editorial ISSN 1948-6596 Guides, not gatekeepers The 7th annual #OpenAccess Week 1 begins 20th October, so we thought we would take some time to reflect on the current publishing landscape, to recognize our editors’ and reviewers’ important contributions, and to encourage young authors who may be daunted by seemingly bleak terrain; we are a community. That editors are ‘gatekeepers’ (Crane 1967, Simon & Fyfe 1994), abetted by reviewers (de Grazia 1963, Hojat et al. 2003), has become a common motif in critiques of modern for-profit scientific publishing (Marusic 2010). The proposition is, roughly, that editors restrict access of meritorious science to journals of perceived higher value (Hojat et al. 2003) under the guise of providing content expertise (Powell 2010), while in fact of- ten erring in judgment (Smith 2006) and being motivated by the journal’s not authors’ interests 2 . Disappointing enough in its own right, when true, capricious (editorial) review takes on added sig- nificance as simple indices of publication rates and short-term impact grow in influence 3 . In an age of rapidly multiplying journals it seems increasingly possible to publish and perish. There are two broader threats too: that risky ‘high impact’ pa- pers are favored over thorough but less head- turning science, and conversely that innovations are filtered out prior to publication because they are kicking the shins, rather than standing on the shoulders, of giants. In the first case, science gains a reputation for being fundamentally flawed 2,4 . In the second case, incremental advances trap disci- plines within a detrimental cycle of confirmation bias (de Grazia 1963 in Crane 1967). Editors incar- nated as gatekeepers protect corrupt and crum- bling empires. Open Access (OA) journals such as PLoS ONE and PeerJ, that intend to review only “scientific and methodological soundness” and take editorial decisions without determining “‘impact’, ‘novelty’ or ‘interest’” 5 , are promoted as possible solutions. The perception that such review should increase the flow of data, for exam- ple by reducing under-reporting of negative re- sults (the ‘file drawer problem’ [Rosenthal 1979]), contributes to backing of these journals by advo- cates of Open Science and Big Data. Publication, in droves, by and for the masses, the logic goes, should democratize data, speed science, and en- hance knowledge. Carried to its logical end, PLoS Currents and rOpenSci for example, provide tools practically for self-publishing. In these models, the sorting of science occurs after, not before, publi- cation and is done through social media, com- menting, and citation. Laudable intentions not- withstanding, the intended objectivity may be un- attainable: review is susceptible to ‘unconscious bias’ (e.g., Englund et al. 1999, Moss-Racusin et al. 2012), social networks may coalesce around and amplify shared values (McPherson et al. 2001, Saez-Trumper et al. 2013), commenting is shaped by a subset of active network members 6 , and cita- tions are used selectively (Greenberg 2009). Amid the clamor of clashing publication models, few have asked “what are [academic jour- nals] for”? (Whittaker 2014:2). Simply, they should make science both more accessible and better (Whittaker 2014). Critics imply that tradi- tional for-profit non-OA publishers do neither. Does pay-to-publish OA necessarily do either? Re- moving financial barriers to reading scientific pa- pers is a ‘common good’ but alone is not synony- mous with greater access. Fees conceivably could prohibit some authors from publishing; others may publish so much that if the proverbial needle is in a haystack, it becomes harder to find among the burgeoning pile of chaff. Yet pay-to-publish 1 http://openaccessweek.org/, last accessed 25/09/2014 2 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html?pagewanted=all, last accessed 25/09/2014 3 http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/12/whats-wrong-science, last accessed 25/09/2014 4 http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/ 21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble, last accessed 25/09/2014 5 https://peerj.com/about/aims-and-scope/, last accessed 25/09/2014 6 e.g. https://www.facebook.com/groups/6908354463/, last accessed 25/09/2014 frontiers of biogeography 6.3, 2014 — © 2014 the authors; journal compilation © 2014 The International Biogeography Society
Read full abstract