During the past decade, the technological changes in scientific publishing have been remarkable. The ability to move scientific manuscripts through the review and editing processes electronically has been a breakthrough in efficiency that once seemed unimaginable. The fact that entire journals—such as this one—exist entirely in electronic format is also a breakthrough. However, as with any new technology, challenges and questions emerge in the wake of the increases in efficiency that we enjoy. One of the key challenges organizations such as The Wildlife Society face is how to develop an understanding of how new technology is affecting the basic model of scientific publishing. Traditional models of scientific publication historically revolved around professional societies that organized peer-reviewed scientific journals focused on some area of scientific specialization. Many of these societies were organized in the late 19th or early 20th century and have developed collective reputations for excellence in their publications. Having subscription-based journals run by professional societies was the model for peer-reviewed scientific publishing for more than a century. This was the case until about a decade ago, when the game changed with the advent of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) in 2006 and “open-access” scientific publishing. The open-access content that was largely pioneered by PLoS has taken the scientific publishing world by storm. It is based on an “author pays” business model, without charging readers or libraries a subscription fee to access the published papers. As you might imagine, the idea of providing free access to peer-reviewed scientific papers became very popular very quickly. For example, in 2010, the journal PLoS ONE published nearly 7,000 biology and medicine articles, and it had an impact factor 3 times greater than The Journal of Wildlife Management. With only 5 years of publication, PLoS ONE became the largest life science journal in the world. The open-access concept clearly revolutionized scientific publishing, and it did so virtually overnight. Obviously, the explosion of open-access journals during the past decade presents a challenge to traditional subscription-based scientific publications. However, there are some potential problems in the apparent paradise of open-access publishing. The open-access publication model pioneered by PLoS is not without critics. For example, because open-access journals are driven by an author-pays economic model, they have a potential conflict of interest that can compromise peer-review standards; by accepting more articles, the journal generates more revenue. The acceptance rate of articles in PLoS ONE is about 70%, which is much higher than most traditional peer-reviewed journals published by scientific societies. Another criticism is that after publication in open-access journals such as PLoS ONE, articles are subjected to community-based peer review that involves online annotation and additional comments from readers. At first, such direct involvement between authors and readers might seem refreshing, but it also has the potential to short-circuit the more deliberative point–counter-point process used to challenge traditional scientific articles that appear in print or secure electronic format, such as the Wildlife Society Bulletin. While not necessarily a criticism, it is important to note journals like those in the PLoS series are not linked with a particular scientific society. Thus, professional benefits of publishing in an open-access journal such as PLoS ONE begin and end with publication. This brings us full circle to the title of this editorial. While the open-access scientific publishing model is with us to stay, we believe that there is still a strong and important niche for traditional scientific publications linked to professional societies. This niche not only involves subscription-based peer-reviewed journals that publish high-quality articles, it also involves a suite of member services that are useful—and we would argue even essential—as one moves along the career arc of their profession. The Wildlife Society, which has recently experienced healthy growth (membership is at an all-time high), has done so by providing such member services as The Wildlife Professional, frequent e-news bulletins to members, technical reviews, a book publication series, position statements on controversial issues, outstanding annual conferences in diverse geographic locations, and a network of sections and chapters for members to become involved with projects and initiatives at regional and local scales. Open-access journals, although they indeed publish massive amounts of material, provide none of these other important professional services. So, if you are reading this and you are not a member of The Wildlife Society, please join! Or, if you are a member of The Wildlife Society, but do not have a subscription to Wildlife Society Bulletin, please subscribe! Please also note that some new guidelines for Authors, Associate Editors, and Reviewers of manuscripts for Wildlife Society Bulletin appear at the end of this issue.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Open Access
Jan 31, 2014
Saskia Neubacher 
