Open Access Is Open to Problems

I have been an advocate for open access and open source journals because I think that everyone should have the ability to benefit from research and studies that are, in effect, funded by the public; database and journal subscription prices often make such access cost prohibitive. Libraries seem to be jumping on the open access bandwagon, as well as many professors and researchers who write scholarly articles submitted and published through such resources. I'm truly glad to see that this effort has been gaining momentum over the past few years, as I firmly believe this benefits us all.

However (you could see that word coming, couldn't you?), there are also those that take advantage of the system and use it for their own benefit. I saw an article posted on the NPR blog, The Two-Way. My first reaction to this article was that another librarian was being targeted for posting his opinion about a publisher, such as what happened with Dale Askey and Edwin Meller Press. But then I read more into the article and started really understanding what is going on. Publishers are seeing the open access movement and are taking advantage of the opportunity to--how shall I put this?--scam those who wish to publish their work in an open access resource. Mind you, this is not indicative of the "genre" as a whole, but there are always a few bad apples that seem to make a bad name for the entire group.

As mentioned in the NPR article, Jeffrey Beall is the target of a supposed lawsuit brought forward by OMICS publishing which is accusing Beall of committing "a criminal offense" for writing something they claim is "highly inappropriate." (Need I go into the First Amendment and freedom of the press here? I think not.) So what did Beall write that's so offensive? I hear you ask. Well, Beall has a personal blog on which he discusses open access journals and publishers that have questionable practices in their handling of peer review, their dealings with authors, and other critical areas. And this is where I started to go down the rabbit hole. I took a look at Beall's blog.

From Beall's blog, several trends appear in regards to disreputable or questionable open access journals and publishers. First off, they seek out anyone and everyone who will submit something for publication; and while this isn't bad in and of itself, it's questionable when calls for submissions happen in circles or target individuals that have little or nothing to do with the area of information/expertise that the journal supposedly focuses on. Another trend that is apparent is that the fees the journals/publishers charge authors seem to be astronomically more than other open access publications--up to thousands of dollars that the author is expected to pay to have his/her article published. When authors refuse the fee and withdraw their article, sometimes it gets published anyway. A big selling point of these open access journals/publishers is that authors are promised a short turnaround time for peer review, sometimes as little as two weeks. By comparison, other scholarly journals (open access and subscription) have a turnaround time of up to several months. For someone under pressure to publish, the short peer review period can be a big draw. And these are not all of the "no-no's" that open access journals and publishers engage in. Take a look at Beall's Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers. Keep in mind that for each criterion to exist, there is likely a publisher or journal that has done what it warns against.

I personally see Beall as providing a service to grad students, professors, researchers, and others that want their work published. Not all of these individuals know to do their due diligence in finding reputable journals (regardless if they're open access or not) when publishing their work. I didn't realize that there were so many publishers and journals out there that prey upon the members of the research community. For all of those that made Beall's "black list," check his List of Predatory Publishers 2013. There are quite a few.

If you are interested, here are some additional posts from Beall's site I recommend. They will help give you a more complete view of the problem that I could in a single post:
The Onslaught of Questionable Open-Access Journals Persists Unabated
OMICS Ineptly Uses Social Media to Promote its Brands
OMICS Goes from "Predatory Publishing" to "Predatory Meetings"
What's Up with Dr. George Perry?
Documenting Plagiarism in the Journal of Academic and Business Ethics
The Epitome of Predatory Publishers

And here is an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education published back in March that discusses this growing problem.

So what to take away from all of this? 1) Protect yourself. Do your due diligence if you wish to publish an article. Make sure that the publisher doesn't engage in questionable practices. I would research online to make sure that there aren't any unusual complaints about the publisher that fall into line with what Beall warns against. And don't hesitate to use Beall's list as a starting point. 2) Protect others. Help make others aware of this problem and encourage them to stay away from any disreputable or questionable journals. Alert your colleagues, inform your institutions--especially the grad students! Warn everyone that they need to be selective about where they send their work (if they are not self-publishing or publishing through their institution). If you stop feeding the beast, it will die.

I'm saddened to see that something with so much benefit has been twisted in this manner. But forewarned is forearmed.

A subscription costs HOW much?

My work is done for the semester and I have officially reached the halfway point. During the last bit of course project polishing yesterday, I got an email from one of my subscription discussion lists about Elsevier. The email pointed to an article criticizing Elsevier's subscription prices. Now, I'm not naive; I know that libraries pay lots of money for subscriptions to journals and databases that they provide to their patrons. For universities, this cost is huge (for my university, knowing how many databases I have access to--well over one hundred--I cringe to think what the cost is) because of the need for research material for students and faculty, and it's even more if the university provides both print and digital access. But finding out what the cost is for some of the journals that Elsevier provides was, in a word, shocking.

One of the titles mentioned in the above article is Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, a journal with a subscription price of a mere $20,930 to US subscribers (the libraries in Japan must pay $31,000 a year for the same title). I took a look at the subscription list that is available to view to verify the price and to see how many issues that annual subscription pays for. It looks like there are 100 issues, as this subscription includes several titles, not just one; however, that still amounts to $209 per issue. And I found a few other gems: Analytica Chimica Acta for 1 year is $11,994 (48 issues which amounts to about $250 per issue), Annals of Nuclear Energy for 1 year is $4637 (12 issues which amounts to about $383 per issue), and Atherosclerosis--a medicine journal--for 1 year is $5955 (12 issues which amounts to about $496). This was just from skimming through the list of titles beginning with an A. Take a look for yourself; you can find the librarian subscription list here: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journalpricing.cws_home/subscrippricelistlibr/description.

I find it hard to justify these exorbitant costs especially since, as Rob Kirby said in a letter to his colleagues, "We mathematicians produce the papers, serve as editors, and serve as referees, all for free (except of course for our support by our universities and employers). Then with relatively small improvement to the product, publishers turn around and sell it to our libraries at (in many cases) a very high price" (view the full letter). Those academics in the field do the groundwork, and Elsevier (and other publishers of scholarly work) take the final product and sell it for a huge mark-up. And for the most part, they've done it with impunity. Libraries bow their heads and find ways to shoulder the subscription prices, sometimes having to make cuts in other areas in order to continue receiving a title considered "vital." This is exploitation, and it is wrong.

Tim Gowers very eloquently explores this issue in two posts on his blog. The first post, from late January, notes four of the biggest criticisms of Elsevier's business practices and explores ways in which academics and libraries could take a stand, but the key to both solutions relies on strength in numbers to gang up on the "bully" and tell Elsevier that the academic community will not put up with their exorbitant subscription prices. The second post was made in response to Elsevier's open letter defending their practices. Gowers addresses the points that Elsevier tries to make and raises some valid questions.

One thing that I question is the legality and ethics of this. The public is essentially paying twice for the research being closely guarded by Elsevier and other publishers. #1 The public pays the taxes that helps to fund the research grants that universities apply for to fund the projects that allow the faculty to do the research that's used to write the articles sent to the journal for publication. #2 The public pays the taxes or tuition that help to fund the libraries that purchase the published journals with the articles written to explain the research. Still with me? It's criminal to force libraries to pay through the nose for information the public served by the library has already paid for. I agree with Gowers in that it is time for a change--this system is broken and it's long been time for us to throw it away. Research is done with the intent to provide important/new/meaningful knowledge for the field its done for and to help make advances that better us--not to help publishers line their pockets.

If you're an academic and wish to show your support and protest against Elsevier's practices--and hopefully send a message to other journal publishers--please consider adding your name to The Cost of Knowledge, a website for researchers who are taking a stand and promising to refrain from publishing, refereeing, or performing editorial work on any Elsevier publication. Once I receive my degree and/or begin submitting my work for publication, I will be adding my name to this list as well.

Online Resource Development

I know, catchy title. But it's a topic that I've become familiar with lately. I have the opportunity to work on a project (I can't discuss the specifics yet) that focuses on developing a resource for online students. It's the first project of this nature that I've had the opportunity to work on and play a key role in, and while the added work will limit my "free time" even further, the experience will be worth it.

Before we can go anywhere with the project, we have to plan it out. And a major part of the planning is content. What will be on it? In order to figure out the look and feel of the final product, I have to know a) what the purpose of the project will be and b) what information we will need/want to include. In order to help figure that out, there are two key questions I think need to be answered:

1. What online resources do the students already have access to?
2. What do online students need?

To me, the second one is most important. As an online student myself, I have three semesters experience with utilizing online resources. I rely totally on my school's resource availability. Even things like e-books (which I never thought I would use and still don't particularly like) have proven informationally useful several times, especially when working on papers. I tried to list the main factors of what I need for my program in general terms and came up with four things.

Reliable resources. Online students must, must, must have resources that actually work. That could mean links that are still live and don't take the student to an error page or an unrelated page, or it could mean databases that are kept up-to-date with current articles and information (especially for fields that constantly change or have new information like medicine and tech). When students are required to research for assignments, they have to know that the available resources will perform "as promised."

Information for research. Online students also require a wide variety of resources for research. One database of articles will not be enough. In my own research, I've utilized at least eight databases--not counting podcasts, videos, blogs, and press releases that I've found outside of what my school provided me with. It is this kind of variety that will help build a good resource for online students--and will provide the information that their research needs require.

Communication. Online students are much more isolated than traditional students. Most communication happens asynchronously. It's difficult for many students to ask for help if they can't expect a response very quickly. Researching without help can be extremely difficult, especially if the student doesn't know how to research effectively. I think a good online resource would have a way for students to communicate with librarians instantly through chat services and similar programs (a service many libraries have on their websites). There could also be a "meeting place" area for students to communicate with other students (especially those in other programs or outside their classes) and staff.

Career resources. I'm lucky that I don't need assistance with this, but I know that job-hunting assistance is a service that is high in demand. Providing information on resume/CV building, interviewing, job searching, and applying for jobs would definitely help out the online student. I know from various Linked In groups I'm a member of that many just-graduated students are looking for help/guidance/advice as they look for jobs.

Now that I have four main areas identified for things that the online student needs, it's time to start fleshing out some content. I'll post more details of the project when I am able to.

P.S. Super easy crock pot recipe to be posted tomorrow!

Research is not exactly what I thought it was

With school now back in session for the fall, the seemingly unending round of reading and class discussions have restarted as well. One of my classes uses The Craft of Research (see full citation below) as the required text, but I have to say that for required reading this is turning out to be an extremely helpful book. Reading just the first chunk has resulted in some interesting introspection on my research "process" and what I think about the topic. I thought that I would post what I wrote on the class discussion board in response to the first part of the book we were assigned to read.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm finding this book very interesting, namely because it challenges some of my dearly-held preconceived notions and assumptions about research. On the very first page of the preface, the authors introduce the idea of the research project as anything but linear: "Experienced researchers loop back and forth, move forward a step or two before going back in order to move ahead again, [and] change direction..." (Booth, Colomb, & Joseph, 2008, p. xi). All throughout my academic career, I had viewed research (the action) as a process with a definite beginning, middle, and end that followed a straight path and process. The authors of this book are describing something that is fluid, almost with a life of its own. The path from concept (research idea) to product (the final draft) cannot be definitively defined as I had thought, and I understand the logic behind the idea of research as a cycle, rather than a linear path.

A line from Chapter 1 also caught my eye: "Research reported by others, in writing, is the source of most of what we believe" (Booth et al., 2008, p. 9). A common-sense line, but still profound because it's something we don't think about (at least I don't). It also helps to emphasize how important it is that research be accurate, factual, and unbiased. We have a duty to each other when we write; we rely on the written word for information about everything one could possibly imagine. Such information must not be misleading if we are to learn by it and use it to further expand our knowledge. As Booth et al (2008) notes, we must "think for others" when we write (p. 14), meaning we must think of those who would read/use our work--the "audience." This is something I know that I will have to work on.

I guess what this first chunk of the book has taught me is that research is so much bigger than one person. One person may be gathering the information and reporting it, but the benefit is for everyone. Past research affects the present, and current research will affect the future. Research is not the dry, dead thing I saw it as, but a living idea that is fluid and changing.
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M. (2008). The Craft of Research (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To anyone who is trying to teach the concept of research--why it's done, what one needs, how to do it--I would definitely recommend including this book as part of the curriculum. The language and writing style would probably appeal to a younger crowd and to those who are not necessarily required to conduct research as a part of their career. I think it would also provide a useful perspective to those in various academic communities who perform and report research on a regular basis.