Does vision science need a new open access journal (Pre-discussion for ECVP2015)
Lee de-Wit
Public
Seen by 203
This years ECVP will host a discussion on 'open access' in vision science.
ECVP discussed the problems with our current publication system in 2012, but since then, publishers continue to make excessive profits from journal subscriptions, or 'gold open access' fees.
The potential promise of 'open access' seems to have turned largely into another funding route for established publishers to profit further from the publication process. Whilst the inefficient 'subscription' model seems to have continued unaffected.
The potential for open access to improve the way we do science still remains however. In fact the recent advances in openly available software to host open access journals is rapidly improving (http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/). There are also new publishing companies that are offering much more reasonable publication fees. Journals like PeerJ charge just 99 dollars for a life time ability to publish with the journal, suggesting that the +2000/3000 dollar fees from traditional journals are a massive inflation of the actual costs.
Is it time to make use of these advances to consider setting up a new low cost open access 'Journal of Perception'?
Poll Created Thu 25 Jun 2015 5:21PM
We should seriously consider setting up a new low cost open access Journal of Perception Closed Sat 4 Jul 2015 5:07PM
The time is right to consider a new low cost open access Journal of Perception.
There are a range of open source packages for hosting and managing a journal such as http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/. That mean that it could be run with little cost - so long as there are volunteers to run and maintain it (and of course, edit/submit/review!).
There are also much more efficient publishers such as PeerJ and Ubiquity Press that charge substantially less than traditional publishers.
The key to this move however surely depends on the enthusiasm within the vision science community to try and innovate with a new journal.
Hopefully this discussion will help us to find out if that enthusiasm exists...
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 100.0% | 8 |
|
| Abstain | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Disagree | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Block | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 13 |
|
8 of 21 people have participated (38%)
Lee de-Wit
Mon 29 Jun 2015 8:39PM
We should start a discussion with PeerJ about setting up a Journal of Perception with their platform.
Jonas Kubilius
Mon 29 Jun 2015 8:44PM
Should try for PeerJ Perception
Jonas Kubilius
Tue 30 Jun 2015 5:09PM
Should try for PeerJ Vision
Tom Wallis
Wed 1 Jul 2015 8:57AM
I support the PeerJ route, and additionally would like the journal to strongly encourage the archiving of data and code at time of publication.
Steven Vanmarcke
Sat 4 Jul 2015 9:03AM
I agree, but only if this idea is supported by the main protagonists of vision research. No easier way to attain Machiavellistic opportunism than to divide and conquer. Since science is no politics we should be much more weary about that.
Alex Holcombe Thu 25 Jun 2015 7:52PM
For context, how much does iPerception charge authors? On its "Notes for Authors" page, all I can find is that if one does NOT use their template, the author fee is 70GBP/page http://submission.perceptionweb.com/supplement/instructions/ip/authors.html
Nick Scott-Samuel Thu 25 Jun 2015 8:18PM
Good question, and something I should know as an editor... but I don't. Aha, here you go:
http://i-perception.perceptionweb.com/faq/
£35/page if using template, £70 if not, minimum £200.
Marco Bertamini Thu 25 Jun 2015 8:39PM
On the one hand setting up a journal is feasable and there would be many people interested in helping and contributing. So the temptation is to say let's do this. On the other hand the bigger picture is that the problems we are all aware of are more structural with the way science is published, and on that I am a bit less confident that we could easily make a difference. There are problems with a publication model in which few very large publishers make large amount of money from journals. In fact it appears that the concentration in the hands of a few publishers is increasing (see recent PLOS One paper on that). Small journals set up by academics may do well, but soon they will get an offer from a large publisher that it is almost impossible to refuse. I know of a couple of such cases. So in summary I see the idea of setting up a new journal as exciting and not that hard actually, but what I am worried about is what difference can that make in the long run?
Nick Scott-Samuel · Thu 25 Jun 2015 7:28PM
Two things (in the short term) will probably determine he success of this idea:
1. Cost - how cheap will it be to publish? If we undercut other places, we should get submissions.
2. Editorial board - who can we get on board (ho ho)? Obviously we're all fine people, but it will definitely help to get as many "influential" vision people involved as we can. The problem I see is that these are mostly people who don't seem all that open to new ideas... Johan strikes me as an exception. Who else?