[r3nu4l]

So Open access has been around a good few years now and I have to admit, there's nothing I like more than clicking on a link to an article and discovering that it's OA

However, I am really getting ticked off that despite the 'support' of major academic institutions and scientific bodies it still just so happens that all of the truly groundbreaking research is still being sent to pay-per-view journals for publication.

It appears as though the 'impact factor' still rules (don't get me started on IF!!) when people want to publish.

So with that in mind, has OA been an interesting experiment that has just not worked the way it was supposed to? In my line of work (medical writing) when I want to reference something I try to reference OA articles but more and more I find people coming back to me saying 'Let's reference the [insert PPV journal name] article, instead'...

[djpbarry]

I've certainly encountered a bias against OA publications. There seems to be a mentality that OA is inferior to PPV and one's research would be devalued if published in the former rather than the latter. Having said that, many of the papers I come across in OA journals are inferior to PPV, in terms of both content and layout/editing.

[Capt'n Midnight]

Paywall's aren't fun,

On the other side of the coin , is there a list of recommended third party Open Access publishers ?

IMHO in an ideal world state funded research would be freely available at from the site of the govt dept doing the funding and / or the institute receiving the funding.

Anyway.
Here is one suggested list of sites to avoid, unfortunately Google Scholar likes them. Listed by URL in case anyone wants to add to hosts or rules.


Beall's List of Predatory, Open-Access Publishers by Jeffrey Beall 2012 Edition
https://metadata.posterous.com/83235355

Predatory, open-access publishers are those that unprofessionally exploit the author-pays model of open-access publishing (Gold OA) for their own profit. Typically, these publishers spam professional email lists, broadly soliciting article submissions for the clear purpose of gaining additional income. Operating essentially as vanity presses, these publishers typically have a low article acceptance threshold, with a false-front or non-existent peer review process. Unlike professional publishing operations, whether subscription-based or ethically-sound open access, these predatory publishers add little value to scholarship, pay little attention to digital preservation, and operate using fly-by-night, unsustainable business models.

Sites listed as dodgy
http://www.academicjournals.org/
http://www.academicjournalsinc.com/
http://www.arpapress.com/
http://www.ansinet.com/
http://www.bentham.org/open/
http://www.cpinet.info/journal.php
http://www.davidpublishing.com/
http://www.dovepress.com/
http://globalopenjournals.org/index.html
http://insightknowledge.co.uk/index.php
http://www.i-asr.com/journals.aspx
http://www.intechweb.org/
http://idosi.org/index.htm
http://www.interesjournals.org/index.htm
http://www.ispub.com/
http://www.knowledgia.net/
http://www.la-press.com/
http://www.medwelljournals.com/home.php
http://www.omicsonline.org/
http://www.scihub.org/index.html
http://www.thescipub.com/
http://www.sciencedomain.org/
http://www.scirp.org/


On the watchlist
http://www.hindawi.com/
http://www.medknow.com/
http://www.pagepress.org/
http://versitaopen.com/

I also became aware of this one
www.mdpi.com

This is on my watchlist
http://www.intechopen.com/

[opinion guy]

Well PLOSone seems to be a success.

No ?

[r3nu4l]

Wow, what a gravedig thread

Well as it happens many PPV journals do 'support' open access to some extent, so long as someone pays for it. The people that pay are usually pharma companies who want the data from clinical trials they have funded to be disseminated as widely as possible.

[opinion guy]

Well some also have 'page charges' for authors. Like Environmental Health Perspectives. Great journal. All articles freely available on their website, but AFAIK there is a hefty page charge to publish in it.

[djpbarry]

Originally Posted by opinion guy

Well some also have 'page charges' for authors. Like Environmental Health Perspectives. Great journal. All articles freely available on their website, but AFAIK there is a hefty page charge to publish in it.

It's often the case. For example, PLoS charge about $2,000 per article published, putting these open access journals out of the reach of most researchers.

[Capt'n Midnight]

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...-the-tubes.ars UK to science publishers: don't follow recording industry down the tubes

[CramCycle]

Just seen this thread, had a few points to make but I'll post this article from "The Biochemist" instead:

http://www.biochemist.org/bio/03402/0031/034020031.pdf

There are a few more related articles that I have not read yet but may be of use from the biochemist as well:

http://www.biochemist.org/bio/03402/0034/034020034.pdf
http://www.biochemist.org/bio/03202/0038/032020038.pdf

[opinion guy]

This is interesting also:

http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e4212

Apparently the big journals make a ton of money from the pharmaceutical industry through reprints. I didn't know this I must say. Explains why its so expensive for reprints.

Interesting comments here:
http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2012/07/03/...-golden-geese/

[Capt'n Midnight]

Big Pharma has deep pockets so a paywall won't affect them.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/20...ndustry-record

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has been hit by a $3 billion (£1.9 billion) fine in the US for so-called off label marketing – the illegal practice of promoting medical products for uses that have not been authorised by the regulators – as well as failing to report safety data.
...
The previous record was set by Pfizer, which in 2009 was fined $2.3 billion for off label marketing of four of its drugs.

[opinion guy]

Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight

Big Pharma has deep pockets so a paywall won't affect them.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/20...ndustry-record

For sure but thats not the point. The implication is there is incentive for journals to publish pharma sponsored papers as they know they will receive more reprint orders from those studies.

[ulyssesfcohen]

Originally Posted by r3nu4l

So Open access has been around a good few years now and I have to admit, there's nothing I like more than clicking on a link to an article and discovering that it's OA

However, I am really getting ticked off that despite the 'support' of major academic institutions and scientific bodies it still just so happens that all of the truly groundbreaking research is still being sent to pay-per-view journals for publication.

It appears as though the 'impact factor' still rules (don't get me started on IF!!) when people want to publish.

So with that in mind, has OA been an interesting experiment that has just not worked the way it was supposed to? In my line of work (medical writing) when I want to reference something I try to reference OA articles but more and more I find people coming back to me saying 'Let's reference the [insert PPV journal name] article, instead'...

I don't think there is any true support for open access among academic institutions. Most tenure, promotion, and merit committee would not count OA journals in making their lists - and most reputable academuc would not publish their 'best' work in OA.

I am a big fan of the peer review journal - it plays a vital role in the development of leading edge studies.

[opinion guy]

Originally Posted by ulyssesfcohen

I don't think there is any true support for open access among academic institutions. Most tenure, promotion, and merit committee would not count OA journals in making their lists - and most reputable academuc would not publish their 'best' work in OA.

I am a big fan of the peer review journal - it plays a vital role in the development of leading edge studies.

You need to get with the times. PLOS One is well respected for example.

[ulyssesfcohen]

How to you measure respectability?

Originally Posted by opinion guy

You need to get with the times. PLOS One is well respected for example.