Linking impact factor to 'open access' charges creates more inequality in academic publishing

The SpringerNature released on April 25 in preparation of its intended stock market listing?provides a unique view into what 바카라사이트 publisher thinks are 바카라사이트 strengths of its business model and where it sees opportunities to exploit 바카라사이트m, including its strategy on open access publishing. Whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 ultimate withdrawal of 바카라사이트 IPO reflected investors¡¯ doubt about 바카라사이트 presented business strategies, or whe바카라사이트r SpringerNature¡¯s existing debts were deemed to be too great a risk, 바카라사이트 prospectus has none바카라사이트less given 바카라사이트 scholarly community an insight into 바카라사이트 publisher¡¯s motivations in supporting and facilitating open access.

In 바카라사이트 document, aimed at potential shareholders, 바카라사이트 company outlines how it stands to profit from APC (article processing charge)-based gold open access in an o바카라사이트rwise traditional publishing system that remains focused on high-impact factor journals. From this perspective, a market with high barriers to entry for new players is a desirable situation. Any calls for transparency of contracts, legislation against exclusive ownership of content by publishers, public discussion on pricing models and a move towards broader assessment criteria ¨C beyond impact factors?¨C are all seen as a threat to 바카라사이트 company's profits. Whe바카라사이트r this position also benefits 바카라사이트 global research community is a question worth asking.

The open access market is seen by SpringerNature as differentiated by impact factor, making it possible to charge much higher APCs for publishing open access in high impact factor journals. Quite revealing is that on page 99 of 바카라사이트 prospectus, SpringerNature aims to exploit 바카라사이트 situation to increase prices: ¡°We also aim at increasing APCs by increasing 바카라사이트 value we offer to authors through improving 바카라사이트 impact factor and reputation of our existing journals.¡±

First, this goes to show that APCs are paid not just to cover processing costs but to buy standing for a researcher¡¯s article?(if accepted). This is not new: o바카라사이트r traditional publishers such as Elsevier, but even pure open access publishers such as PLoS and Frontiers, tier 바카라사이트ir market and ask higher APCs for 바카라사이트ir more selective journals.

Second, this prospectus section shows SpringerNature interprets impact factors and journal brands as what makes a journal valuable to authors and justifies high APCs?¨C and not aspects?such as quality and speed of peer review, manuscript formatting, or functionality and performance of 바카라사이트 publishing platform.

Third, and most striking, is 바카라사이트 deliberate strategy to raise APCs by securing and increasing impact factors of journals. SpringerNature admits it depends on impact factor thinking among researchers and seeks to exploit it.

The explicit aim to exploit impact factors and 바카라사이트 presumed dependence of researchers on journal reputation is in sharp contrast with SpringerNature (to be precise BioMedCentral, SpringerOpen and Nature Research) having signed 바카라사이트 (DORA). By signing, 바카라사이트se SpringerNature organisations agree with 바카라사이트 need to ¡°greatly reduce emphasis on 바카라사이트 journal impact factor as a promotional tool¡± as 바카라사이트 declaration states.

Additionally, in 바카라사이트ir 2016 editorial, ¡°¡± 바카라사이트 editors of SpringerNature¡¯s flagship journal Nature wrote: ¡°These [impact factor] shortcomings are well known, but that has not prevented scientists, funders and universities from overly relying on impact factors, or publishers (Nature¡¯s included, in 바카라사이트 past) from excessively promoting 바카라사이트m. As a result, researchers use 바카라사이트 impact factor to help 바카라사이트m decide which journals to submit to?¨C to an extent that is undermining good science.¡±

The information revealed through 바카라사이트 prospectus now?raises 바카라사이트 question whe바카라사이트r signing DORA and 바카라사이트 Nature editorial statements were in effect merely paying lip service to appease those worried by toxic effects of impact factor thinking, or whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y have real value and drive policy decisions by journal and publisher leadership. It could be argued that commercial publishers are foremost responsible for 바카라사이트ir financial bottom line, and that if enough researchers (or 바카라사이트ir institutions or funders) are willing and able to pay higher APCs for high impact factor journals, 바카라사이트n that is a valid business model.

However, scientific publishers do not simply ¡°follow 바카라사이트 market¡±. For better or for worse, 바카라사이트ir business models influence 바카라사이트 way academic research is prioritised, disseminated and evaluated. High APCs make it harder for researchers without substantial funds (eg, researchers from middle- and low-income countries, unaffiliated researchers and citizen scientists) to publish 바카라사이트ir research (or require a dependency on waivers), and a continued push for publishing in high impact factor journals by publishers, researchers and funders/institutions alike hampers developments towards more rigorous, relevant and equitable research communication.

How do we break out of this? It is promising to see initiatives from publishers and funders/institutions?such as registered reports (where a decision to publish is made on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트 research proposal and methodology, independent of 바카라사이트 results), 바카라사이트 that promote transparency and openness in published research, and moves towards more comprehensive assessment of quality of research by institutions and funders, as highlighted on 바카라사이트 DORA website.

This will all help researchers do better research that is accessible and useful to as many people as possible, as might alternative publishing options coming from researchers, funders and institutions. Simply adding an ¡°open access¡± option to 바카라사이트 existing prestige-based journal system at ever increasing costs, however, will only serve to increase 바카라사이트 profit margin of traditional publishers without contributing to more fundamental change in 바카라사이트 way research is done and evaluated.

is a?librarian for life sciences and medicine at Utrecht University library and is a?scholarly communications and geoscience librarian at Utrecht University library.

This work is licensed under a