Open-Access
Craig Rowell
Saturday, 06 October 2007 22:29 UTC
How does the proliferation of journals and the increasing demand for open-access impact the role of the editor? (cross-posted)
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Neither of these factors affects the role of the editor, who decides which papers to send out for review. This is decided on editorial grounds of novelty, interest to a wide range of readers, and so on. See ‘Criteria for publication’ on this page of the authors’ and reviewers’ website.
-
Something for editors and journals to take into account:
Where journals offer authors the option of paying to make their articles available for free access on publication, it’s important to avoid any potential bias or allegations of bias. The financial aspects should therefore be dealt with after the review process has been completed, or kept concealed from the review process and the individuals involved in that. This includes knowledge of whether or not an author intends to take up a paid open access option.So we tell our authors the following:
IMPORTANT: Please do not inform the Editorial Office or Editors prior to acceptance whether or not you intend to take up the open access option.Irene Hames
Managing Editor of The Plant Journal (which is not published by NPG) -
That’s a good point, Ingrid, thank you.
-
Sorry, I meant to type “Irene”, Irene. Thanks again.
-
I think that this (to wait and discuss open access options) is a pretty standard practice for most journals that have this sort of option, based on my conversations with others. There is no need to discuss publication costs or open access possibilities unless a paper is accepted, anyway.
Another way to get around this issue of open access is to use the Nature Precedings website. This provides a forum for your paper to be received by the community for free even before it is accepted for publication. This issues was discussed here.
-
Two good points very well made Noah !!!
Since I’m fairly new to the land of attempting to have my Manuscripts accepted for publication, this was initially quite an eye opener since I’m from outwith Academia.
Being a strong supporter of OA and Creative Commons, I was extremely happy to have a Paper accepted and published in Nature Precedings on Monday this week.
After the Festive break, I’ll get back to work on the next three Manu’s that are at various stages of construction.
A few hours ago, I was alerted to this “little” development. Cue Dylan et al, “The Times They Are A Changin’”
-
Just out…..
-
Noah, just to clarify – yes, it is, or should be, standard practice where there is a chargeable OA option to leave discussion until after acceptance. We add the guidance note to authors to prevent them inadvertently declaring their intentions prematurely, in their submission letters or in other communications during review.
-
In response to Graham’s note about the “OA mandate being signed into US law”, it has been Nature journal (and NPG journal) policy for some years now to encourage authors to upload their accepted versions of articles to PubMed and other academic repositories six months after the publication date. This is not only within the terms of the new law, but is encouraging faster upload, as the law specifies one year after the publication date.
See here for license policies
and here for policies on preprints (posting articles before they are submitted). -
Hello,
I think all the editors should start for e paper or m paper so that everyone gets a pleasant experience of online reading and distributed on all new media channels like mobiles, RSS, search engines, blogs, newsletters and pod casts.
Results
-