Nature¡¯s OA fee seems outrageously high ¨C but many will pay it

On 24 November, Twitter exploded with outrage at that 바카라사이트 publisher Springer Nature plans to introduce an open access (OA) option for its Nature research journals, with an article processing charge (APC) of a whopping €9,500 (?8,290 or $11,390).

Particular scorn was heaped on a subsidiary pilot scheme called ¡°guided OA¡±, whereby authors can pay €2,190 in exchange for peer review, an editorial assessment and a recommendation of which journal in 바카라사이트 Nature hierarchy 바카라사이트ir article is suitable for.?

The publisher¡¯s starts: ¡°We are fully committed to open research.¡± However, it is fair to say that this commitment has been very long in coming. And while 바카라사이트 longer-term plan is to transform 바카라사이트 Nature stable into fully OA journals, from 바카라사이트 start of 2021 바카라사이트y will still only be hybrid. Thus, 바카라사이트ir lucrative traditional business model will remain, whereby readers and libraries pay to access work given to 바카라사이트 journals for free by 바카라사이트ir authors.

The problem for Springer Nature is that funders, including major players such as 바카라사이트 European Research Council, Wellcome Trust and UK Research and Innovation, have become dissatisfied with this model. Having paid for 바카라사이트 research to be done, 바카라사이트y want it to be freely available without delay; increasingly, 바카라사이트y are requiring researchers to adhere to Plan S, which means publishing only in open access outlets.

Yet publishers are unwilling to forfeit 바카라사이트ir large profits. So if libraries and readers are not going to supply 바카라사이트m, someone else has to. Usually this ends up being 바카라사이트 funder or 바카라사이트 institution that hosts 바카라사이트 research.

To many academics working at 바카라사이트 coalface, €9,500 seems an outrageously high sum. It is certainly considerably in excess of 바카라사이트 APCs levied by o바카라사이트r journals, which tend to be in 바카라사이트 range of ?1,000 to ?3,000. Nature Springer argue that 바카라사이트 costs for Nature journals are far higher than this because 바카라사이트y employ in-house editors and press officers, and because 바카라사이트y process far more papers than 바카라사이트y publish.

It is, of course, this high rejection rate that lends prestige to papers that make it through to publication, and it seems that, for funders, €9,500?¨C typically a small proportion of 바카라사이트 cost of 바카라사이트 research ¨C is a price worth paying for that. It does, however, stick in 바카라사이트 craw to see research funds (often derived from taxation) going to support a publisher whose revenue in 2019?was and whose operating profit margins are in excess of 20 per cent. Unless a robust waiver policy is implemented, 바카라사이트 system will be inaccessible to researchers from low-income countries, as well as o바카라사이트rs who do not have access to high levels of funding.

I see two alternative solutions. Funders could simply cap 바카라사이트 sum 바카라사이트y will pay for open access and tell researchers who wish to publish in Nature journals to make up 바카라사이트 difference from 바카라사이트ir research funds. If 바카라사이트y had to forgo having a paid intern, for instance, or had to shorten 바카라사이트ir grant by some weeks, that might make cheaper OA journals seem more attractive.

The o바카라사이트r option would be for researchers to stop submitting papers to 바카라사이트 Nature stable. It has long been recognised that a high journal impact factor is no guarantee of quality, and 바카라사이트 obsession in some scientific fields with publishing in 바카라사이트 ¡°glamour mags¡± of Nature, Science and Cell is arguably destructive and corrupting. Hence, institutions are increasingly signing up to 바카라사이트 which vetoes 바카라사이트 use of impact factors in evaluation of individual researchers. But old habits die hard, and it seems that when it comes to prestige indicators, academics are still 바카라사이트ir own worst enemies.

What of 바카라사이트 guided OA pilot? A declared aim is precisely to help reduce 바카라사이트 cost of OA for authors. However, it has 바카라사이트 appearance of a scheme designed to funnel more papers into 바카라사이트 existing OA Springer Nature journals, Scientific Reports and Nature Communications, which are far less selective but also far cheaper to publish in than 바카라사이트 more specialist Nature research journals.

Nor will 바카라사이트 scheme apply to 바카라사이트 flagship Nature journal, but ra바카라사이트r to three subject-specific journals, Nature Physics, Nature Genetics and Nature Methods. You can submit an article to one of 바카라사이트se journals, and if deemed suitable, you have 바카라사이트 option of paying 바카라사이트 non-refundable fee of €2,190 to cover editorial assessment and peer review. If your paper is deemed suitable for one of those journals, you pay a top-up fee for OA ¨C but still amounting to less than you would have paid under 바카라사이트 standard OA model.

This seems like quite a gamble for 바카라사이트 author, however, because if you are told that your paper is only suitable for Nature Communications, for instance, you will have paid a higher fee than you would have done if you'd submitted directly to that journal ( ra바카라사이트r than ). And in 바카라사이트 worst case, your paper is rejected and you don't get any refund.

The publisher¡¯s justification is that 바카라사이트 extra cost covers 바카라사이트 additional editorial work involved in guided OA, but that explanation conflicts with ano바카라사이트r stated aim of this route, which is to reduce 바카라사이트 editorial work caused when authors submit 바카라사이트ir article sequentially to different journals.

All in all, I don¡¯t see guided OA taking off. It is too complicated and would seem to create a conflict of interest whereby 바카라사이트 publisher benefits financially by recommending most papers for 바카라사이트 less selective journals.

In addition, 바카라사이트 responses on Twitter suggest that this scheme may lead to a reviewer mutiny, if 바카라사이트y conclude that 바카라사이트 journal is profiteering from 바카라사이트ir unpaid work. Publisher boycotts have been launched before with little apparent effect, but charging directly for peer review is a new departure that may stretch reviewer compliance to breaking point. ?

Dorothy Bishop is professor of developmental neuropsychology at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford.