Should I publish in an open access journal?

Kurien, Matthew; Sanders, David S.; Ashton, James J.; Beattie, R Mark

doi:10.1136/bmj.l1544

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, few have considered the need for open access publishing beyond academia [4][5][6]. One notable effort to advance open access to research for the sake of public benefit has been the Report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings (the Finch Report), submitted to the UK government in 2012.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open to the public: paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public voices have largely been absent from the discussions about open access publishing in medical research. Yet the public have a strong interest in ensuring open access of medical research findings because of their roles as funders, advocates, research participants, and patients. By limiting access to research outputs, the current publishing system makes it more difficult for research to be held accountable to the public. Paywalls undermine the work of public advocacy, which requires open access in order to lobby for policy changes and research funding. Research participants generously give their time and energy to research studies with the assumption that the results will be broadly disseminated. Finally, members of the public have a stake in open access publishing as a resource for health information and decision-making. This commentary explores these crucial roles of the public in order to develop a public rationale for open access medical research. We outline a critique of the current academic publishing ecosystem, re-focus the open access debate from a public perspective, and respond to some of the arguments against public open access. Although open access to medical research is not a panacea, removing paywalls and other barriers to public access is essential. The public are critical stakeholders of medical research data.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open to the public: paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this creates DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk other risks, including bias associated with the availability of funding to pay article processing charges, and conflicts of interest as, for example, motivation for publishing in such journals may be stronger when there is a potential for financial or reputational gains associated with the publication. 106 This development also diversifies the roles played by academic journals, which traditionally serve both as a competitive space for showcasing research excellence and as an archive of tested knowledge.…”

Section: Changing Landscape Of Research Publicationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research: a multimethod study

Ayorinde

Williams

Mannion

et al. 2020

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Bias in the publication and reporting of research findings (referred to as publication and related bias here) poses a major threat in evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. Although this bias has been well documented in clinical research, little is known about its occurrence and magnitude in health services and delivery research. Objectives To obtain empirical evidence on publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research; to examine current practice in detecting/mitigating this bias in health services and delivery research systematic reviews; and to explore stakeholders’ perception and experiences concerning such bias. Methods The project included five distinct but interrelated work packages. Work package 1 was a systematic review of empirical and methodological studies. Work package 2 involved a survey (meta-epidemiological study) of randomly selected systematic reviews of health services and delivery research topics (n = 200) to evaluate current practice in the assessment of publication and outcome reporting bias during evidence synthesis. Work package 3 included four case studies to explore the applicability of statistical methods for detecting such bias in health services and delivery research. In work package 4 we followed up four cohorts of health services and delivery research studies (total n = 300) to ascertain their publication status, and examined whether publication status was associated with statistical significance or perceived ‘positivity’ of study findings. Work package 5 involved key informant interviews with diverse health services and delivery research stakeholders (n = 24), and a focus group discussion with patient and service user representatives (n = 8). Results We identified only four studies that set out to investigate publication and related bias in health services and delivery research in work package 1. Three of these studies focused on health informatics research and one concerned health economics. All four studies reported evidence of the existence of this bias, but had methodological weaknesses. We also identified three health services and delivery research systematic reviews in which findings were compared between published and grey/unpublished literature. These reviews found that the quality and volume of evidence and effect estimates sometimes differed significantly between published and unpublished literature. Work package 2 showed low prevalence of considering/assessing publication (43%) and outcome reporting (17%) bias in health services and delivery research systematic reviews. The prevalence was lower among reviews of associations than among reviews of interventions. The case studies in work package 3 highlighted limitations in current methods for detecting these biases due to heterogeneity and potential confounders. Follow-up of health services and delivery research cohorts in work package 4 showed positive association between publication status and having statistically significant or positive findings. Diverse views concerning publication and related bias and insights into how features of health services and delivery research might influence its occurrence were uncovered through the interviews with health services and delivery research stakeholders and focus group discussion conducted in work package 5. Conclusions This study provided prima facie evidence on publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research. This bias does appear to exist, but its prevalence and impact may vary depending on study characteristics, such as study design, and motivation for conducting the evaluation. Emphasis on methodological novelty and focus beyond summative assessments may mitigate/lessen the risk of such bias in health services and delivery research. Methodological and epistemological diversity in health services and delivery research and changing landscape in research publication need to be considered when interpreting the evidence. Collection of further empirical evidence and exploration of optimal health services and delivery research practice are required. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016052333 and CRD42016052366. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

“…We have wrestled with the unavoidable manuscript charges that will be required under Open Access. Arguments have been made on both sides as to whether this is or is not a desirable development 4 . We fully expect that charges will usually be borne by employers or funders and in certain cases partially or fully waived (and we encourage authors to apply for this when their financial capacity is limited).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

The journal of diabetes is adopting open access

Bloomgarden

Ning

2021

Journal of Diabetes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Should I publish in an open access journal?

Abstract: An “author pays” publishing model is the only fair way to make biomedical research findings accessible to all, say Matthew Kurien and David S Sanders, but James J Ashton and R Mark Beattie worry that it can lead to bias in the evidence base towards commercially driven results

Cited by 9 publications

References 16 publications

Open to the public: paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing

Open to the public: paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing

Publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research: a multimethod study

The journal of diabetes is adopting open access

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About