Advocating for free-to-read and free-to-publish science journals amid a need to change a broken evaluation system

André Frainer

doi:10.1590/S2179-975X8323

Opinion Article

Advocating for free-to-read and free-to-publish science journals amid a need to change a broken evaluation system

Promovendo periódicos científicos gratuitos para leitores e escritores diante da necessidade de mudar o sistema de avaliação acadêmico

André Frainer

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2179-975X8323 Acta Limnol. Bras. (Online), vol.35, e34, 2023

PDF

Downloads: 0

Abstract

Publishing is an important step for the work of any scientist. Unfortunately, academia has been using publication metrics, particularly the journal impact factor, as one of the main criteria for assessing researchers CVs when hiring and promoting researchers and evaluating grant proposals, among others. This goes against the advice of several researchers and institutions who notice a harmful effect of focusing on such publication-based metrics for the development of science itself. In addition, most journals with high impact factor have been moving to a highly commercialized form of open access publication, where readers do not pay to access those papers, but the authors do. Journals ranked high in those publication-based metrics also charge very high publications fees. Thus, those journals have become too expensive for most scientists, creating a too-large financial gap between those who can afford publishing in high-ranked journals and those who cannot. Science ranking based on publication metrics is thus no longer a question of science quality, impact, or relevance, but of the researchers’ financial conditions to publish their science. Luckly, there are thousands of journals that offer the so-called diamond (or platinum) alternative that do not charge any fees from readers and writers alike. Here, I advocate that scientists should focus on those non-commercialized forms of science publication while working to change the criteria for evaluating science production currently at place in academia.

Keywords

diamont journal, open access, journal impact factor, evaluation in academia

Resumo

Publicar é uma etapa importante para o trabalho de qualquer cientista. Infelizmente, o sistema acadêmico tem usado métricas focadas na publicação, particularmente o fator de impacto dos periódicos científicos, como um dos principais critérios para avaliar o currículo de pesquisadores ao contratar e promover professores universitários e cientistas e avaliar propostas de financiamento, entre outros. Isto vai contra o conselho de vários pesquisadores e instituições que notam um efeito prejudicial na própria ciência ao focar em tais métricas. Além disso, a maioria dos periódicos com elevado fator de impacto tem migrado para uma forma altamente comercializada de publicação de acesso aberto, onde a leitura dos artigos é gratuita enquanto que os autores têm que pagar os custos de publicação. O que ocorre é que os periódicos com alta classificação naquelas avaliações de impacto acabam cobrando taxas elevadas de publicação. Assim, a maioria desses periódicos se tornou demasiado cara para a maior parte dos cientistas, criando um grande fosso financeiro entre aqueles que podem pagar a publicação nos periódicos de alto impacto e aqueles que não podem. A avaliação da ciência baseada em métricas de impacto se tornou não mais uma questão de qualidade, impacto ou relevância, mas sim das condições financeiras de quem publica a pesquisa. Felizmente, existem diversos periódicos que oferecem uma alternativa que não cobra taxas nem dos leitores e nem dos escritores, a chamada publicação ‘diamante’ (ou ‘platina’). Aqui, defendo que os cientistas deveriam concentrar-se nas formas não comercializadas de publicação científica, ao mesmo tempo que trabalham para mudar os critérios de avaliação da ciência no meio acadêmico.

Palavras-chave

periódicos diamante, acesso aberto, fator de impacto de periódicos científicos, avaliação na ciência

Referencias

Academia Brasileira de Neurologia – ABN, 2010. Classification of journals in the QUALIS System of CAPES - URGENT need of changing the criteria! Dement. Neuropsychol. 4(1), 1-3. PMid:29213653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1980-57642010DN40100001.

Becerril, A., Bosman, J., Bjørnshauge, L., Frantsvåg, J.E., Kramer, B., Langlais, P.-C., Mounier, P., Proudman, V., Redhead, C., & Torny, D., 2021. OA diamond journals study. Part 2: recommendations. Zenodo. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4562790.

Bourguet, D., Rouzies, E., & Guillemaud, T., 22 dec. 2022. Could ‘Peer Community In’ be the revolution in scientific publishing we’ve all been waiting for? The Conversation. Retrieved in 2023, September 5, from http://theconversation.com/could-peer-community-in-be-the-revolution-in-scientific-publishing-weve-all-been-waiting-for-195682

Brasil. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – CAPES, 2023. Plataforma Sucupira. Brasília. Retrieved in 2023, September 5, from https://qualis.capes.gov.br/sucupira/

Declaration on Research Assessment – DORA, 2012. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Retrieved in 2023, September 5, from https://sfdora.org/read/

Dufour, Q., Pontille, D., & Torny, D., 2023. Supporting diamond open access journals. Interest and feasibility of direct funding mechanisms. bioRxiv http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.03.539231.

European Commission, 2023. Article processing charges. Open Research Europe. Retrieved in 2023, September 5, from https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/for-authors/article-processing-charges

Ferreira, R., Antoneli, F., & Briones, M., 2013. The hidden factors in impact factors: a perspective from Brazilian science. Front. Genet. 4, 130. PMid:23874351. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2013.00130.

Hagve, M., 2020. The money behind academic publishing. Tidsskrift Den Norske Legeforening. Retrieved in 2023, September 5, from https://tidsskriftet.no/en/2020/08/kronikk/money-behind-academic-publishing

Hatch, A., Kermer, V., Pulverer, B., Shugart, E., & Curry, S., 17 apr. 2019. Research assessment: reducing bias in the evaluation of researchers. Cambridge: eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd. Retrieved in 2023, September 5, from https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/1fd1018c/research-assessment-reducing-bias-in-the-evaluation-of-researchers

Kelly, É., 2019. ‘Big deal’ publishing costs European universities over €1B a year. Science|Business. Retrieved in 2023, September 5, from https://sciencebusiness.net/news/big-deal-publishing-costs-european-universities-over-eu1b-year

Kramer, B., & Bosman, J., 2021. OA diamond journals study: journals inventory. Genève: European Organization for Nuclear Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4562828.

Packer, A.L., 2010. The SciELO open access: a gold way from the South. Can. J. High. Educ. 39(3), 111. http://dx.doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v39i3.479.

Packer, A.L., Cop, N., Luccisano, A., Ramalho, A., & Spinak, E., eds., 2014. SciELO: 15 anos de acesso aberto: um estudo analítico sobre Acesso Aberto e comunicação científica. Paris: UNESCO. http://dx.doi.org/10.7476/9789237012376.

Peterson, A.T., Emmett, A., & Greenberg, M.L., 2013. Open access and the author-pays problem: assuring access for readers and authors in the global academic community. J. Libr. Sch. Commun. 1(3), 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1064.

Saikia, Q., 2 mar. 2023. Two new tools to support responsible research assessment: debiasing committee composition and building blocks for impact. DORA. Retrieved in 2023, September 5, from https://sfdora.org/2023/03/02/introducing-two-new-tools-to-support-responsible-research-assessment-debiasing-committee-composition-and-building-blocks-for-impact/

Sanderson, K., 2023. Editors quit top neuroscience journal to protest against open-access charges. Nature 616(7958), 641. PMid:37085706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01391-5.

Schmidt, R., 25 oct. 2022. Building blocks for impact. Zenodo. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7249187

Smith, A.C., Merz, L., Borden, J.B., Gulick, C.K., Kshirsagar, A.R., & Bruna, E.M., 2021. Assessing the effect of article processing charges on the geographic diversity of authors using Elsevier’s “Mirror Journal” system. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2(4), 1123-1143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00157.

Solomon, D.J., & Björk, B.-C., 2012. A study of open access journals using article processing charges. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63(8), 1485-1495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22673.

Vessuri, H., Guédon, J.-C., & Cetto, A.M., 2014. Excellence or quality? Impact of the current competition regime on science and scientific publishing in Latin America and its implications for development. Curr. Sociol. 62(5), 647-665. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011392113512839.

Widener, A., 8 feb. 2019. Societies and scientists react to open access Plan S. Chemical & Engineering News. Retrieved in 2023, September 5, from https://cen.acs.org/policy/publishing/Societies-scientists-react-open-access/97/web/2019/02

Submitted date:
05/09/2023

Accepted date:
25/10/2023

Publication date:
01/12/2023

Advocating for free-to-read and free-to-publish science journals amid a need to change a broken evaluation system

Promovendo periódicos científicos gratuitos para leitores e escritores diante da necessidade de mudar o sistema de avaliação acadêmico

André Frainer

Abstract

Keywords

Resumo

Palavras-chave

Referencias

Links

compartir

Acta Limnol. Bras. (Online)