Why would academics spend funds on an apparently unnecessary publishing fee?

Question

I recently worked on a paper with some colleagues as second author, and suggested that we publish in an open-access journal with a decent impact factor. Our university also has an agreement with this journal so we would have been able to publish there for free. However, I was turned down in favour of another journal that my colleague suggested, which had a similar impact factor but wasn't free. The reason given was that 'we have some funds left over, so we may as well use them'. As I'm still a student I didn't have much say in the matter, but it seemed quite wasteful to me.

What are the reasons for academics choosing to 'waste' grant money (if this is indeed wasteful)? Is it to save their own university money, or to artificially inflate their expenses so they can apply for more money the next time they apply for grants? Or something else?

Answer 1

Apologies if this answer sounds trivial but it might be helpful for a student.

It often depends on the funding conditions.

In some of my grants, I allocate some money for publishing. This 'looks good' when the grant is evaluated by external reviewers because it suggests detailed planning ahead with the available funding. Money that is allocated for publishing can't be used otherwise without a big hassle. (The funding agency can request a detailed report of the used funds which basically forces me to use it the right way.) I often don't mind paying the publishing fees with this dedicated money since I can't pay anything else with it.

Could this money be used in a better way? Yes, definitely.

Would I risk submitting a grant without dedicating money for publications? Probably not since reviewers might criticise missing publication funds as happened to me in the past.

Answer 2

What happens to unused money, especially money designated for a specific purpose, depends a lot on the source of the grant, the country, the university, and even the department. Sometimes, researchers can use it for other things. Sometimes, the university gets to take it. Sometimes, it has to be returned. Sometimes, it's something else even more complicated. And, as indicated in a comment by MisterMiyagi, unspent funds can have other effects.

That said, it could just be a strategic decision. It's possible that the open-access journal rejects the paper. It may take a long time to get that result, and by then, perhaps access to the grant funds for publishing will have expired. So, in that sense, it could be safer to go for the paid journal first and leave the free one as a backup.

Another possibility is that the agreement with the open-access journal has limitations. Maybe there is a limit to the number of articles accepted from the university, or maybe there is a per-individual limit. In either case, going for the paid option now with the grant money may leave the free option for a future paper where that type of funding isn't available.

Answer 3

It's been mentioned in the comments, but not in an answer yet: impact factor is a terrible measure of both how good a journal is, and what it's reputation is. And also things like how fast the turn around is, how many editing services are supplied, what the space or figure limits are.

People in a field will have their own internal, subjective ranking of journals based on things like where the things they reading are published, the way people talk about a journal at conferences, the journals that they and their colleagues have table of contents alerts for etc. These rankings probably roughly correlate with impact factor, but won't be exactly the same.

Answer 4

Here's one aspect that hasn't been mentioned yet if I'm not mistaken. My university has agreements with some publishers to cover Open Access fees, however these agreements have limits, and money regularly runs out before the end of the year. If there is grant money available for publishing elsewhere, this will indeed allow somebody else from the university to publish one more paper under the agreement. The university also says, for this reason, that if grant money for publication is available, use it!

Furthermore, the publishers with whom there are agreements are big players such as Springer, Elsevier, Wiley, all of whom can be criticised for making lots of money from researchers working for them for free, or even paying them for publishing the researchers' own work. A non-profit like PLoS is not covered, and some people may take the ethical stance that if possible it's better to pay PLoS (or similar) than the ones named previously.

Answer 5

To add a perspective I haven't yet seen in the other answers: I do intend this respectfully, but you say it yourself, "I am just a student." I have definitely provided simplified answers to students over questions that I didn't feel like they'd have the context (or need, at the time) to understand the full answer. Importantly, the rationale for this choice may have a lot of different interdependent reasons, like the professors' opinions of or experiences with the other journal, or maybe even some (light) internalized biases against OA (I wouldn't assume so, but it's possible). Familiarity matters. And of course, the myriad grant-related issues mentioned here already. I can relate to having a similar complicated opinion on some choice and opting for a simpler explanation when asked by a student.

I can't know your relationship with those involved, but I imagine if you asked at the right time, politely, for more information out of genuine interest (and definitely not in a confrontational manner), it's possible you might learn more. It is a good thing to learn.

Answer 6

As the other answers pointed out, funding for publishing is sometimes not an issue. Having the same impact factor, other aspects remain:

• Where does the topic of the article fit better?
• Is the journal read and cited in your community?
• Do you know the editor?
• Where is the expected acceptance for this paper higher?
• How long will the review process take until the paper is finished?

As a student, you might not know these factors or have missed them in the discussion.

Answer 7

In a majority of cases such as this, I am willing to bet this is "use it or lose it" money that has to be spent by/before a specifically-set date. As an academic, I have seen - and experienced - this numerous occasions myself. There are often other bounds/terms that limit how the money must be spent as well (in addition to strict timelines). I am certain this is why they chose the route they did; how would you have known what other routes/options were available?