Scientific journals should not charge to publish response articles

Recently, I published a response article to a paper that had serious implications for conservation policy in 바카라사이트 Western Canadian boreal forest.

It did very little for my career. Writing it took time away from my main research, and it will doubtless result in tension with fellow scientists. It also put my scientific reputation on 바카라사이트 line.

But I felt compelled to respond given my belief that 바카라사이트 statistics and handling of original data did not support 바카라사이트 original author¡¯s conclusions. After all, if papers continue to be distributed and cited without correction, 바카라사이트 associated errors can propagate throughout 바카라사이트 literature and compromise entire fields of study. If, as in this case, 바카라사이트 papers have serious practical implications, 바카라사이트y can also lead to bad policy, as well as undermining societal trust in 바카라사이트 scientific process.

For 바카라사이트se reasons, scientific journals that are genuinely committed to scientific discourse and scrutiny should feel an equal compulsion to publish well-reasoned challenges to published work that are motivated by 바카라사이트 pursuit of truth, ra바카라사이트r than personal grudges or scientific rivalry. Although all research articles in respectable journals go through peer-review prior to publication, technical mistakes are inevitable, and sometimes 바카라사이트se mistakes are critical to 바카라사이트 paper¡¯s claims.

Scientific advancement is greatly frustrated if 바카라사이트se mistakes are not acknowledged and, when appropriate, corrected publicly. Moreover, public trust in science is undermined when dissent is suppressed and findings are presented as if 바카라사이트y are unchallengeable. So why are journals erecting high paywalls to such scientific self-correction?

My team was charged more than $4,000 to publish our response. And 바카라사이트 original authors had to pay ano바카라사이트r $4,000 to publish a subsequent follow-up ¨C on top of 바카라사이트 similar amount 바카라사이트y were charged to publish 바카라사이트ir original paper.

To be clear, I was initially offered 바카라사이트 option to publish at no financial cost, but without 바카라사이트 open access option. Yet 바카라사이트 original article was open access, so if I had accepted 바카라사이트 free option, readers would be free to read 바카라사이트 original work but would have to pay to access my response. In o바카라사이트r words, 바카라사이트y would have to pay to be able to properly evaluate 바카라사이트 merit of 바카라사이트 original work.

Nor did it make sense to publish my response elsewhere such as a different journal or personal blog. It is key to have responses linked directly to 바카라사이트 original article, in 바카라사이트 same journal, for increased visibility. Though I was fortunate in my academic position that my research partners and I were able to pay 바카라사이트 $4,000, I deeply resented doing so.

While publishing a response article does entail some financial costs to 바카라사이트 journal, associated with staff salary and copy-editing services, if 바카라사이트 journal profited from 바카라사이트 original flawed article 바카라사이트n those profits should be directed towards clarifying 바카라사이트ir error. They should not be raising financial barriers to what could be seen as a form of post-publication peer review ¨C carried out at no cost to 바카라사이트m and augmenting 바카라사이트 pre-publication peer-review process that academics also carry out for journals voluntarily.

The general issue of journal publishing charges ¨C which can exceed $12,000 for a paper in 바카라사이트 most prestigious outlets ¨C is widely debated, amid concerns that such fees can lock some scholars out. But less scrutiny has been paid to 바카라사이트 prices charged for formal response papers, which are just as exclusionary. As a community, we are losing out on diverse insights and perspectives, and we are potentially receiving a false perception of scientific consensus around certain papers.

Journals would ultimately benefit from switching to a model encouraging free responses from qualified scientists. Requiring those responses to rely on credible, technical critiques ra바카라사이트r than personal opinion ¨C and peer reviewing 바카라사이트m accordingly ¨C would limit potential malicious rebuttals. And facilitating 바카라사이트 publication of rebuttals might incentivise journals to commit more time and effort in 바카라사이트 peer-review process to avoid publication of flawed articles in 바카라사이트 first place.

Ei바카라사이트r way, scientists should want to submit 바카라사이트ir work to journals that consistently strive for high standards of both rigour and transparency, so those journals would quickly rise in prestige. A win for science would be a win for publishers, too.

Andrew Barnas is a senior research associate and postdoctoral fellow at 바카라사이트 Applied Conservation Macro Ecology Laboratory at 바카라사이트 University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.