This comment was originally posted on Synthesis
I would be really surprised that the editors themselves would be doing that. but we have to agree that PLoS ONE is a cash cow, and the publication prices at PLoS are higher than what they should be.
This comment was originally posted on Synthesis
But as he showed, the prices aren’t all that much higher than the toll access journals when you figure in page charges and color charges and so on.
This comment was originally posted on Synthesis
I’m annoyed that after 3 days of debate, and after 4 PLoS ONE academic editors from different fields insisted that the peer review is rigorous and
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
What annoys me most in the Scholarly Kitchen post is that after 3 days of debate, and after 4 PLoS ONE academic editors from different fields insisted that the peer review is rigorous and sometimes requires 3-4 rounds of revisions, Kent still says "charging authors for screening that creates no greater signal:noise ratio than picking papers out of a hat." This is becoming more like a political debate than a constructive scientific discussion, with a republican-like approach of repeating a false message over and over just to make it like a fact!
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
In defence of author-pays business models: “”There has been an awful lot recently written and said about author-pa… http://bit.ly/bAgdqM
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
+1 Ramy. I have a comment pending that addresses the same issue — "If you want to assert that [the PLoS ONE filter is] not working properly, that’s a different discussion that will require actual data systematically comparing the rate of publication of scientifically-invalid papers in PLoS ONE and a set of control journals. (I’d love to see that done!)"
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
In defence of author-pays business models – http://bit.ly/ccaEqC @cameronneylon clears up some misconceptions about #openaccess
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Especially when ‘pulling papers out of a hat’ describes editorial review so exactly. I’m done commenting there. Kent is an incompetent ideologue and no arguments will ever convince him. An unpersuadable, like creationists. PZ had a great quote for these people: "Where scientists are often handicapped is that they don’t recognized the depth of the denial on the other side, and that their opponents really are happily butting their heads against the rock hard foundation of the science. We tend to assume the creationists can’t really be that stupid, and figure they must have some legitimate complaint about some aspect of evolution with which we can sympathize. They don’t. They really are that nuts."
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Great post Cameron. I particularly like the "If authors were forced to make a choice between the cost of publishing in these top journals versus putting that money back into their research they would choose the latter. If the customer actually had to make the choice to pay the true costs of publishing in these journals, they wouldn’t…". I think that we (bench scientists) sometimes do not factor in the costs of maintaining library subscriptions (which my grant overheads probably contribute to). It would be interesting to look at a couple of universities, look at the cost of publishing with OA costs (based on lets say last X years) would have been vs. actual publishing costs added to the costs incurred by libraries for maintaining subscriptions over the same number of years. I wonder what is actually ‘cheaper’.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Another thing that has been bugging me is, lets say (thanks to my magic want) that for an entire year Journal X contains 50% of OA articles (opted in by authors and paying the extra fees). Does the journal then reduce their subscription fees accordingly? Shouldn’t they? Or are they double dipping?
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Double-dipping is happening, and it’s an issue for institutions that have set up OA journal funds. Some OA journal funds will pay publication fees of hybrid journals, while others will not. For a blog post of mine about policies of OA journal funds, see: http://bit.ly/87dzVW
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Springer has said they will reduce the subscription cost according to the % OA. I believe another journal already did so, but I don’t remember which one.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Nature Communications is committed to something along those lines I think.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Hi Cameron,
“That is why, within reputable publishers, structures are put in place to reduce that risk as far as is possible, divorcing the financial side from editorial decision making, creating Chinese walls between editorial and financial staff within the publisher.”
In an ideal world, this whole issue is irrelevant: in an ideal world, the content of the paper would be reproducible, and it would not matter if it was sponsored or not; anyone would have no problem on deciding on the quality of the paper. Any structure put in place by publishers is nothing more than a dirty hack working around the real problem that scientists do not generally care about reproducibility.
A defense of the “author-pays” publication model and a clarification of PLoS ONE editorial standards from @cameronneylon: http://j.mp/aEoYnn
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Libre accès: à propos des modèles basés sur l’”auteur-payeur” http://bit.ly/ct63vM
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
See ‘NPG details 2011 open access pricing policy’ (March 16, 2010): http://www.nature.com/press_releases/oapricing.html
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Science in the Open: In defence of author-pays business models http://goo.gl/Dt2h o autor paga para publicar é um modelo de negócios.
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Science in the Open: In defence of author-pays business models http://goo.gl/Dt2h o autor pagar para publicar é um modelo de negócios.
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
$5000 for OA option in NatureComm?
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
yup
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
The interesting thing is on the current evidence it actually looks pretty popular. So clearly there is a market for prestige publication. I keep meaning to have a look at the Nature Comms open option articles and see whether they are mainly away from the biosciences (where you can go to PLoS Biology for quite a lot less). Also be interesting to know what the submission path is for such papers. Are these rejected from other Nature journals? Rejected from PLoS Biol? Or direct submissions looking for rapid publication…?
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Thanks to Cameron Neylon for his useful references to estimates of the percentage of rejected papers that eventually get published in another journal (50% – 95% depending on field). And of course there's always the fallback of unrefereed book chapters!
[Lest there be any misunderstanding, my own remarks about refereeing standards and pay-to-publish journals("Symptoms of Premature Gold OA -- and their Cure" http://bit.ly/b8vS1a ) are generic, not specific to PLOS journals (in which I myself publish!).]
See: Beall, Jeffrey (2010). ““Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers”. The Charleston Advisor 11 (4): pp. 10-17(8). (Alas not OA!) http://bit.ly/9dKvk8
nice discussion of OA review policies, even if his standing point (author pays) is bad news bears: http://bit.ly/cmLj21
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
I just published in Plos One. Reviews were rigorous. I think time will show that this journal is publishing the same quality of work as any other, with the added benefits of driving up individual article impact through accessibility. If everyone submitted their papers to plos 1 then the journal hierarchy would die, and the world would be a better place.
This comment was originally posted on Synthesis
I know you did, I already bookmarked your paper in Mendeley. No link yet, because it hasn’t yet been indexed, but when it is, I’ll send it your way so you can keep an eye on the downloads and readers.
This comment was originally posted on Synthesis
[...] Neylon has an excellent post up defending the viability (and superiority) of the author-pays model of [...]
Science in the Open – In defence of author-pays business models http://ff.im/-jOHZs
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
[...] decisions on PLoS ONE) are accepting sub-standard papers simply to make more money for PLoS. Several academic editors took justified exception to this in the comment thread and elsewhere. The [...]
I’m also an AE at PLoS ONE and BMCRN. I wonder how many of us there are? :-)
This comment was originally posted on Mailund on the Internet
Response to Kent Anderson from Peter Binfield & Mark Patterson http://ff.im/jPasa
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Preface: I am a great supporter of open access, and I agree that most arguments against that model are bunk. Given a choice, I would pay more and publish in an OA publication. At the end of the day, though, whatever hidden costs their may be do not directly manifest themselves to the author, closed-access is still cheaper than open access for immediate out-of-grant-pocket expenses. Page charges nonwithstanding. If one is fortunate enough to have an extramural grant that is budgeted for OA publications, then that works fine. If not (and many do not, because small size grants don't have enough bandwidth for the expected $2500/yr or there is no grant and you are running on institutional funds, as happens in many R2 universities) most groups would rather spend this money on research and/or student stipends.
Yes, most journals would waive the fee if the author claims hardship. But most authors would not claim hardship: they have the $2500, they would rather give it to a summer student. So they would go with an equally reputable CA publisher, maybe pay $500 in page charges.
The cost-benefit of open access is still unavailable to most people, but the OA advocates do not seem to realize it. Unless you have have an R01 with OA charges in it, you have no compelling reason to go with OA. Ideological support for a laudable cause nonwithstanding. Yes, the ideas are great. No, the immediate benefit is not apparent. Maybe the library overhead does may CA more expensive in hidden costs than it is. So? It is still there!
Point being: most of my colleagues would not publish in an OA journal due to the cost. In fact, all they know of OA journals is that they are expensive. OA seems like a fringe benefit, especially in the current promotion and tenure criteria in universities.
Bottom line: there is between OA advocates and a large part of academia (which publishes CA), analogous to the one that exists between open source advocates and the rest of the world (which uses Windows). There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what OA is about, and the lack of ability to convince people to pay for it when CA is perceived to be cheaper.
Hi Iddo, and thanks for the comment. I think you've actually cut to the core
of my argument. The point is that actually all of these academics _are_
paying for those subscription access – they just choose to ignore it. And
they're not going to be able to ignore it for much longer. In the next year
librarians are going to be cutting subscriptions back savagely and the
option will be simple: If you want JACS/Biophys J/Cell/J Neurosci then the
department will have to find the money directly. Once that happens my
suspicion is that OA with APCs starts to look attractive.
The catch is that politically the appeal here is that the academics can claw
back money out of the hands of central administration (i.e. the library).
This is an easy story to sell within departments but a longer view I think
includes the realisation that we need the library to manage the transition.
But believe me, the next 18 months are going to look very interesting. There
are many major universities in Europe that do not subscribe to Cell. My
institution no longer gets Science. I can't read most of the journals core
to my work with our institutional subscriptions. It's going to spread and
it's going to start cutting into the core subscriptions of research
departments who are then going to have to choose whether to put the money up
themselves. That's where change starts, when the pain bites.
There’s more than 1K ONE AEs. Don’t know about BMCRN (but I know that I am handling way fewer manuscripts there than at ONE).
This comment was originally posted on Mailund on the Internet
Comments in defence of author-pays publishing models by Cameron Neylon http://bit.ly/ag2QNg and Thomas Mailund http://bit.ly/bFVnJI #OA
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
[...] aimed squarely at PLoS, specifically PLoS ONE. This engendered a huge comment thread, and a robust defence by Cameron Neylon (you should also check out the FriendFeed thread that was spawned by his article, [...]
License
Recent Friendfeed activity
A text version of what @rjw is talking about is at http://bit.ly/dgU71e #solo10 #soloconf
Friday 13:58
And all of this assumes that the only thing we can publish is "a paper". We could easily publish smaller things that are "finished" #solo10
Friday 10:29
What would scholarly communications look like if we invented it today?
Thursday 11:57
.@rpg7twit Don't tell @mendeley_com that I'm just behind him about to grab that iPad...
Friday 13:40
.@jamesdadd Do you mean SM is done wrong for sci or that "social" isn't something that adds value to sci? Disagree with the latter #solo10
Friday 13:39
My FriendFeed profile …
Flattr
The online home of Cameron Neylon
Contributions via Flattr go towards hosting costs.
I am also found at...
Tags
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Most Viewed