“Dollfie Handcuff” by gordon (TD8316) is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
From reading Marc Couture’s article on Academic Publishing at a Crossroads, it sets the tone of asking ourselves if open peer review and peer review journals are the new future of publications? Marc explains to the reader that there is a shift by large publishing houses in using an open access model. Publication houses are changing from a subscription revenue model and instead moving towards article processing fees (APC) which the author pays directly, partially, or fully by supporting institutions or grants received. As well, we are seeing alternative initiatives in providing open access content to the public.
Students and faculty members enrolled in a Canadian university have reading access to publications through online subscription fees paid by their educational institution. As a master’s student at the University of Victoria, our library is part of the Canadian Research Knowledge Network (CKRN) which helps secure digital access to publications, advocates for Canadian researchers, and to support a digital infrastructure for preserving heritage documents. However, such costs for an individual who wants independent learning or for educational institutions that can’t burden the costs for access sets up barriers for learning.
One suggestion is creating an open peer review model, where anyone can publish an article in an online journal with review from their peers. Who then decides the individuals who will complete the peer review of the publication? Is it an established educational institution that completes the process, a government agency, or is it general members of the public? In addition, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva brings a valid point of author confidentiality. The author may not want to be identified during the peer review process in an open access forum, and may prefer a traditional peer review process that has guidelines and boundaries to protect the author’s privacy and confidentiality. Presently, there doesn’t appear to be a conclusive guideline and set of rules for outlining an open peer review process for authors.
Another consideration is the financial cost of having experts in their field complete peer reviews. Some educational institutions are well funded, and have tenured professors on staff with salaries that give individuals paid time to complete reviews. However, on a global platform we have financial inequity, and not all experts have the financial freedom to complete peer reviews or have the same salary system that Canadian universities provide to their professors. The decision to work and provide basic necessities in life or to read an article that gives no financial benefit is the reality that individuals need to face in different countries. In many cases international students who want to be experts in their field or professional academics come to Canada for training and the possibility of staying in Canada due to the financial stability and the support system of the educational institutions found in the country. In the article Academic Salaries and Contracts: What Do We Know? a comparison of salaries involving twenty eight countries identified the United Kingdom, Australia, United States, and Canada as the top countries in which the profession of academics offers the greatest financial security and transparency. In countries that don’t have financial security, professors moonlight outside of their educational institutions to sustain themselves.
However, there is evidence that open access journals can be developed and maintained. There is a very successful consortium open access journals found at the Open Library of Humanities (OLH). The funding model as outlined on their website is a charitable foundation that collects funds from institutional libraries who then pay the costs for publication. The fees are much lower compared to accessing journals from publishing houses. The OLH also received two grants which helped the initiative to get started. Each article published costs about $500, which covers the cost of the staff, maintaining the website, and other expenses related to having the article as open access. All of the participating library institutions in the OLH are notably located in Europe, Canada, the United States, or Australia. All of which have stable educational institutions to support academics. Social equity through open access to scholarship is the main driving force in creating the OLH partnership.
An alternative business model for funding open access is demonstrated by the Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP³). The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) is the governing body which collects funding from over 3000 libraries and institutions with over 40 participating countries. Money that previously went directly to publishers is centralized under the consortium, which is then given to pay partner publishers that provide open access to articles. An additional benefit are authors retain copyright over their published work.
Open access may need to be seeded in countries that have the institutional resources or grant funding from wealthy contributors to begin an initiative. An organized system of governance and support staff must also be made available to create an open access system that is also peer reviewed by experts in their field. Open peer review systems are quite new to the publication world, but partnerships are being made from large publishing houses such as Elsevier and scientific institutions such as SCOAP³ in exploring funding solutions that benefit the private and public sector. Overall, it is a step in the right direction in providing equity in education. How it moves forward in academia remains to be seen.
Leave a Reply