Clinical Radiology 69 (2014) 1214e1218
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Clinical Radiology journal homepage: www.clinicalradiologyonline.net
Commentary
Open access publication of radiology papers J. Donnellan*, W. Cassar-Torreggiani Department of Radiology, Tallaght Hospital, Dublin 24, Ireland
article in formation Article history: Received 17 June 2014 Received in revised form 14 July 2014 Accepted 6 August 2014
Introduction Following the publication of the Finch report “Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications”1 there has been an almost instant explosion of unsolicited communication to clinicians by open access (OA) journals worldwide, looking to entice radiologists and radiology trainees to submit work to their publications. There are obvious benefits such as ease of publication and a multitude of new avenues to publish work using the new OA approach, but there are significant cautions in terms of quality and the potential detriment it may have to conventional journals. In this commentary, we discuss the potential arguments in favour and against OA journals and attempt to offer a way for academics and clinicians alike to form their own opinion on the advent of this novel approach to the scientific literature. It should be noted that the approach to OA between specialities, let alone in radiology, is not homogeneous. There is intracontinental variation as well as worldwide variation in the uptake of OA. This is in part linked to the difference between North American societies d who directly publish their own journals d and European and * Guarantor and correspondent: J. Donnellan, Department of Radiology, Tallaght Hospital, Dublin 24, Ireland. Tel./fax: þ353 14142000. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (J. Donnellan).
Asian Societies for whom publishing is undertaken by external businesses.2 Indeed the variation within specialities is large, with an assessment of Spanish paediatric journals showing that most journal have OA but vary widely in its implementation,3 whereas a similar assessment of pharmacology publishers has shown variation from complete OA publishing by the majority to some journals reverting back to classical subscription basis after almost a decade of OA.4
Arguments in favour of the OA model Exposure and citations The effect of OA on a scientific publication can be summarized as two components: the ability for the scientific community to be aware of the study by accessing the study, and the number of citations that study recruits allowing it to have an influence in clinical practice. Repeated studies indicate that scholarly articles that are available in OA form are downloaded and cited three times more often than articles published only in subscription-based journals,5,6 and that citations occur more quickly than with a traditional publication cycle.5
Access speed and affordability The concept of OA is embedded in the idea of faster, easier access to research results than was previously
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2014.08.005 0009-9260/Ó 2014 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Donnellan, W. Cassar-Torreggiani / Clinical Radiology 69 (2014) 1214e1218
possible with subscription-based services. This is envisaged through digitization in the main, which also allows for reduced reviewing time (for any journals still sending hard copies to reviewers), as well as reduced time to publication following review due to not requiring printing of hardcopies. This streamlined approach coupled with the free access to results would reduce the current extended timeframe from submission through citation.
1215
progressive and it has been proposed that under current models of publishing, the public has to pay in triplicate to get access to publicly funded research5: the initial grant/ salaries required to perform the research, the cost of submitting the research for peer review and publication (peer reviewers often themselves are publicly funded), and the cost of accessing once published.
Early bench-to-bedside transition
Serials crisis It has been cited that journal subscriptions have risen in the order of fourfold while library budgets have seen stagnation, or at best a 2% rise in budget in the same timeframe.7,8 This has led to what has been termed the “serials crisis”, whereby libraries can no longer afford to subscribe to as many or as wide an array of journals as previously. This further limits the accessibility of information by researchers, clinicians, and the public as these were the sources accessed by those with limited research budgets. This has been negated somewhat by the ever-increasing number of OA journals being indexed by large databases (50% of the German “EBZ” database is now OA journals8); however, this still does not allow access to the hardcopypublished-only works of major or prestigious journals. Other databases such as the Web of Science or Scopus have historically only referenced traditionally published works.
Improved efficiency of information flow Those supporting OA argue that removing barriers to freely accessible information, namely expense, prestige, and labour, will allow people to work in a more efficient manner. The thinking is that a researcher will have a smother investigative process, as they will not face limited access to poignant papers during their work stream. It is envisaged that OA, with its freely available information streaming to researchers, will promote blue-sky research by allowing unimpeded information assimilation.
Effects on authors’ rights By allowing an OA approach, the authors themselves are able to stipulate rights with the publishers in more lenient ways. Many OA journals already provide non-exclusive rights in their agreements with authors, allowing simultaneous publishing of material in a number of different locations or repositories, such as university repositories or shared access drives. This can allow authors to retain some rights to disseminate information much more freely than previously.
Publicly funded research The European Commission openly supports OA publishing of publically funded research through its research frameworks of FP7 and Horizon 2020.12,13 Many member states have made significant progress using these mechanisms; in particular, the UK, the Netherlands, and Germany are good examples. However, not all states have been as
Work has been conducted investigating the time between when a study is published in a repository and the time to its initial citation.9,10 This shows that the time to first citation has halved over the last decade, and this correlates with the findings that OA articles published in the same journal are cited faster than their subscription-only counterparts. This allows faster communication of findings amongst the scientific community and, subsequently, faster advances, potentially affecting patients.
Establishment of “a priori” Due to the non-exclusive nature of the OA publishing agreements between the author and publisher, the author is free to post their findings to a repository while the article is being reviewed by a publisher. This can help settle debates about which author/institution/centre was first in attaining a certain finding or goal as the repository will record the date that a paper or finding was uploaded to it, irrespective of how long it takes a publisher to review or accept a paper for publication. However, this does leave the burden of work on the author to submit work to a repository, where permitted, simultaneously with each submission to a journal.
Long-term storage and accessibility Having digital submissions and publications of work will allow for long-term searchable storage of research. The published works remain on a digital server, which if accessible by a meta-data search engine, would allow for quick survey of previously published work and help a researcher undertaking a literature review, for example, in assessing historical data.
Concerns over the implementation of OA Quality control The major concern discussed in relation to OA is that of quality control. OA as a new pathway to publishing is not well established and the reputation of many of the OA journals is yet unproven. There is concern over the article processing charge (APC) required by many of these journals as it is seen to incentivize publication. Indeed, the concern is that if a journal makes its livelihood from authors APCs upon submission, that authors will submit to journals likely to publish their works. Similarly, if a journal develops a reputation as being difficult to publish in, authors may not
1216
J. Donnellan, W. Cassar-Torreggiani / Clinical Radiology 69 (2014) 1214e1218
submit to the journal, irrespective of how established or prestigious that journal may seem. This will lead to pressure upon journals to maintain a steady inflow of submissions, irrespective of number of publications, which may be difficult if a journal applies too stringent a review process. It would seem possible then also, that this pressure to publish would be passed from the publisher to the reviewers as a reviewer likely to accept an article could be favoured ahead of one who may apply more strict controls. As stated in our opening statement, Radiologists in our institution have been approached directly by publishers asking for submission of articles, a very new and unfamiliar development. Some of these publishers have also offered opportunities to guest edit an entire journal issue, irrespective of the area of expertise or indeed the clinical focus area of the journal in question. This does not help in maintaining the highest standards of scientific publishing and leaves a large grey space for those with less than ideal publishing ethics to operate within.
Authenticity The authenticity of a digital document can sometimes be debatable, for example, in the case of routine iterations in the evolution of a paper, where multiple slightly different copies may exist. The original document submitted to a repository needs to be locked from future changes by having a digital signature so as to prove a priori and to ensure that post-publication changes are noted as such.
Sustainability of the model for financing The viability of the APC as the mode of financing this endeavour is uncertain. Journals would need a large number of submissions from authors in order to “replace” their current incomes from subscriptions; however, if the APC is set too high, this will dissuade authors from submitting to that journal. Due to the unquantifiable nature as to the number of submissions a new journal can expect, this puts a large question mark over whether or not a new OA journal would even be viable. This would be less of an issue for currently established journals who have a steady flow of submissions due to their confirmed track record; however, these are the ones least likely to be “OA-ready”, compared to a newly established “OA-centric” journal, and would likely need higher APCs, the detriment of which is described elsewhere.
Searching metrics With OA articles being stored in numerous repositories or digital servers, it would become paramount that standardized metadata be applied to all articles to allow appropriate search and retrieval. These data would need to be subject-based and standardized across platforms as well as indicating the permanent location of the digital file in question. In current repositories with the “Deutsche initiative fur netzwerkinformation” (DINI) certification, the digital copies are guaranteed for 5 years11; however, to ensure
long-term findability, OA articles would need to be archived for much longer time frames with permanent traceability.
Legality There are concerns relating to current articles in press and those articles already published. If a journal adopts a new OA policy, what becomes of these? In an OA setting, any articles not available freely to researchers will be at a significant disadvantage in terms of both visibility and citations. However, articles already in press and those already published are under the remit of established contracts, many of which were committed to before the idea of OA, and it is unclear how these articles would be affected.
Institution funding Authors within an institution that has funding available for APCs also face a new dilemma of having to compete for funding to submit a paper to an OA journal. This would undoubtedly lead to discrepancies in submissions between departments and indeed between disciplines, as historically the sciences have received more funding than the humanities. This difference in funding would now be passed forward to differences in rates of submission to journals and lead to a decrease in the number of articles being submitted (and ergo published) by the humanities and other poorly funded disciplines. For authors not based in institutions with funding is readily available for APCs or indeed for authors working in not-for-profit organizations, the need to aggregate the substantial (up to £1800/$3000 in some cases) amounts of finance required for submission could lead to influence from external organizations or lobbyists willing to help finance articles with favourable outcomes. Consider also societies or groups who have generated income from the subscription rates to their journals as a means to subsidize other activities. The loss of revenue to these societies could lead to the reduction in other services and events usually provided. The full impact of OA on these groups will not be obvious until such time as they have changed to an OA-funding model, by which time it may be too late to preserve the associated services.
Targeting information to groups Currently, journals can ensure particular groups get access to particular articles, for example allowing radiology residents free access to radiology-education-centric titles so as to promote the journal and promote learning within radiology. However, in an OA environment, everybody has equal access to all information: clinical, laboratory, proven and hypothetical. This could further burden patients with knowledge of evolving unproven treatments, or indeed options not available to them, particularly if the doctor is seen by the patient to be refusing to offer a particular treatment. This advent of the “internet-informed” patient has led to doctors responding in different ways, with some feeling threatened.15 This response leads to a further
J. Donnellan, W. Cassar-Torreggiani / Clinical Radiology 69 (2014) 1214e1218
deterioration in the doctorepatient relationship and an increase in negative outcomes.15
Time-consuming for authors and end users The likely route to OA, where the author has control over the manuscript and can archive it in repositories as they see fit, will be time-consuming for authors as they must learn how and where to archive their manuscripts for extended periods of time. This is likely to be laborious and timeconsuming for all initially; however, institutions with established libraries or IT systems may develop in-house solutions. This is unlikely for authors who are not in large institutions, or indeed those in institutions without a rigorous research and publishing history. This will further serve to separate authors on the basis of institution and funding level, and create differing classes of author, those who are and those who are not able to afford the APCs of particular journals.
Other arguments bearing consideration Trainees and junior researchers at the beginning of a career Increased publication opportunities for trainees looking to build their curricula vitae as part of their career progression will abound with OA. If access to publication becomes easier, then the age-old debate of quality versus quantity will become an issue when assessing a trainee’s performance. Quality review of publications will need to be closely monitored and kept as independent as possible from the publishing process, particularly in the early stages of OA as journals joust for rankings and submissions. Applications to radiology training schemes, particularly those with strong academic affiliations have been requiring PMIDs (PubMed Identifier) to be submitted as proof of publication. If OA becomes the norm with resultant digitalonly publications and multiple databases, will these requirements change in line with the database of vogue and who will decide the criteria for acceptance?
Ethics of OA publishing Parker et al.14 make convincing arguments that those involved in practical and applied ethics should be at the forefront in welcoming OA, in whichever guise it takes. They state that applied ethics is inherently linked to discussion on contemporary policy and practice for which public debate is essential. Therefore, it is a question of whether we as radiologist physicians see ourselves as involved in contemporary ethics during the course of our work, and if so, should we not then wholeheartedly support OA?
Is the battle already lost? The current research suggests that OA documents are being cited faster and more often than their subscriptiononly counterparts. Thus, although some articles in
1217
Table 1 Arguments in favour and opposed to open access publishing. Arguments in favour Increased exposure and citations. Increased access speed and affordability End to the “serials crisis” Improved efficiency of information flow Improved authors rights of distribution End to triple pay of publicly funded research Early bench-to-bedside transition Establishment of “a priori” Long-term storage and accessibility
Arguments against Unproven quality control Need for standardized searching metrics Proof of authenticity Legal considerations for articles already published or in press Sustainability of financing Funding discrepancies between and within institutions Non-targeting of information Time consuming
subscribed press will continue to be cited due to their level of impact/quality, the majority of citations will start to come from OA journals. Over time this will lead to a change in where researchers look for their information, and as a result, where they will eventually preferentially consider publishing.
Conclusion Many of the benefits of OA can be summarized with the term “digitization”. The remaining benefits can be largely summarized with the word “free”. Although there are significant advantages to an OA model, the potential trade-offs are significant (Table 1). What is undoubtedly needed is an alternative way of funding journals that does not separate authors on the basis of institution or field, but instead stays true to the historical ideals of peer-review, whereby articles of merit will stand the best chance of publication, irrespective of ancillary factors. This debate is complex in nature and will likely continue long after many journals have tendered their solution for OA publishing. In its current format, OA seems to offer universal equity and access, but at a risk that many may find unacceptable.
References 1. Report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings. Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications. Available at: http://www. researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-reportexecutive-summary-FINAL-VERSION.pdf. [accessed 10.06.14]. 2. Sconfienza LM, Sardanelli F. Radiological journals in the online world: should we think Open? Eur Radiol 2013;23:1175e7. 3. Aleixandre-Benavent R, Vidal-Infer A, Alonso-Arroyo A, et al. Open availability of articles and raw research data in spanish pediatrics journals [in Spanish]. An Pediatr (Barc) 2013, Jun 18. pii: S0025-7753(14) 00340e6. 4. Conway M. Open access: a new model for publishing in the pharmacological sciences. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol (United States) 2012;1:pe7.
1218
J. Donnellan, W. Cassar-Torreggiani / Clinical Radiology 69 (2014) 1214e1218
5. Lawrence S. “Free online availability substantially increases a papers impact”, Nature Web Debates. Available at: http://www.nature.com/ nature/debates/e-access/Articles/lawrence.html. [accessed 10.06.14]. 6. Harnad S. “Comparing the Impact of Open Access (OA) vs. Non-OA Articles in the Same Journals”, D-Lib Magazine. Available at: http://www. dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/06harnad.html. [accessed 10.06.14]. 7. Worlock K. “The pros and cons of Open Access”, Nature Web Focus. Available at: http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/34. html. [accessed 10.06.14]. 8. Open access to scholarly information, Dutch National website providing information for academics about the advantages of Open Access publicly financed research, Utrecht University Library Group, “The pros and cons of Open Access”. Available at: http://www.openaccess.nl/ whatisopenaccess/prosandconsofopenaccess. [accessed 10.06.14]. 9. Swan A. “Open Access and the Progress of Science”, American Scientist Macroscope. Available at: http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/ open-access-and-the-progress-of-science. [accessed 10.06.14]. 10. Harnad S, Brody T. “Comparing the Impact of Open Access (OA) vs. NonOA Articles in the Same Journals”, University of Southampton Open
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Access directory. Available at: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/260207/. [accessed 10.06.14]. Open Access to Scholarly Information, “German initiative for Networked Information (DINI)”. Available at: http://openaccess.net/de_ en/useful_information_for/repository_operators/dini_certification/. [accessed 11.06.14]. D. Willetts “Public access to publicly-funded research”, Oral statement to Parliment, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ public-access-to-publicly-funded-researche2. [accessed 11.06.14]. European Commission Research & Innovation, “Policy Initiatives of the European Commission”. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/ science-society/index.cfm?fuseaction¼public.topic&id¼1294&lang¼1. [accessed 12.06.14]. Parker M. “The ethics of open access publishing”. BMC Med Ethics (En- 25 gland) 2013;14:16. Available at, http://www.biomedcentral.com/14726939/14/16 [accessed 14.06.14]. McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information:how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns 2006;63:24e8.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Clinical Radiology journal homepage: www.clinicalradiologyonline.net
Commentary
Open access publication of radiology papers J. Donnellan*, W. Cassar-Torreggiani Department of Radiology, Tallaght Hospital, Dublin 24, Ireland
article in formation Article history: Received 17 June 2014 Received in revised form 14 July 2014 Accepted 6 August 2014
Introduction Following the publication of the Finch report “Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications”1 there has been an almost instant explosion of unsolicited communication to clinicians by open access (OA) journals worldwide, looking to entice radiologists and radiology trainees to submit work to their publications. There are obvious benefits such as ease of publication and a multitude of new avenues to publish work using the new OA approach, but there are significant cautions in terms of quality and the potential detriment it may have to conventional journals. In this commentary, we discuss the potential arguments in favour and against OA journals and attempt to offer a way for academics and clinicians alike to form their own opinion on the advent of this novel approach to the scientific literature. It should be noted that the approach to OA between specialities, let alone in radiology, is not homogeneous. There is intracontinental variation as well as worldwide variation in the uptake of OA. This is in part linked to the difference between North American societies d who directly publish their own journals d and European and * Guarantor and correspondent: J. Donnellan, Department of Radiology, Tallaght Hospital, Dublin 24, Ireland. Tel./fax: þ353 14142000. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (J. Donnellan).
Asian Societies for whom publishing is undertaken by external businesses.2 Indeed the variation within specialities is large, with an assessment of Spanish paediatric journals showing that most journal have OA but vary widely in its implementation,3 whereas a similar assessment of pharmacology publishers has shown variation from complete OA publishing by the majority to some journals reverting back to classical subscription basis after almost a decade of OA.4
Arguments in favour of the OA model Exposure and citations The effect of OA on a scientific publication can be summarized as two components: the ability for the scientific community to be aware of the study by accessing the study, and the number of citations that study recruits allowing it to have an influence in clinical practice. Repeated studies indicate that scholarly articles that are available in OA form are downloaded and cited three times more often than articles published only in subscription-based journals,5,6 and that citations occur more quickly than with a traditional publication cycle.5
Access speed and affordability The concept of OA is embedded in the idea of faster, easier access to research results than was previously
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2014.08.005 0009-9260/Ó 2014 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Donnellan, W. Cassar-Torreggiani / Clinical Radiology 69 (2014) 1214e1218
possible with subscription-based services. This is envisaged through digitization in the main, which also allows for reduced reviewing time (for any journals still sending hard copies to reviewers), as well as reduced time to publication following review due to not requiring printing of hardcopies. This streamlined approach coupled with the free access to results would reduce the current extended timeframe from submission through citation.
1215
progressive and it has been proposed that under current models of publishing, the public has to pay in triplicate to get access to publicly funded research5: the initial grant/ salaries required to perform the research, the cost of submitting the research for peer review and publication (peer reviewers often themselves are publicly funded), and the cost of accessing once published.
Early bench-to-bedside transition
Serials crisis It has been cited that journal subscriptions have risen in the order of fourfold while library budgets have seen stagnation, or at best a 2% rise in budget in the same timeframe.7,8 This has led to what has been termed the “serials crisis”, whereby libraries can no longer afford to subscribe to as many or as wide an array of journals as previously. This further limits the accessibility of information by researchers, clinicians, and the public as these were the sources accessed by those with limited research budgets. This has been negated somewhat by the ever-increasing number of OA journals being indexed by large databases (50% of the German “EBZ” database is now OA journals8); however, this still does not allow access to the hardcopypublished-only works of major or prestigious journals. Other databases such as the Web of Science or Scopus have historically only referenced traditionally published works.
Improved efficiency of information flow Those supporting OA argue that removing barriers to freely accessible information, namely expense, prestige, and labour, will allow people to work in a more efficient manner. The thinking is that a researcher will have a smother investigative process, as they will not face limited access to poignant papers during their work stream. It is envisaged that OA, with its freely available information streaming to researchers, will promote blue-sky research by allowing unimpeded information assimilation.
Effects on authors’ rights By allowing an OA approach, the authors themselves are able to stipulate rights with the publishers in more lenient ways. Many OA journals already provide non-exclusive rights in their agreements with authors, allowing simultaneous publishing of material in a number of different locations or repositories, such as university repositories or shared access drives. This can allow authors to retain some rights to disseminate information much more freely than previously.
Publicly funded research The European Commission openly supports OA publishing of publically funded research through its research frameworks of FP7 and Horizon 2020.12,13 Many member states have made significant progress using these mechanisms; in particular, the UK, the Netherlands, and Germany are good examples. However, not all states have been as
Work has been conducted investigating the time between when a study is published in a repository and the time to its initial citation.9,10 This shows that the time to first citation has halved over the last decade, and this correlates with the findings that OA articles published in the same journal are cited faster than their subscription-only counterparts. This allows faster communication of findings amongst the scientific community and, subsequently, faster advances, potentially affecting patients.
Establishment of “a priori” Due to the non-exclusive nature of the OA publishing agreements between the author and publisher, the author is free to post their findings to a repository while the article is being reviewed by a publisher. This can help settle debates about which author/institution/centre was first in attaining a certain finding or goal as the repository will record the date that a paper or finding was uploaded to it, irrespective of how long it takes a publisher to review or accept a paper for publication. However, this does leave the burden of work on the author to submit work to a repository, where permitted, simultaneously with each submission to a journal.
Long-term storage and accessibility Having digital submissions and publications of work will allow for long-term searchable storage of research. The published works remain on a digital server, which if accessible by a meta-data search engine, would allow for quick survey of previously published work and help a researcher undertaking a literature review, for example, in assessing historical data.
Concerns over the implementation of OA Quality control The major concern discussed in relation to OA is that of quality control. OA as a new pathway to publishing is not well established and the reputation of many of the OA journals is yet unproven. There is concern over the article processing charge (APC) required by many of these journals as it is seen to incentivize publication. Indeed, the concern is that if a journal makes its livelihood from authors APCs upon submission, that authors will submit to journals likely to publish their works. Similarly, if a journal develops a reputation as being difficult to publish in, authors may not
1216
J. Donnellan, W. Cassar-Torreggiani / Clinical Radiology 69 (2014) 1214e1218
submit to the journal, irrespective of how established or prestigious that journal may seem. This will lead to pressure upon journals to maintain a steady inflow of submissions, irrespective of number of publications, which may be difficult if a journal applies too stringent a review process. It would seem possible then also, that this pressure to publish would be passed from the publisher to the reviewers as a reviewer likely to accept an article could be favoured ahead of one who may apply more strict controls. As stated in our opening statement, Radiologists in our institution have been approached directly by publishers asking for submission of articles, a very new and unfamiliar development. Some of these publishers have also offered opportunities to guest edit an entire journal issue, irrespective of the area of expertise or indeed the clinical focus area of the journal in question. This does not help in maintaining the highest standards of scientific publishing and leaves a large grey space for those with less than ideal publishing ethics to operate within.
Authenticity The authenticity of a digital document can sometimes be debatable, for example, in the case of routine iterations in the evolution of a paper, where multiple slightly different copies may exist. The original document submitted to a repository needs to be locked from future changes by having a digital signature so as to prove a priori and to ensure that post-publication changes are noted as such.
Sustainability of the model for financing The viability of the APC as the mode of financing this endeavour is uncertain. Journals would need a large number of submissions from authors in order to “replace” their current incomes from subscriptions; however, if the APC is set too high, this will dissuade authors from submitting to that journal. Due to the unquantifiable nature as to the number of submissions a new journal can expect, this puts a large question mark over whether or not a new OA journal would even be viable. This would be less of an issue for currently established journals who have a steady flow of submissions due to their confirmed track record; however, these are the ones least likely to be “OA-ready”, compared to a newly established “OA-centric” journal, and would likely need higher APCs, the detriment of which is described elsewhere.
Searching metrics With OA articles being stored in numerous repositories or digital servers, it would become paramount that standardized metadata be applied to all articles to allow appropriate search and retrieval. These data would need to be subject-based and standardized across platforms as well as indicating the permanent location of the digital file in question. In current repositories with the “Deutsche initiative fur netzwerkinformation” (DINI) certification, the digital copies are guaranteed for 5 years11; however, to ensure
long-term findability, OA articles would need to be archived for much longer time frames with permanent traceability.
Legality There are concerns relating to current articles in press and those articles already published. If a journal adopts a new OA policy, what becomes of these? In an OA setting, any articles not available freely to researchers will be at a significant disadvantage in terms of both visibility and citations. However, articles already in press and those already published are under the remit of established contracts, many of which were committed to before the idea of OA, and it is unclear how these articles would be affected.
Institution funding Authors within an institution that has funding available for APCs also face a new dilemma of having to compete for funding to submit a paper to an OA journal. This would undoubtedly lead to discrepancies in submissions between departments and indeed between disciplines, as historically the sciences have received more funding than the humanities. This difference in funding would now be passed forward to differences in rates of submission to journals and lead to a decrease in the number of articles being submitted (and ergo published) by the humanities and other poorly funded disciplines. For authors not based in institutions with funding is readily available for APCs or indeed for authors working in not-for-profit organizations, the need to aggregate the substantial (up to £1800/$3000 in some cases) amounts of finance required for submission could lead to influence from external organizations or lobbyists willing to help finance articles with favourable outcomes. Consider also societies or groups who have generated income from the subscription rates to their journals as a means to subsidize other activities. The loss of revenue to these societies could lead to the reduction in other services and events usually provided. The full impact of OA on these groups will not be obvious until such time as they have changed to an OA-funding model, by which time it may be too late to preserve the associated services.
Targeting information to groups Currently, journals can ensure particular groups get access to particular articles, for example allowing radiology residents free access to radiology-education-centric titles so as to promote the journal and promote learning within radiology. However, in an OA environment, everybody has equal access to all information: clinical, laboratory, proven and hypothetical. This could further burden patients with knowledge of evolving unproven treatments, or indeed options not available to them, particularly if the doctor is seen by the patient to be refusing to offer a particular treatment. This advent of the “internet-informed” patient has led to doctors responding in different ways, with some feeling threatened.15 This response leads to a further
J. Donnellan, W. Cassar-Torreggiani / Clinical Radiology 69 (2014) 1214e1218
deterioration in the doctorepatient relationship and an increase in negative outcomes.15
Time-consuming for authors and end users The likely route to OA, where the author has control over the manuscript and can archive it in repositories as they see fit, will be time-consuming for authors as they must learn how and where to archive their manuscripts for extended periods of time. This is likely to be laborious and timeconsuming for all initially; however, institutions with established libraries or IT systems may develop in-house solutions. This is unlikely for authors who are not in large institutions, or indeed those in institutions without a rigorous research and publishing history. This will further serve to separate authors on the basis of institution and funding level, and create differing classes of author, those who are and those who are not able to afford the APCs of particular journals.
Other arguments bearing consideration Trainees and junior researchers at the beginning of a career Increased publication opportunities for trainees looking to build their curricula vitae as part of their career progression will abound with OA. If access to publication becomes easier, then the age-old debate of quality versus quantity will become an issue when assessing a trainee’s performance. Quality review of publications will need to be closely monitored and kept as independent as possible from the publishing process, particularly in the early stages of OA as journals joust for rankings and submissions. Applications to radiology training schemes, particularly those with strong academic affiliations have been requiring PMIDs (PubMed Identifier) to be submitted as proof of publication. If OA becomes the norm with resultant digitalonly publications and multiple databases, will these requirements change in line with the database of vogue and who will decide the criteria for acceptance?
Ethics of OA publishing Parker et al.14 make convincing arguments that those involved in practical and applied ethics should be at the forefront in welcoming OA, in whichever guise it takes. They state that applied ethics is inherently linked to discussion on contemporary policy and practice for which public debate is essential. Therefore, it is a question of whether we as radiologist physicians see ourselves as involved in contemporary ethics during the course of our work, and if so, should we not then wholeheartedly support OA?
Is the battle already lost? The current research suggests that OA documents are being cited faster and more often than their subscriptiononly counterparts. Thus, although some articles in
1217
Table 1 Arguments in favour and opposed to open access publishing. Arguments in favour Increased exposure and citations. Increased access speed and affordability End to the “serials crisis” Improved efficiency of information flow Improved authors rights of distribution End to triple pay of publicly funded research Early bench-to-bedside transition Establishment of “a priori” Long-term storage and accessibility
Arguments against Unproven quality control Need for standardized searching metrics Proof of authenticity Legal considerations for articles already published or in press Sustainability of financing Funding discrepancies between and within institutions Non-targeting of information Time consuming
subscribed press will continue to be cited due to their level of impact/quality, the majority of citations will start to come from OA journals. Over time this will lead to a change in where researchers look for their information, and as a result, where they will eventually preferentially consider publishing.
Conclusion Many of the benefits of OA can be summarized with the term “digitization”. The remaining benefits can be largely summarized with the word “free”. Although there are significant advantages to an OA model, the potential trade-offs are significant (Table 1). What is undoubtedly needed is an alternative way of funding journals that does not separate authors on the basis of institution or field, but instead stays true to the historical ideals of peer-review, whereby articles of merit will stand the best chance of publication, irrespective of ancillary factors. This debate is complex in nature and will likely continue long after many journals have tendered their solution for OA publishing. In its current format, OA seems to offer universal equity and access, but at a risk that many may find unacceptable.
References 1. Report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings. Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications. Available at: http://www. researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-reportexecutive-summary-FINAL-VERSION.pdf. [accessed 10.06.14]. 2. Sconfienza LM, Sardanelli F. Radiological journals in the online world: should we think Open? Eur Radiol 2013;23:1175e7. 3. Aleixandre-Benavent R, Vidal-Infer A, Alonso-Arroyo A, et al. Open availability of articles and raw research data in spanish pediatrics journals [in Spanish]. An Pediatr (Barc) 2013, Jun 18. pii: S0025-7753(14) 00340e6. 4. Conway M. Open access: a new model for publishing in the pharmacological sciences. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol (United States) 2012;1:pe7.
1218
J. Donnellan, W. Cassar-Torreggiani / Clinical Radiology 69 (2014) 1214e1218
5. Lawrence S. “Free online availability substantially increases a papers impact”, Nature Web Debates. Available at: http://www.nature.com/ nature/debates/e-access/Articles/lawrence.html. [accessed 10.06.14]. 6. Harnad S. “Comparing the Impact of Open Access (OA) vs. Non-OA Articles in the Same Journals”, D-Lib Magazine. Available at: http://www. dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/06harnad.html. [accessed 10.06.14]. 7. Worlock K. “The pros and cons of Open Access”, Nature Web Focus. Available at: http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/34. html. [accessed 10.06.14]. 8. Open access to scholarly information, Dutch National website providing information for academics about the advantages of Open Access publicly financed research, Utrecht University Library Group, “The pros and cons of Open Access”. Available at: http://www.openaccess.nl/ whatisopenaccess/prosandconsofopenaccess. [accessed 10.06.14]. 9. Swan A. “Open Access and the Progress of Science”, American Scientist Macroscope. Available at: http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/ open-access-and-the-progress-of-science. [accessed 10.06.14]. 10. Harnad S, Brody T. “Comparing the Impact of Open Access (OA) vs. NonOA Articles in the Same Journals”, University of Southampton Open
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Access directory. Available at: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/260207/. [accessed 10.06.14]. Open Access to Scholarly Information, “German initiative for Networked Information (DINI)”. Available at: http://openaccess.net/de_ en/useful_information_for/repository_operators/dini_certification/. [accessed 11.06.14]. D. Willetts “Public access to publicly-funded research”, Oral statement to Parliment, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ public-access-to-publicly-funded-researche2. [accessed 11.06.14]. European Commission Research & Innovation, “Policy Initiatives of the European Commission”. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/ science-society/index.cfm?fuseaction¼public.topic&id¼1294&lang¼1. [accessed 12.06.14]. Parker M. “The ethics of open access publishing”. BMC Med Ethics (En- 25 gland) 2013;14:16. Available at, http://www.biomedcentral.com/14726939/14/16 [accessed 14.06.14]. McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information:how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns 2006;63:24e8.
