About the SA Blog Network

Guest Blog

Guest Blog

Commentary invited by editors of Scientific American
Guest Blog HomeAboutContact

Moving the Prestige to Open-Access Publishing

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

Over Indian food last night, a co-author and I discussed where to submit our paper. I told her about the memorandum released by Harvard’s Faculty Advisory Council on the Library, which recommended that authors move to publishing in open access journals. We considered submitting to an open access veterinary megajournal, but immediately bumped against the prestige problem. As was well explained by Yale librarian Susan Gibbons:

So the faculty have to make this decision along the way to publish in an open access journal and give up perhaps some of the prestige that’s associated with one of the more established journals. So, sometimes what you’ll see is some of the junior faculty who are less inclined to publish in open access journals because they are focused on the career path and tenure track process.

The prestige problem has plagued open access from the start. Harvard’s Faculty Advisory Council addressed it directly in their memorandum, calling on faculty members to “move prestige to open access.” However, the memorandum offers no direction on how this is to be accomplished.

Meanwhile,  on the other side of the pond, the U.K. government has announced that researchers receiving public funding will be required to make their papers available via open access. (There is some helpful commentary on the Nature News blog.)

Watching these events unfold, I worry that the message is “if researchers and academia don’t figure it out, the government will just make it happen.” And the idea of taking more power out of the hands of the people who perform and write up the research seems like the wrong approach to me. Isn’t part of the current crisis in academic publishing that authors don’t have control over their content?

So how to put power back in their hands? By actually moving the prestige to open access. A big name endorsement of a journal article doesn’t have to come from publication in a big name journal. It can come from faculty at a big name university. It is possible that Harvard’s name might be big enough, and since their Faculty Advisory Council stuck their noses out with their memorandum, I am going to use Harvard as an example.

I propose that Harvard faculty members organize to volunteer their editorial services in identifying and recommending the best new open access articles in their field, after those articles have been published. Get the publications out there, decide if they’re important later. Yes, this is post publication peer review, which has been suggested before, but it involves the same peers as our current system of pre publication peer review.

I imagine, for example, a publication out of Harvard’s department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology. I would name it something cute like Darwin’s List, but since we are talking about Harvard here, let’s pick a more dignified name, like The Harvard Evolutionary Biology List, or HEBL for short. The HEBL would consist of short reviews of important new open access articles by faculty members; reviews might be only a few sentences long, as the inclusion in the list itself would be the important thing.

Once such the HEBL publication was on its feet, it might even get submissions from  authors of published open access articles, seeking inclusion. One faculty member would serve as senior editor – an unenviable task involving herding the other faculty members into actually reviewing articles, I imagine, just as editors of journals have to do today. Junior faculty at Harvard and elsewhere could point to a mention of their open access publications in the HEBL in their resumes and expect the same prestige as if they had published the articles in big name journals.

Who’s going to actually read and review these articles? Well, the word on the street is that faculty members are withdrawing their volunteer (and paid) services as editors and peer reviewers of non-open access journals. Volunteering editorial and peer review services to a list like the HEBL would entail very similar work to what they had been doing for these journals.

How would the HEBL be published? Online only, I expect. There are existing software solutions that would work quite well.  Your institution’s IT department can almost certainly help you out.

Would inclusion in the HEBL be prestigious just because we say it is? I say, why not? The big name journals are prestigious just because we say they are, and because we make hiring and promotion decisions based on publication in them. My hope is that moving prestige to lists like the HEBL would be somewhat easier to do than according prestige to open access megajournals.

The big question, of course, is: who’s going to start such a project? I wish I could, but I’m not quite faculty at a big name school yet. Such a project does require someone to commit the time and energy to trying the experiment and creating the first list. But look, faculty members, this is something you can do about what has been described as a crisis in academic publishing. And you can do it right now, without waiting for someone on a hiring or promotions committee to suddenly decide that a publication in an open access journal is just as valuable as a publication in a big name journal.

By the way, I recognize that this is probably not a new idea, and probably not feasible in the exact form I describe for one reason or another. That’s okay. I’m mostly hoping to get the discussion going in a new direction, and to plant some seeds in someone’s mind.

In the end, my co-author and I did decide to submit to an open access journal. It’s too late for this paper, but I hope that by the time I write my next one, there will be veterinary publications to provide post-publication endorsement of my article’s value. By then, I may even be junior faculty.

Jessica P. Hekman About the Author: Jessica Perry Hekman, DVM, MS is fascinated by dog brains. She is a PhD student at the University of Illinois, studying the genetics of dog behavior. You can read her blog at The Dog Zombie. Follow on Twitter @DogZombieBlog.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Comments 5 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. CliffClark 10:16 pm 05/10/2012

    For the biological sciences, at least, this appears to have been done. The Faculty of 1000 is, among other things, a post-publication peer review process and medium for bringing greater attention to exceptional or unique papers. I only know it from perusing the occasional list and reading some of the reviews, but I find this forum extremely interesting, useful, and democratic. It may not have all the features you are describing, however. Check it out, see how close it comes!

    Link to this
  2. 2. Jerzy v. 3.0. 5:37 am 05/11/2012

    Universities should adopt official guideline that young scientists are evaluated by paper quality instead of an impact factor of the journal.

    Otherwise, young scientists will still be forced to publish in paywall journals, because this makes or loses their carrier. Young Ph.D. or a postdoc cannot afford to be bold.

    Nota bene, it is still usually forgotten that papers in any journal have terribly big variation of citations. High citation index is made by just a small minority of very high-cited papers plus a (very, very) long tail of low-cited papers. Therefore journal title is anyway a poor measure of a quality of the paper.

    Link to this
  3. 3. sjepstein 8:23 am 05/11/2012

    I don’t think there has to be a difference between how publication is paid for (OA vs. subscription) and the editorial and management/prestige quality of that journal. Which, from what I can see, is one of the things the Wellocome Trust/Howard Hughes/Max Planck eLife project is out to prove…

    (BTW, I work at Springer, my opinions here are only my own…)


    Link to this
  4. 4. StevanHarnad 11:34 pm 05/11/2012


    How about just publishing your paper in the best refereed journal whose quality standards it can meet and then self-archiving it in Harvard’s Open Access institutional repository, DASH as your Faculty has already agreed to do?

    That’s called “Green Open Access”. And self-archiving your article is a lot easier than trying to raise the quality standards of an Open Access Journal (“Gold OA”). (Prestige has to be earned — the old-fashioned way.)

    Link to this
  5. 5. jphekman 12:37 pm 05/12/2012

    CliffClark: F1000 seems very close to what I’m talking about, but it looks like you have to subscribe to it to get the list of recommended articles. Compare this to publication in, say, Nature — you have to pay to read the article, of course, but it’s free just to see that the article is in the publication (not true of content on F1000 unless I am misunderstanding their model). I think it’s important to at least have public, easy access to the list of recommended articles, even if the actual content of the recommendation is for pay.

    Jerzy: Agreed.

    sjepstein: I didn’t mean to imply that there HAS to be a correlation between prestige and how a publication is paid for, just that currently there seems to be — and that megajournals are not good at filtering content (that’s not their goal).

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article