As the executive editors of an open-access journal called BioéthiqueOnline (launched in 2012), we enthusiastically support the initiatives of the federal (e.g., CIHR) and provincial (e.g., Quebec) funding agencies to encourage open-access publication of academic research findings. We subscribe to the view that research funded by Canadian taxpayers should be made publicly available with the briefest delay, and not locked up in pay-to-access journals with high subscription fees. We think that advocating in favour of accessibility of research findings is about ensuring the free flow of ideas and knowledge among the scientific community, being publicly accountable and making the best out of limited resources. But, we also think that bona fide OA publishing needs a little bit of financial support from these same agencies.
The creation of OA public repositories – such as PubMedCentral Canada and university and institution based systems – is a good, if incomplete, first step in the right direction. Due to copyright constraints, it is often unformatted or pre-print versions of manuscripts that are deposited. In some contexts, this reduces usability; for instance, when page numbering is missing, it makes it difficult to use citations.
The move of major publishing houses – that now control the majority of high-impact journals – towards offering OA as an option that authors can choose could arguably be considered another positive step. The advantages are obvious: research can be published online much more quickly than in print and can reach a vastly wider audience.
However, the large publishers tend to shift editorial and publishing costs to authors (exceptions exist, for example, for authors in developing countries), who are usually required to pay up to thousands of dollars to have their article made OA. Although pay-to-publish may have become a norm in health sciences, for many other sectors of academia the idea of paying to publish is considered peculiar. In fact, many still see the practice as ethically suspicious, given the apparent conflict of interest. And, in a context of increased competition for fewer grants, with the inevitable cut to budgets, the idea of spending $3,000 to make one paper OA – as compared to paying a research assistant or graduate student – may be considered a poor use of funds. Even more concerning, young scholars and students will be hard-pressed to find the required funds to publish their research results using OA, a fact that can have negative implications for their academic careers.
Contrasting with the paper journals that offer an option to publish specific papers using an OA model, a host of fully OA journals have emerged. The models of such journals vary and, while some have no publication charges (i.e., are free to read and to publish), many charge for publication. Such a financial opportunity has given rise to the much-discussed “predatory” journals and publishers.
With questionable integrity demonstrated by having spurious or no editorial boards, poor or absent scientific review, and little or no ethical and/or publication guidelines, the objective of such journal publishers is clearly to lure unaware authors to pay publication fees that will show little or no “return on investment.” Most researchers – including us – are now inundated with email invitations to submit to such journals. In our experience, many colleagues are unaware that these invitations are from journals and publishers of dubious integrity. As editors, we are concerned by the impact that the increasing awareness of predatory OA journals can have on the OA movement as a whole. Indeed, there is a significant risk that all OA journals will be tarred with the same brush and that researchers will shift their focus back to traditional publishing because of its established credibility, despite slower turnaround and/or higher cost than OA options.
To stand out from the crowd of predatory journals, we need to be proactive. The approach that we have taken with BioéthiqueOnline has been to operate without any publication charges whatsoever. The absence of a financial interest offers a strong guarantee that we are not part of the “bad crowd” of OA journals. We post fully transparent procedures and policies that seek to be in line with the guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We hope that our credibility will be established over time based on the quality and quantity of our publications. Other publishers, such as BioMed Central and PLOS, have been very successful in this regard, even though they charge publication fees, and they are paving the way for smaller OA players.
The downside of our approach is that we have limited funds to support our day-to-day operations; we are totally volunteer-run. Unfortunately, there is little in the way of funding from provincial or federal granting councils to support journal publishing, and many initiatives have been cut as granting councils have reorganized their programs. We have shown through two years of operation that OA publishing can be done at very low cost, but some funds are still required to cover the cost of technical support and administrative tasks to ensure stability and sustainability, as well as growth.
So, while we fully support the moves by federal and provincial agencies to demand an increase in the accessibility to the results of the research that they sponsor, we would invite them to pay greater attention to the current OA landscape. As becomes quickly apparent, this landscape is made up of a few high-cost mainstream publishers, of hundreds if not thousands of predatory and spurious journals, and of a smaller number of inexpensive journals that are trying to stand out from the crowd while struggling for their survival. Now that the technology makes it possible for high-quality and low-cost journals to exist, accountable and ethical practices of research funding should mandate that they be nurtured.
Dr. Williams-Jones is an associate professor and director of bioethics programs at Université de Montréal. Mr. Bélisle Pipon, Ms. Smith and Mr. Boulanger are graduate students in bioethics.