How is publishing in JoVE (a "video journal") perceived?

Question

There are many questions 'should I publish in journal x', but this is not that. The journal JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments) claims to be the world’s first video journal. It seems to have a specific mission, and if the mission becomes well accepted, can be a big change in how knowledge is disseminated through the academic community.

It’s not on Beall's list. It does not have an impact factor, although the journal says it expects to be included soon.

I cannot find many discussions on this journal, as opposed to, PLOS, on which many people seem to have opinions.

Does anyone know of negative feedback to the journal or publishing in the journal? Such as administration or peers believing it is not inline with academic publishing.

Some examples of 'reputable' schools (in my perspective), UPenn Yale Johns Hopkins Harvard

Answer 1

Based on our work with them, it seems to be a high quality publication. We published a JoVE article last year and several of the protocols we use in the lab are adapted from other JoVE articles. So it seems effective in its mission. The video format really works for certain protocols, and it may make it easier for people to reproduce your work (thereby getting you more citations).

That said, there is the price tag to consider, and the editorial process is extensive and time consuming (you write an article, then go through normal peer review, then work with them to turn it into a screenplay, then get everyone together with the videographer they provide, etc.). So I would say that if your method does not specifically benefit from the video format, there isn't an advantage over a conventional methods journal.

As far as how it's received, I haven't noticed any differences from any other small journal.

Answer 2

The biggest criticism I have heard so far among colleagues is the price tag:

Standard access: $2,400

Open access: $4,200

But people who are willing to publish in things like Frontiers are used to this order of magnitude. At least with JoVe you understand a part of the price, as a filming team apparently visits your lab and helps with the storyline.

Apart from that, I think that filming experimental protocols is a great alternative to the sometimes obscure text descriptions in traditional papers. It might also lower the threshold for reproducibility. I would keep an eye on that trend, especially in biology, although I think it's more likely that traditional journals will include video documents (some already do) rather than methods-centered video-journals taking over the academic publishing business.

Answer 3

While not in J. Beall's list, he does indeed point out predatory practices of JoVe. You can take a look here:

JoVE, the Journal of Visualized Experiments, is an innovative video journal. However, the journal is mercenary and demonstrating at least a couple characteristics of predatory journals.

JoVE — which is not on my list — is a subscription journal, and its [sic] expensive. However, the publication uses the delayed open-access model, so its videos are made open access and re-published by the United States Government in PubMed Central after two years.

It also uses the hybrid open-access model, in which authors are given the opportunity to pay extra and have the content made open-access immediately upon publication. This option, however, costs the authors $4200. Like some predatory journals, JoVE charges both authors and subscribers.

Like most predatory journals, JoVE sends unwarranted spam emails ...

Answer 4

I agree with #5: JOVE shows not only signs of a predator journal, but the editorial practice is predatory in every kind. I can report our own experience with the journal.

We were friendly asked to hand in a manuscript based on our paper. I was surprised as our manuscript is not really made to translate into a video format (no experiment, but interviews). After discussing my worries on phone, they said it is no problem to translate it into a video format. So, we prepared a manuscript. However, after submitting it video department stated that the manuscript is not suitable to be translated into a video format! I think JOVE is just recruiting researchers without looking if their research fits into their journal or the methods are adequate for them just to get as many submissions as possible. I find this tactic pretty nasty, as it means attracting (young) scientists and waste their energy. Furthermore, actively recruiting them really reminds me on predator journals. Additing together with the cost and the hybrid open access option, I think it is a predator journal

Answer 5

JOVE is indeed a legitimate video journal. Based on my experience of recently publishing with them, the way they work is typically someone from JOVE will contact you and invite you to submit a manuscript. You submit a paper and it goes through peer review. They have an inhouse review editor with a PhD who works with peer reviewers to make sure your paper portrays meaningful science and a video based off of your manuscript will be useful to the community. It isn't checked for novelty (that's not the point of JOVE anyway) but is still subjected to practices of doing meaningful science that can be filmed and showed in a video format. I have a colleague in Immunology because her paper was actually rejected from JOVE, she assumed that an invitation means 100% guarantee of publication but it isn't.

Overall, I have a positive view of JOVE. They have a very useful format that is complimentary to the traditional publishing style. My only gripe is they make you pay upfront, with a guarantee to refund if your paper is rejected. I understand they need to hire a videographer and do video editing etc so I am not opposed to paying the charges (which are still high), though I think they would be better off asking for payments only after the paper is accepted.

Peer review was slow but not overly slow (ours took 3 weeks to first review and about five weeks to acceptance). Their video team did an amazing job with our paper and the final outcome looked beautiful. Too bad their video quality is still 480p, though an editor assured me they were going to upgrade it to full HD soon (as silly as 'upgrading' to full HD in 2018 sounds).