Keywords
exploitative publishing, ethical publishing, academic culture, discrimination
This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway.
This article is included in the The Future of Scholarly Publishing collection.
exploitative publishing, ethical publishing, academic culture, discrimination
Version 2 has been revised to include a more accurate aim, an ethical framework, and further details about the differences between the ethical and exploitative routes to publishing.
See the author's detailed response to the review by Chris H.J. Hartgerink
See the author's detailed response to the review by Björn Brembs
See the author's detailed response to the review by Anthony Dart
In December 2016, over 150 UK universities signed away over £200 million (Gowers, 2016) to the publishing giant Elsevier so researchers at those institutions that can afford it can read their own research. The global average cost of publishing a paywalled article is $5000 (van Noorden, 2013). However, it costs only $1.30–318 to post and preserve a PDF on the internet (Bogich et al., 2016), which is essentially all that is needed for modern publishing. How did academic publishing become dissociated from the actual cost of publishing?
The cause of the problem is multifaceted; however, I argue that researchers have played a key role because they pursue prestige, which has further distanced researchers from understanding how publishing works and how much it costs. Current incentive structures pressure researchers into pursuing prestige to advance their careers – a cultural tradition that is maladaptive because it leads to poor research methods and practices (e.g., Edwards & Roy, 2017; Lawrence, 2016; Nosek et al., 2012; Smaldino & McElreath, 2016). Much attention has been given to this topic elsewhere. My aim here is to explain how the current publishing landscape works and to highlight ethical and exploitative aspects that are not always obvious. I argue that it is in the best interest of researchers, academia, the public, and research rigor to adopt ethical publishing choices. Adopting such choices will instigate a cultural shift in academia.
The publishing landscape has had the potential to change rapidly since the internet made communicating results cheap and easy, and many options now exist to place the focus back on increasing research rigor. Publishers represent a large industry in which each researcher might feel like they play a small and insignificant role. Researchers focus on their research and the myriad of other time demanding activities needed to attempt a career in academia, leaving no time to conduct the meta-research needed to unpack how large publishers hide what they do. I present this meta-research here by explaining two contrasting routes to publication: exploitative and ethical.
Since researchers are primarily funded by the public, we have a responsibility to publish ethically (Edwards & Roy, 2017; Tennant et al., 2016). We are also responsible for creating a culture that values ethical practices that increase research rigor – a legacy we can leave to future generations. In this ethical framework, I rely on three principles:
1) Researchers and publishers have a responsibility to the public to provide them with free access to publicly funded products, which are a common good (Stilgoe et al., 2013; Woodward, 1990)
2) Publishers of research products have a responsibility to researchers to value the generation and packaging of knowledge (Fuchs & Sandoval, 2013)
3) Researchers have a responsibility to the public to conduct rigorous research because it will serve as the foundation for the advancement of discoveries, it provides the best value for money, and earns public trust (Nosek & Bar-Anan, 2012)
When a paper is accepted at a journal that will put it behind a paywall (i.e., require a journal subscription to read), we researchers are excited and think it was free because it cost us nothing. However, academia (i.e., university libraries) pays an average $5000 per article on our behalf through subscription fees, which results in a 37% profit margin for Elsevier for example (van Noorden, 2013), whose goal is to maximize profits (Figure 1A). The goal of academia is to share knowledge (Nosek & Bar-Anan, 2012), which is in direct competition with a corporate publisher’s primary goal, which is to make a profit (Husted & de Jesus Salazar, 2006). Additionally, universities breach their standard practice of choosing the most competitive bid: publishers do not compete with each other to obtain university subscriptions on the premise that each publisher’s goods are unique (Eve, 2016).
(A) The exploitative route exploits researchers and academia and discriminates against who can read research because only individuals at those institutions that can afford journal subscriptions can read the research. (B) The ethical route keeps profits inside academia and does not discriminate against who can read the research. OA=Open Access, APC=Article Processing Charge. Note: the APC range is taken from ethical examples in the field of animal behavior (see Table 1).
Publishers pay nothing for the product (the journal article) or the services involved in the peer review of the product (e.g., volunteer editor and peer reviewer time). It is estimated that the global academic community contributes £1.9 billion per year in kind so their researchers can serve as peer reviewers (Research Information Network, 2008). After obtaining these publicly-funded products and services, publishers sell our research back to us at a profit. This violates ethical principles 1 and 2 above.
When the paper is published, only individuals at institutions that can afford journal subscriptions can read the research. This is a form of indirect discrimination, which is “a practice, policy or rule which applies to everyone in the same way, but it has a worse effect on some people than others” (Citizen’s Advice, 2017). Therefore, we not only discriminate against the public (who usually pays for our research in the first place), we also discriminate against other researchers and the ‘scholarly poor’ (e.g., medical doctors, dentists, patients, industry, politicians) when publishing behind paywalls (Murray-Rust, 2011; Nosek & Bar-Anan, 2012; Tennant et al., 2016). This violates anti-discrimination policies that exist at most universities, and ethical principle 1 above.
Further, staff at the World Health Organization (HINARI http://www.who.int/hinari/en/) and the United Nations (AGORA http://www.fao.org/agora/en/) spend valuable resources trying to get low-income countries access to our research, rather than focusing on more pressing matters, such as feeding hungry people. What’s more, publishers breach these agreements by denying previously-promised access (Koehlmoos & Smith, 2011).
Additionally, whole research fields are discriminated against because their papers do not generate as many citations as papers in other fields (e.g., Falagas & Alexiou, 2008). If a generalist journal in the sciences accepts papers from less cited fields, their journal’s Thomson Reuters impact factor would decrease (PLoS Medicine Editors, 2006). The same problem exists in the humanities only here books are the research products and publishers are the gatekeepers. Consequently, generalist science journal and humanities publisher interests influence what research is conducted because this is the only kind they will publish.
When a paper is accepted at a 100% open access (OA) journal, an article processing charge (APC) is incurred or there is no cost depending on which journal a researcher chooses (Figure 1B). APCs are paid by researchers, their funders, or their institutions. The researcher, not the publisher, decides how much is being paid to publish an article by choosing a journal with an APC they can afford or choose to support. Given that the actual cost of publishing an article is $1.30–318 (Bogich et al., 2016), it is important to consider where the additional money goes when paying APCs. Some journals charge higher APCs to cover their additional costs, which might involve paying staff for editorial services, promoting the journal, writing news stories, or developing new publishing technology (e.g., see eLife’s cost breakdown at: https://elifesciences.org/elife-news/inside-elife-what-it-costs-publish). For some journals, their higher APCs also provide income for the publisher’s shareholders. When choosing to pay a higher APC, it is important to consider whether the activities the public’s money will be invested in are aligned with the three ethical principles above. There is a further argument to be made that no money should be exchanged when publishing research products, neither via journal subscriptions nor APCs, because the public has already paid for the research. Any costs that are charged in addition to the initial funding creates inequalities in who can pay to publish or read (Fuchs & Sandoval, 2013), and violates ethical principle 1.
Choosing a 100% OA journal is not enough for the ethical route to publication. To uphold ethical principle 2, researchers must be valued for their innovation and labor. Keeping publishing profits inside academia values researchers by making more money available to them, for example, by increasing grant funding and freeing up money for their universities to invest more in research, teaching, and new faculty positions. For money to stay inside academia, journals must also be published by an ethical publisher. Ethical publishers are academic non-profit organizations, which ensure that profits are reinvested in academia, and for-profit corporations that charge no or low APCs and/or heavily invest profits in academia and/or are working to modernize the publishing infrastructure for researchers. It is time consuming to investigate all available journals to determine which are more ethical. Lists, such as the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), can help determine which journals are reputable, but further information is needed about a journal and publisher’s business model to evaluate their ethical or exploitative practices. I provide such a list for the field of animal behavior in Table 1. If a similar list does not exist for your field, consider making one and sharing it.
100% open access journals (listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals; www.doaj.org) at publishers that keep profits inside academia. Article processing charges vary from $0–2900 and fit a range of budgets. In addition to making articles open access, other factors that can promote research rigor include publishing the review history alongside the published article (Open Reviews), having the methods and analyses peer-reviewed before the data are collected (Registered Reports), and selecting articles based on their scientific validity rather than their predicted impact on the field (which is subjective). CC-BY licenses allow people to not only read the article, but also to access its content. Some researchers prefer to submit papers to society-owned journals. NP=non-profit organization, FP=for-profit organization.
Journal | Article Processing Charge | Open Reviews | Registered Reports accepted | License | Articles selected for scientific validity not subjective impact | Society- owned | Publisher |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Royal Society Open Science | Free | Yes | Yes | CC-BY | Yes | Yes | Royal Society (NP) |
PeerJ | $399/author (lifetime membership) | Yes | No | CC-BY | Yes | No | PeerJ (FP*) |
eLife | $2500 | Yes | No | CC-BY | No | No | eLife (NP) |
Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews | Free for authors^ | No | No | CC-BY- NC-ND 3.0 | Yes | Yes | The Comparative Cognition Society (NP) |
PLOS (several journals) | $1495–2900 | No | No | CC-BY | Some yes, others no | No | PLOS (NP) |
ScienceOpen Research | $400 or 800 | Yes | No | CC-BY 4.0 | Yes | No | ScienceOpen (FP*) |
Biology Open | $1495 | No | No | CC-BY | Yes | No | Company of Biologists (NP) |
Editor and peer reviewer time are donated as in the Exploitative route. However, the services go toward benefiting academia rather than decreasing publisher costs to maximize profits. In either publishing route, one can make their peer reviewing efforts more valuable to academia by making pre- and/or post-publication reviews public (e.g., via PubPeer.com, a blog, or submitting/reviewing for journals that publish the peer review history alongside the published article).
One common misconception is that publishing in journals owned by academic societies is always ethical. This is not actually the case because many society journals are not 100% OA and are published by exploitative publishers. For example, in the field of animal behavior, the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour owns the journal Animal Behavior, which is a hybrid journal (not 100% OA) published by Elsevier. The Ethological Society owns the journal Ethology, which is also a hybrid journal and is published by Wiley. Both Elsevier and Wiley drain profits from academia (van Noorden, 2013). If your favorite journals are not on the ethical route, you can ask them to make their journal 100% OA and to change to an ethical publisher or use free open source publishing software (see Tennant et al., 2016 and www.corinalogan.com/journals.html).
OA articles do not discriminate against who can read them because they are freely available to read by everyone (in alignment with ethical principle 1 above). This results in OA articles having more readers, citations, and media attention, and their authors benefit from more job and funding opportunities (McKiernan et al., 2016; Tennant et al., 2016). Additionally, OA journals with CC-BY licenses ensure authors retain the copyright to their research, and enable others to reuse the work (with credit) and mine the content (https://sparcopen.org/our-work/author-rights/introduction-to-copyright-resources/). This means that rather than simply gaining access to a PDF to read, individuals instead gain access to the information inside the PDF, such as the data, figures, and content. Publishing OA upholds ethical principle 3 because it increases research rigor by disseminating the research more broadly and rapidly (Nosek & Bar-Anan, 2012), and facilitates the verification of its replicability (Ioannidis, 2014).
Just because an article is OA does not mean it is ethically published. Some subscription journals (called hybrid journals) give researchers the option to pay APCs, which allows that article to be OA. The hybrid business model was originally implemented as one step in the transition to a 100% OA publishing landscape. However, the goal was never achieved because publishers make more money off of the hybrid business model (Björk, 2012): hybrid APCs are more expensive than APCs at 100% OA journals, which further exploits researchers and academia (Laakso & Björk, 2016; Pinfield et al., 2015; Solomon & Björk, 2016). Moreover, many publishers ‘double dip’ by collecting APCs in addition to journal subscription fees for OA articles. These publishers charge more than once for the same article, further increasing their profits. Therefore, the ethical route to publication is also the cheapest option.
Funders are driving changes in incentive structures by requiring OA (e.g., Research Councils UK, Wellcome Trust, European Commission, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation). Researchers can also drive change (Nosek & Bar-Anan, 2012): academia is made up of individuals, and the values of these individuals create academic culture. If researchers align their publishing choices with ethical publishing practices, then academic culture changes. We can all easily change our values and actions right now. Connecting researchers with the costs and consequences of our publishing choices will help us stay connected with the rapidly changing publishing landscape and shift academic publishing away from exploitative models, which will also save academia millions. All of the options we need to publish ethically already exist, and some even cost researchers nothing.
CJL has a Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellowship from the Leverhulme Trust and Isaac Newton Trust.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
I thank Laurent Gatto, Stephen Eglen, Peter Lawrence, Peter Murray-Rust, Rupert Gatti, Yvonne Nobis, Dieter Lukas, and Erin McKiernan for manuscript feedback and discussions; Ross Mounce for discussions; and Björn Brembs, Anthony Dart, and Chris Hartgerink for comments on version 1.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: I am and have been a vocal proponent of Open Access
Reviewer Expertise: meta-research, statistics
Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?
Partly
Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?
Partly
Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature?
Partly
Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?
Partly
References
1. Chawla D: Gates Foundation strikes deal to allow its researchers to publish in Science journals. Science. 2017. Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: I am and have been a vocal proponent of Open Access
Reviewer Expertise: meta-research, statistics
Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?
Yes
Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?
Partly
Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature?
Partly
Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?
Partly
Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?
Partly
Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature?
Partly
Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | |||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Version 2 (revision) 09 Jun 17 |
read | read | |
Version 1 20 Apr 17 |
read | read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (2)
The academic community seeks ways out of its current crisis of irreproducibility and waste, ... Continue reading I do not understand why this (very useful and helpful) opinion piece needs to be peer reviewed.
The academic community seeks ways out of its current crisis of irreproducibility and waste, where metrics- and vanity-driven for-profit scholarly publishing plays a major role as culprit.
We need all possible fresh ideas on the table, and we need to discuss them. We do not need some academics to pre-approve those ideas for publication, by measuring them against their own world-views.
Those are neither scientific results nor is it a review of research literature. There is nothing to peer review, but there is a lot to comment and discuss.
So my comment on this article is: yes, put these ideas into young scientists heads. Bring them to the debate about ethical publishing. There is no need to have a pay-to-publish journal (yes, F1000R) to host this debate, or that useless peer review.
The academic community seeks ways out of its current crisis of irreproducibility and waste, where metrics- and vanity-driven for-profit scholarly publishing plays a major role as culprit.
We need all possible fresh ideas on the table, and we need to discuss them. We do not need some academics to pre-approve those ideas for publication, by measuring them against their own world-views.
Those are neither scientific results nor is it a review of research literature. There is nothing to peer review, but there is a lot to comment and discuss.
So my comment on this article is: yes, put these ideas into young scientists heads. Bring them to the debate about ethical publishing. There is no need to have a pay-to-publish journal (yes, F1000R) to host this debate, or that useless peer review.