- Email: [email protected]
Re: More on Predatory Journals and Illegitimate Publishing
636
Letters to the Editor
Re: More on Predatory Journals and Illegitimate Publishing The invited commentary on predatory journals1 addresses a very important issue, which is unfortunately becoming widespread and is not going away. However, I believe it is a mistake to (i) separate the issue of so-called predatory journals and open-access journals and (ii) focus only on the publications of researchers—as suggested in Roberts’ commentary by stating that predatory journals “. are a scam designed only to separate researchers from their funds”1 [p. 1831]. First, all open-access journals are focused mostly on one thing: making money. Predatory open-access journals introduce a new financial approach or model: switching from financing journal publishing through subscription to financing it through authors’ “fees for open access.” As noted by Shen and Bjork,2 the present worth of this “fee for publishing journals” market could be as much as $74 million per year. The original noble idea of open access has been, as many times before, turned into money making. It has been proposed that some researchers and readers in less fortunate countries and places might not have the means to obtain important articles, but how many people cannot get a copy of an article without open access or, better, how many people are really asking for it? Many people have access to university libraries or can write to the author asking for a free electronic copy (many journals provide up to 50 free electronic copies). Traditional journals (printed or online) are financed through subscription, membership fees (part of which goes toward subscription), and library fees. Instead, in open-access or predatory journals, the authors are asked to spend a considerable amount of money as a “processing” or “publishing” fee (fees as high as $2,900 have been requested by various journals). This fee might not always be stated upfront and the author might be charged only after the manuscript is accepted. The approach mentioned by Roberts1 and practiced by the Journal of Sexual Medicine (a subscription journal with an option of an open-access article for a smaller fee) seems much more fair and balanced. 3
Second, as I previously pointed out, established researchers can incorporate the expenses for possible open-access publications into their grant proposals. Young starting researchers and clinicians might not be able to do that and thus might be forced to pay the open-access journal out of their pocket or some other funds, especially for case reports or review articles. Interestingly, as pointed out by Solomon and Bjork,4 the sources for processing fees of authors from developed countries come from personal funds in only approximately 10% of cases, whereas processing fees for authors from developing countries come from personal funds in 39%. Thus, the original noble idea of financing open access to those less fortunate seems not to benefit those for whom it was intended.
Third, Roberts suggests that one should look, among other possibilities, at whether the journal editorial board consists of recognizable names. Definitely true. We also should note that many of these journals do not have bona fide editors who are experts in the field. The “editors” are managing editors who frequently have no expertise in the field. Fourth, I am not sure whether the Journal of Sexual Medicine would allow me to mention the name of a predatory journal whose name is very close to the name of “our” journal, but I can tell you it is very close. The field of publishing, as many other areas in medicine such as medical education and parts of research, has become monetized. We have to be very careful not to support this trend and avoid not only publishing in journals of questionable value but also reviewing manuscripts for them (even that process could be exposed to fraudulent behavior; see the article by Haug5). Richard Balon, MD Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences and Anesthesiology, Wayne State School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA Corresponding Author: Richard Balon, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Wayne State School of Medicine, Tolan Park Building, 3901 Chrysler Service Drive, Detroit, MI 48201, USA; E-mail: [email protected] Conflicts of Interest: The author reports no conflicts of interest. Funding: None. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.02.001
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP Category 1 (a) Conception and Design Richard Balon (b) Acquisition of Data Richard Balon (c) Analysis and Interpretation of Data Richard Balon Category 2 (a) Drafting the Article Richard Balon (b) Revising It for Intellectual Content Richard Balon Category 3 (a) Final Approval of the Completed Article Richard Balon
J Sex Med 2017;14:635e638
637
Letters to the Editor
REFERENCES 1. Roberts J. Predatory journals: illegitimate publishing and its threat to all readers and authors. J Sex Med 2016;13:18301833. 2. Shen C, Bjork B-C. “Predatory” open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med 2015;13:230.
3. Balon R. Perilous terra incognita—open-access journals. Acad Psychiatry 2014;38:221-223. 4. Solomon D, Bjork B-C. Publication fees in open access publishing: sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2013;63:98-107. 5. Haug CJ. Peer-review fraud—hacking the scientific publication process. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2393-2395.
Response and Rebuttal to Re: More on Predatory Journals and Illegitimate Publishing Dr Balon raises an interesting point on the inherently obvious flaw in the open-access model of publishing. It does not seem to be too much of a leap to speculate that editors of such journals indeed might be compromised by the need to generate revenues to keep a journal operational by accepting the largest volume of articles possible. However, it also is a mistake to conflate predatory publishing with open-access journals and the open-access movement in general by implying both are a naked money grab. Make no mistake: these are two very different entities. As I indicated in my commentary, it is true all predatory journals are “open access” (in that you pay a fee and the article appears online) but most open-access journals are far from being predatory.1 Legitimate open-access titles provide full peer review, ensure all articles are coded properly with the appropriate metadata to enhance discoverability, and the publishers of such publications have abided by industry standards on matters ranging from publication ethics to content preservation in perpetuity. Most open-access journals also are set up to serve additional aims such as the provision of article rights agreements that have broad fair use policies and do not limit the reuse (and even repurposing) of content. Another obvious aim is to provide access to research articles and other works, some of which would otherwise be hidden behind a pay wall. Although it is true many academics, thanks to their libraries, have rarely encountered a pay wall, many physicians in this field who work in private practice will know only too well how frustrating a pay wall can be with high fee demands just to view a single article. Furthermore, let us not forget that the open-access movement was generated in part by the research community as a way to rebel against the perceived pricing cartel of a rather small number of publishing houses that utterly dominated the journal publishing market, made large profits, and then restricted access only to subscribers. It has always been the case that journals have a clear money-making element. Indeed, for many society journal owners, they might represent the only consistently strong source of revenue. Indeed, it is somewhat ingenuous to believe that open-access publishing has suddenly created a potential conflict between J Sex Med 2017;14:635e638
accepting articles and generating revenues. That tension has always existed. Under traditional subscription models, a similar potential conflict of interest existed but perhaps was unseen by many. For example, the more articles published (assuming they were of a sufficient quality), the more pages publishers would allow if the market was prepared to accept an associated increase in prices to accommodate the cost of pages (along with a usually very hefty margin for each additional page published). Furthermore, although it would be hard to prove, it would not be a stretch to suspect that many articles have been accepted at biomedical journals across the spectrum because of their potential to generate enormous reprint revenue, form part of a commercially underwritten supplement, or act as a tempter to a potential advertiser, all of which are major revenue streams for many biomedical journals. To be clear, I do believe there are problems with the openaccess pricing model and to a certain degree I agree with Dr Balon’s argument that the system can discriminate against many authors. However, the pricing model debate is nuanced, and the space accorded for this response letter means this is not the best venue to discuss the pros and cons of open-access publishing. But to return to Dr Balon’s central claim, that the noble ideas behind open access have been turned in to “moneymaking” ventures, the counter argument publishers of these publications put forward is that the very poorest of authors can apply for—and receive—fee waivers. Others, from select countries, are entitled to lower fees. Under a model typical of the International Society of Sexual Medicine’s Sexual Medicine, there also are lower members-only fees. We also must consider the fact that many national-level funder mandates require publication in open-access journals with fees provided, accordingly, as part of their research grants. There also is the obvious point to make: traditional journals are still very much a part of the landscape, and any wholesale switch to a purely open-access model for all journals does not seem imminent. In other words, the traditional routes to publication are still available to every author. To be clear, open access was something the research community demanded and the current journal models are the result. Early leaders in the growth of open-access publishing included
Letters to the Editor
Re: More on Predatory Journals and Illegitimate Publishing The invited commentary on predatory journals1 addresses a very important issue, which is unfortunately becoming widespread and is not going away. However, I believe it is a mistake to (i) separate the issue of so-called predatory journals and open-access journals and (ii) focus only on the publications of researchers—as suggested in Roberts’ commentary by stating that predatory journals “. are a scam designed only to separate researchers from their funds”1 [p. 1831]. First, all open-access journals are focused mostly on one thing: making money. Predatory open-access journals introduce a new financial approach or model: switching from financing journal publishing through subscription to financing it through authors’ “fees for open access.” As noted by Shen and Bjork,2 the present worth of this “fee for publishing journals” market could be as much as $74 million per year. The original noble idea of open access has been, as many times before, turned into money making. It has been proposed that some researchers and readers in less fortunate countries and places might not have the means to obtain important articles, but how many people cannot get a copy of an article without open access or, better, how many people are really asking for it? Many people have access to university libraries or can write to the author asking for a free electronic copy (many journals provide up to 50 free electronic copies). Traditional journals (printed or online) are financed through subscription, membership fees (part of which goes toward subscription), and library fees. Instead, in open-access or predatory journals, the authors are asked to spend a considerable amount of money as a “processing” or “publishing” fee (fees as high as $2,900 have been requested by various journals). This fee might not always be stated upfront and the author might be charged only after the manuscript is accepted. The approach mentioned by Roberts1 and practiced by the Journal of Sexual Medicine (a subscription journal with an option of an open-access article for a smaller fee) seems much more fair and balanced. 3
Second, as I previously pointed out, established researchers can incorporate the expenses for possible open-access publications into their grant proposals. Young starting researchers and clinicians might not be able to do that and thus might be forced to pay the open-access journal out of their pocket or some other funds, especially for case reports or review articles. Interestingly, as pointed out by Solomon and Bjork,4 the sources for processing fees of authors from developed countries come from personal funds in only approximately 10% of cases, whereas processing fees for authors from developing countries come from personal funds in 39%. Thus, the original noble idea of financing open access to those less fortunate seems not to benefit those for whom it was intended.
Third, Roberts suggests that one should look, among other possibilities, at whether the journal editorial board consists of recognizable names. Definitely true. We also should note that many of these journals do not have bona fide editors who are experts in the field. The “editors” are managing editors who frequently have no expertise in the field. Fourth, I am not sure whether the Journal of Sexual Medicine would allow me to mention the name of a predatory journal whose name is very close to the name of “our” journal, but I can tell you it is very close. The field of publishing, as many other areas in medicine such as medical education and parts of research, has become monetized. We have to be very careful not to support this trend and avoid not only publishing in journals of questionable value but also reviewing manuscripts for them (even that process could be exposed to fraudulent behavior; see the article by Haug5). Richard Balon, MD Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences and Anesthesiology, Wayne State School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA Corresponding Author: Richard Balon, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Wayne State School of Medicine, Tolan Park Building, 3901 Chrysler Service Drive, Detroit, MI 48201, USA; E-mail: [email protected] Conflicts of Interest: The author reports no conflicts of interest. Funding: None. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.02.001
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP Category 1 (a) Conception and Design Richard Balon (b) Acquisition of Data Richard Balon (c) Analysis and Interpretation of Data Richard Balon Category 2 (a) Drafting the Article Richard Balon (b) Revising It for Intellectual Content Richard Balon Category 3 (a) Final Approval of the Completed Article Richard Balon
J Sex Med 2017;14:635e638
637
Letters to the Editor
REFERENCES 1. Roberts J. Predatory journals: illegitimate publishing and its threat to all readers and authors. J Sex Med 2016;13:18301833. 2. Shen C, Bjork B-C. “Predatory” open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med 2015;13:230.
3. Balon R. Perilous terra incognita—open-access journals. Acad Psychiatry 2014;38:221-223. 4. Solomon D, Bjork B-C. Publication fees in open access publishing: sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2013;63:98-107. 5. Haug CJ. Peer-review fraud—hacking the scientific publication process. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2393-2395.
Response and Rebuttal to Re: More on Predatory Journals and Illegitimate Publishing Dr Balon raises an interesting point on the inherently obvious flaw in the open-access model of publishing. It does not seem to be too much of a leap to speculate that editors of such journals indeed might be compromised by the need to generate revenues to keep a journal operational by accepting the largest volume of articles possible. However, it also is a mistake to conflate predatory publishing with open-access journals and the open-access movement in general by implying both are a naked money grab. Make no mistake: these are two very different entities. As I indicated in my commentary, it is true all predatory journals are “open access” (in that you pay a fee and the article appears online) but most open-access journals are far from being predatory.1 Legitimate open-access titles provide full peer review, ensure all articles are coded properly with the appropriate metadata to enhance discoverability, and the publishers of such publications have abided by industry standards on matters ranging from publication ethics to content preservation in perpetuity. Most open-access journals also are set up to serve additional aims such as the provision of article rights agreements that have broad fair use policies and do not limit the reuse (and even repurposing) of content. Another obvious aim is to provide access to research articles and other works, some of which would otherwise be hidden behind a pay wall. Although it is true many academics, thanks to their libraries, have rarely encountered a pay wall, many physicians in this field who work in private practice will know only too well how frustrating a pay wall can be with high fee demands just to view a single article. Furthermore, let us not forget that the open-access movement was generated in part by the research community as a way to rebel against the perceived pricing cartel of a rather small number of publishing houses that utterly dominated the journal publishing market, made large profits, and then restricted access only to subscribers. It has always been the case that journals have a clear money-making element. Indeed, for many society journal owners, they might represent the only consistently strong source of revenue. Indeed, it is somewhat ingenuous to believe that open-access publishing has suddenly created a potential conflict between J Sex Med 2017;14:635e638
accepting articles and generating revenues. That tension has always existed. Under traditional subscription models, a similar potential conflict of interest existed but perhaps was unseen by many. For example, the more articles published (assuming they were of a sufficient quality), the more pages publishers would allow if the market was prepared to accept an associated increase in prices to accommodate the cost of pages (along with a usually very hefty margin for each additional page published). Furthermore, although it would be hard to prove, it would not be a stretch to suspect that many articles have been accepted at biomedical journals across the spectrum because of their potential to generate enormous reprint revenue, form part of a commercially underwritten supplement, or act as a tempter to a potential advertiser, all of which are major revenue streams for many biomedical journals. To be clear, I do believe there are problems with the openaccess pricing model and to a certain degree I agree with Dr Balon’s argument that the system can discriminate against many authors. However, the pricing model debate is nuanced, and the space accorded for this response letter means this is not the best venue to discuss the pros and cons of open-access publishing. But to return to Dr Balon’s central claim, that the noble ideas behind open access have been turned in to “moneymaking” ventures, the counter argument publishers of these publications put forward is that the very poorest of authors can apply for—and receive—fee waivers. Others, from select countries, are entitled to lower fees. Under a model typical of the International Society of Sexual Medicine’s Sexual Medicine, there also are lower members-only fees. We also must consider the fact that many national-level funder mandates require publication in open-access journals with fees provided, accordingly, as part of their research grants. There also is the obvious point to make: traditional journals are still very much a part of the landscape, and any wholesale switch to a purely open-access model for all journals does not seem imminent. In other words, the traditional routes to publication are still available to every author. To be clear, open access was something the research community demanded and the current journal models are the result. Early leaders in the growth of open-access publishing included