Time For Science To Overcome Fears And Kill Subscription Journals

You are Elsevier: time to overcome our fears and kill subscription journals
"Thus, people joining in the new boycott have no excuses not to follow through. There are plenty of viable OA options and it is simply unacceptable for any scientist who decries Elsevier’s actions and believes that the subscription based model is no longer serving science to send a single additional paper to journals that do not provide full OA to every paper they publish. So, come on people! If we do this now, paywalls will crumble, and we all be better off. So, come on! Let’s do it!"


Not when the 'powers that' be are expecting their scientists to publish in those journal with very high impact factors which tend to be the journals published by the main publishers.
Many journals aren't included by Thomson ISI and while that is still the case there is little point in expecting anyone to publish purely in those titles.

There is a reason getting published in certain titles, it's the quality and reputation of titles and the fact that it's not really easy to get published means it's better for their career.
If you can just put your hand in your wallet and get published within a month does that show a better model or does it show that it's all a really low quality journal that has no standards?

"If you can just put your hand in your wallet and get published within a month does that show a better model or does it show that it's all a really low quality journal that has no standards?"

1. A higher percentage of subscription journals charge author-side fees than OA journals.

2. Anybody who believes PLoS One, to name the obvious example, is "low quality" hasn't been paying much attention.

3. Funny...the series of phony journals filled with articles supporting a certain sponsor didn't come from OA sources, they came from Elsevier.

But hey, slander's always fun, right? Especially anonymous slander.

The PLoS journals aren't the only OA titles, and I never said they were low quality, I'm talking about the people in charge of the budgets only really caring about the well known titles, the Science, Nature, NEJM, Lancet etc journals that attract all the press.
The people with the purse strings don't see the OA journals as 'important' as those titles. And when they are the ones paying you have to listen. They don't mind them being used but they want your science to be in the 'important' titles. When your science is graded on where you publish that is an important issue.

Purely open access journals with fees that actually pay for the service given is the way forwards. Excess fee's, especially OA fees are not. Purely OA journals seem to manage to do the peer review and uploading really quickly, traditional journals do no. Maybe that's due to the lower demand or maybe they are just more effective?
If the OA publishers were dealing with the number of journals and the number of submissions that the big publishers deal with would it still be able to have such a good turnaround? Hopefully.
I'm no publisher fan but you seem to think it's all a flat playing field for those of us publishing. It's not. We have masters, they own the work after all, they paid for it.

Not slander if you are asking a question not stating a fact.

Add new comment

Plain text

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.