Previously I argued that traditional journals should be abandoned and green open access repositories like arXiv are the way forward. More recently I praised the “DIY” open access journal The Journal of Machine Learning Research run by researchers, writing that chemists should do something similar.
But now I think I’m wrong because I’ve underestimated the value of journal editors.
On Stephen Curry’s blog a commenter said:
“The current system of peer-reviewed journals is altogether very flawed. … [A]t the end of the day, the journals make millions just formatting, laying them out and sending a few emails. This just cannot be right.”
6 months ago I would have probably agreed. Anonymous Publishing Employee replied (it’s worth reading in full) saying that they are wrong because they underestimate the work a journal really does. Editors have to decide whether a paper fits in with their journal and is worth sending for review, obviously requiring technical knowledge. If it is worth sending they have to decide who to send it to, requiring personal knowledge of the scientists. A lot of administrative time is spent chasing up reviewers, but once the reviews are in the editor has to make a decision or repeat the review process again. If accepted, subsequent copy editing and layout takes time (money) and there are other indirect costs too, e.g. IT and rent. The main expense, they believe, is salaries (not that surprising).
Before I’ve said that peer review would work in green OA repos, but now I think I was wrong. Editors have a lot of specialist knowledge that ensures the right people review papers. It’s also required to finally decide whether to accept or reject a paper. I now doubt that a comparable level of peer review would happen in a repository. There’s no incentive for scientists to review post-publication. With a journal, there’s a certain amount of flattery involved when a scientist is asked to review by an editor. In effect, the editors drive the peer review process forwards, whereas it might never get started in a repo.
Furthermore, if we only had green OA repositories there would be another loss that I’ve never considered before: the commentaries, reviews, editorials and research highlights that complement the original research articles.
These are written or commissioned by editors. Recently I’ve really enjoyed the extra content in Nature Chemistry. An interview with Chief Editor Stuart Cantrill goes into more depth about the work behind the scenes. Lab on a Chip is another journal that I like to keep track of—obviously much more specialised than Nature Chemistry—and it has similar articles.
A complete shift to green OA would result in the loss of this valuable content. Websites or blogs might spring up to take it’s place, but I doubt it would be of the same calibre. It would be a real shame to lose it because it’s a great way to broaden one’s knowledge and stumble across interesting work.
Overall I think I was wrong about green OA repositories. Journal editors (rather than the “journal” in itself) are a valuable asset to the peer review process and scientific endeavour as a whole. Still, more could be done to enhance the transparency of the peer review, but I think that open access publication simply won’t succeed post-publication peer review in green repositories.