3

Is publishing in open access journal a good impression ? I mean publishing in such journals (where one has to pay money), will it be valuable compared to other journals ?

8
  • 3
    A good impression in what way, exactly? – Buffy Feb 27 at 14:34
  • @Buffy: see the edit. – RIchard Williams Feb 27 at 14:42
  • Say more if you can. Valuable? Do you just mean to your overall academic reputation or something else? – Buffy Feb 27 at 14:43
  • 5
    OA does not necessarily equal paying money (APCs, or article processing charges). There are plenty of free OA journals as well - and many closed access journals where you nevertheless need to pay APCs. – anpami Feb 27 at 15:05
  • This is further complicated by the fact that nearly all journals that are not open access offer an open access option. Simply liking open access does not help you choose a journal. – Anonymous Physicist Feb 28 at 0:57
11

It depends entirely on the journal. There are good and bad open access journals, just as there are good and bad closed access journals.

For example, in biology Nature Communications, Cell Reports, eLife, PLoS Biology and Genome Biology are all open access journals with excellent reputations.

PLoS One, BMC genomics, PeerJ, Scientific Reports are open access journals that have a reputation (earned or not) of publishing work which is sound, but maybe less exciting.

And then there are various lower quality open access journals that people might be suspicious of.

This is no different from closed access journals.

8
  • Nature comms and excellent reputation is a bit of a stretch but I buy the rest of your list. – user133933 Feb 27 at 18:38
  • Nature Comms definitely gets you into 4* territory around here. – Ian Sudbery Feb 27 at 19:32
  • @Libor stretch? I'd say it has the best reputation on the list by far. – terdon Feb 28 at 15:32
  • 2
    Maybe its field specific. The papers in my field in Nat Comms are generally very good. If you wanted something more like PLoS one, then you'd be look that "Nature" Scientific Reports.Its not like publishing in Nature or Nature Genetics costs any less than publishing in Nat Comms anyway really. – Ian Sudbery Mar 1 at 10:56
  • 1
    @Libor I've also thought about Nature Comms in such hostage terms, but that doesn't stop it from being a good journal, with a reputation for publishing a lot of great papers (indeed often ones that didn't meet the flashiness standards of the glossy journals). – Anyon Mar 1 at 22:07
9

For academic reputation purposes, publishing in a reputable open access journal is fine. I'm assuming that the journal goes through a proper review and editorial process and that papers might be rejected for quality or innovation reasons. Otherwise, it may be a predatory journal that just wants your money and will publish anything.

But it is the reputation of the journal and its adherence to norms that makes this valid, not whether the authors (or their grants) or subscribers pay for the costs, etc. of publishing.

In some ways, it is a (minor) reputation enhancement since you are doing something for the public beyond what is required by absorbing the costs.

But do a bit of investigation of any journal (open access or not).

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.