Loomio
Fri 26 Jun 2015 3:58PM

Do we need to challenge the use of impact factors before we can move to open access journals?

LD Lee de-Wit Public Seen by 16

There are some really innovative open access journals out there.

PeerJ for example charges just 99 dollars for a lifetime ability ton publish with them. This is cheaper than almost all publishers, and they seem to offer a professional peer review process and publication platform (formatting/archiving etc).

So why are we not all submitting to PeerJ already?

Presumably because we feel our career's depend upon high impact publications.

This is of course frustrating because impact factors are one of the most invalid metrics of quality one could envisage (see http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291/full).

Do we need to challenge further the use of impact factors, before we can truly innovate with better open access journals?

LD

Lee de-Wit Mon 29 Jun 2015 3:06PM

I also think it would have to be counted from scratch, I don't think PeerJPerception could inherent PeerJ's IF (of 2.1 btw, saw it announced today). Just as i-Perception could not inherent Perceptions IF.

I also don't think we should aim for a high impact factor as a goal. But I think we will want to have high peer review and editorial standards, that will probably result in a high IF as a by-product.

One of the most common things I've heard in criticism of Open Access journals is that they are just a dumping ground. I think we would want to challenge that, and explicitly aim to have higher standards.

DU

Jonas Kubilius Mon 29 Jun 2015 8:36PM

I meant PeerJ Perception not as a separate journal but rather as a section, just like there is "Psychophysics" in PLOS ONE and editors who are experts in this field. That way, PeerJ's blanket IF applies. What would be the benefits of a separate journal in any case?

LD

Lee de-Wit Mon 29 Jun 2015 8:47PM

I think the example of PLOS ONE highlights exactly why one would want a separate journal. The standards of different editors there seems to differ massively. I don't think we are in an age of post-publication peer review yet, so we should have clear standards, and a distinct editorial board who make those decisions.

The recent example from frontiers also highlights you need an academic board in charge, to ensure decisions are not made to maximize publications/income.

I also suspect lots of people are not convinced enough to support a new OA journal just for it's own sake, but if it had a strong editorial broad, and a good reputation, I think that would be more important than inheriting an impact factor of 2.1

DU

Jonas Kubilius Mon 29 Jun 2015 9:00PM

Sure, but remember the discussion is not about how big IF is but that the new journal should have it from the start, on top of a reputable editorial board. Being a section of PeerJ achieves both of these goals. The only problem I see is its branding.

NS

Nick Scott-Samuel Tue 30 Jun 2015 7:54AM

Perhaps a compromise position is to start as a section in PeerJ, and then branch off as a separate PeerJ Perception entity once we have enough momentum. This retains the "problem" of a lead time for an IF, but is safer than jumping straight into that position.

What we really need, however, are some data about exactly how getting an IF works...

AH

Alex Holcombe Tue 30 Jun 2015 8:51AM

Impact Factor is an unaccountable monopoly created by Thomson ISI so there are no guarantees, but Thomson ISI has a webpage explaining their journal evaluation criteria for inclusion that I believe was linked before. Binfield (publisher of PeerJ) has done well to get an impact factor so soon, it took PLoS ONE years longer I believe.