Thank you for sharing this post. I am a fan of OA. The fee we pay for the journal goes for reviewing and formatting and making it available online. OA journals also host your data and make it available for everyone. So, first, I know what I am paying for, and second, I can use free data, which is fantastic. Also, the more independence that OA journals possess, the more reduction is in the number of people who want to make a profit from the business of publishing. This cycle reduces the total cost of publishing. In addition, I imagine that one day I will graduate but still want to do research. I will again need to pay for access to traditional journals in case I want to do research. Even when in university, not all traditional journals are accessible because universities do not go into contract with all journals. I need to pay for the journals that the university did not have a contract with. Long story short, making my research available for everyone, broadens its impact both in terms of metrics, such as citation number and in terms of helping those who really want to read it but do not have access to it. For these reasons and many more I am a fan of visibility.
Author: Armin
Comment on Research misconduct: how many more? by Armin
Hi, Carlos,
It is worth bringing up this issue of motivations in class and discuss it. I agree with the notion that the pressure to publish is an important one. A solution is less reliance on the number of publications and more on the quality or the importance of the subject and what is achieved by the research, but this is hard to measure. I have come across researchers publishing repetitive experiments or pursuing “salami publishing” in even well-known journals just to increase the number of articles. I think it is the journal reviewer/editors’ task to filter similar works and ask the writer to archive them in another way. This may encourage focusing on new solutions for new problems. We can talk a more about this during the class.
