Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Threats to the Survival of the Author-Pays-Journal to Publish Model

  • Published:
Publishing Research Quarterly Aims and scope

Abstract

While many agree that society as a whole, the progress of science, education, health care, patients, and policy makers would benefit tremendously from making access to research publications and data freely available to students, researchers, physicians and even the public, particularly in the case of publicly funded research, many questions regarding the future of the author-pays journal model to publish in open access journals remain unanswered, especially since article processing charges (APCs) fund peer review and publishing costs. Unlike the subscriber-pays traditional publishing model, the inherent interest in charging authors APCs as publication costs to have their work peer reviewed by experts in their field raises many concerns including the potential abuse by predatory publishers who may spot opportunities for profit, the objectivity and credibility of peer review, and the viability of this model in the light of rapidly evolving publishing practices and venues. In this piece, we discuss some challenges that may threaten the survival of the author-pays journal publishing model, evolving the “publish or perish” into a “pay to publish or perish” model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

APC:

Article processing charge

APJ:

Author-pays-journal

OAJ:

Open access journal

PPPR:

Post publication peer review

References

  1. Al-Khatib A, Teixeira da Silva JA. What rights do authors have? Sci Eng Ethics. (in press) 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8.

  2. Al-Khatib A. Protecting authors from predatory journals and publishers. Pub Res Quart. (in press) 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9474-3.

  3. Aulakh R. Mandatory publication in India: setting quotas for research output could encourage scientific fraud. Br Med J. 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5002.

  4. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012;489:179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beall J. Predatory journals: ban predators from the scientific record. Nature. 2016;534:326. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/534326a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berger M, Cirasella J. Beyond Beall’s list: better understanding predatory publishers. Coll Res Libr News. 2015;76:132–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Björk B-C, Solomon D. Article processing charges in OA journals: relationship between price and quality. Scientometrics. 2015;103:373. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1556-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. BMC (BioMed Central). Publication costs and funding. BioMed Central website. https://www.biomedcentral.com/about/publication-costs-and-funding (2016). Accessed 24 Oct 2016.

  9. Bornmann L. Measuring impact in research evaluations: a thorough discussion of methods for, effects of and problems with impact measurements. High Educ. (in press) 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-9995-x.

  10. Butler D. The dark side of publishing. Nature. 2013;495:433–5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/495433a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cressey D. Concern raised over payment for fast-track peer review. Nature. 2015. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.17204.

  12. Crotty D. Can highly selective journals survive on APCs?https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/10/10/can-highly-selective-high-end-journals-survive-on-apcs/ (2016). Accessed 24 Oct 2016.

  13. FTC (Federal Trade Commission). FTC charges academic journal publisher OMICS Group deceived researchers. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/08/ftc-charges-academic-journal-publisher-omics-group-deceived (2016). Accessed 24 Oct 2016.

  14. Karlsson J, Beaufils P. Legitimate division of large data sets, salami slicing and dual publication, where does a fraud begin? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21:751. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2413-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Laakso M, Björk B-C. Anatomy of open access publishing—a study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Med. 2012;10:124. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-10-124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013;64(1):2–17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784View.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ludvigsson JF. The costs of open access papers should not be the responsibility of individual researchers. Acta Paediatr. 2016;105:1247–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.13554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Marshall J. WordPress launches support for Facebook instant articles. Wall Street Journal.http://www.wsj.com/articles/wordpress-launches-support-for-facebook-instant-articles-1457362802 (2016). Accessed 24 Oct 2016.

  19. Morrison H, Salhab J, Calvé-Genest A, Horava T. Open access article processing charges: DOAJ survey May 2014. Publications. 2015;3(1):1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pinfield S, Salter J, Bath PA. The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open-access environment: institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2016;67:1751–66. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ryan C, Vicini J. Why you should avoid predatory journals, welcome rigorous review. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/gmoanswers/2016/06/30/predatory-journals/2/#479d97205cc6 (2016). Accessed 24 Oct 2016.

  22. Shen C, Björk B-C. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015;13:230. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Siler K, Lee K, Bero L. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gate keeping. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:360–5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418218112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Smith R. The highly profitable but unethical business of publishing medical research. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:452–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.9.452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Solomon D, Björk B-C. Article processing charges for open access publication—the situation for research intensive universities in the USA and Canada. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2264. doi:https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Solomon D, Björk B-C. Publication fees in open access publishing: sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 2012;63:98–107. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Teixeira da Silva JA. Predatory publishing: a quantitative assessment, the predatory score. Asian Aust J Plant Sci Biotechnol. 2013;7((Special Issue 1)):21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Teixeira da Silva JA. Debunking post-publication peer review. Int J Educ Inf Technol. 2015;1(2):34–7.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Acc Res: Policies Qual Assur. 2015;22(1):22–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.899909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Van Noorten R. The true cost of science publishing. Nature. 2013;495(7442):426–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/495426a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Post Office Box 3030, Irbid, 22110, Jordan

    Aceil Al-Khatib

  2. Post Office Box 7, Miki-cho Post Office, Ikenobe 3011-2, Kita Gun, Kagawa-ken, 761-0799, Japan

    Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Authors
  1. Aceil Al-Khatib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Aceil Al-Khatib or Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Khatib, A., Teixeira da Silva, J.A. Threats to the Survival of the Author-Pays-Journal to Publish Model. Pub Res Q 33, 64–70 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9486-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9486-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation