Open access publishing was originally championed to make scientific results freely available and to reduce the escalating costs of subscription-based journals. The Budapest Open Access Initiative of 2002 set the stage for this shift, encouraging funders and universities to support models where authors pay article processing charges in exchange for unrestricted public access. However, the implementation of these policies has been marred by what critics describe as naivety. Science funders and libraries have pushed for gold open access without establishing strict quality criteria, creating an environment where profit maximization often takes precedence over scientific rigor. This has allowed predatory publishers to exploit the system, offering rapid publication and high impact factors in exchange for fees, regardless of the quality of the work.

The bibliometric data from the field of ecology and organismal botany between 2014 and 2022 illustrates the scale of this shift. While the total number of articles in these fields increased by 105%, the distribution of this growth was highly uneven. Society-owned journals saw a modest 13% increase, and serious publisher-owned journals grew by 47%. In stark contrast, predatory open access journals experienced a staggering 1,754% increase in article numbers, with an average annual growth rate of 44.1%. By 2022, these predatory journals accounted for 37% of the total publication output in the analyzed categories, up from just 4% in 2014. This massive shift indicates a significant migration of scientific content away from established, society-controlled venues toward commercial outlets with lower quality thresholds.

The economic incentives driving this trend are rooted in the structure of gold open access funding. Unlike subscription models, where high fees are justified by high-quality content and prestige, gold open access models often charge similar fees regardless of the journal’s quality. This creates a powerful economic incentive for publishers to lower rejection rates and publish more articles, as each additional publication generates profit. The study estimates that the profit margins for publisher-owned open access journals can range from 74% to 81%, compared to approximately 29% for society-owned journals published by specialized publishers. These high profits are generated largely through the unpaid labor of editors and reviewers, who volunteer their time to maintain the appearance of peer review while publishers capture the financial upside.

The consequences of this model extend beyond financial inefficiency to the core integrity of science. Predatory journals often employ practices that undermine the peer review process, such as accepting papers after a single round of revision, using fake or unqualified editors, and engaging in impact factor engineering through inflated self-citations. A famous experiment by Science in 2013 demonstrated that 157 of 255 open access journals accepted and would have published a fake paper containing obvious scientific nonsense. More recently, a study found that a fabricated scientist with no valid credentials was accepted as an editor by 33% of journals on Beall’s List of predatory publishers. These incidents highlight the vulnerability of the current system and the ease with which low-quality or fraudulent content can enter the scientific record.

The role of science funders and libraries in perpetuating this problem cannot be overlooked. By providing substantial funds for article processing charges without differentiating between high-quality and low-quality journals, these institutions have inadvertently subsidized the growth of predatory publishing. The study argues that this approach is not only inefficient but also inequitable, as it places a financial burden on researchers from less wealthy countries and institutions. The current system effectively creates a new barrier to entry, where the ability to publish is determined by institutional budget rather than scientific merit. This shift contradicts the original mission of open access to democratize scientific knowledge and instead reinforces existing inequalities in the global research landscape.

To address these challenges, the study proposes two primary solutions. The first involves reforming the gold open access system by linking the payment of article processing charges to strict quality criteria. This could include differentiating maximum payment amounts based on factors such as rejection rates, the number of peer review rounds, and the ownership structure of the journal. Journals owned by academic societies, where a significant portion of the profit is reinvested into scientific activities, would receive higher support. This approach would redirect funds away from predatory publishers and toward venues that prioritize scientific integrity and community benefit. It would also encourage publishers to maintain higher quality standards to justify their fees, aligning economic incentives with the goals of the scientific community.

The second solution is a more radical shift toward diamond open access, where neither authors nor readers pay any fees. In this model, the costs of publishing are covered by public funding directed to academic societies or institutions, which then manage the journals. This would eliminate the conflict of interest inherent in gold open access, where publishers profit from quantity rather than quality. Diamond open access would also remove financial barriers for authors from low- and middle-income countries, ensuring that scientific publishing is accessible to all. The study suggests that this model could be implemented through contracts between science funders and academic societies, with payments based on agreed-upon quality and cost criteria. While this approach requires a significant change in funding strategies, it offers a path toward a more equitable and sustainable publishing ecosystem.

The transition to a healthier publishing model will require concerted efforts from all stakeholders in the scientific community. Authors, reviewers, and editors must be more discerning in their choices, prioritizing society-owned journals and avoiding predatory outlets. Science funders and libraries must take a more active role in shaping the publishing landscape, using their financial power to promote quality and integrity. The study emphasizes that the current trajectory is unsustainable and that the growing volume of low-quality publications is already making it more difficult for researchers to find relevant and reliable studies. By implementing the proposed reforms, the scientific community can restore trust in the publishing process and ensure that public funds are used effectively to advance knowledge and innovation.

Ultimately, the goal is to create a publishing system that serves the public interest, rather than the profit motives of a few large corporations. This requires a fundamental rethinking of how scientific publishing is funded and managed. The evidence presented in this study makes a compelling case for change, highlighting the urgent need for action to protect the integrity of science and the efficient use of public resources. As the open access movement continues to evolve, it is crucial that its leaders and supporters remain committed to the core principles of transparency, equity, and quality. Only by addressing the structural flaws in the current system can we ensure that scientific publishing continues to fulfill its vital role in the advancement of knowledge and the betterment of society.

Subject of Research: The impact of gold open access funding policies on the rise of predatory journals and the proposed shift to diamond open access models in scientific publishing.

Article Title: Priorities in journal selection for authors, reviewers, editors, librarians and science funders

Article References: Dengler, J. (2023). Priorities in journal selection for authors, reviewers, editors, librarians and science funders. Vegetation Classification and Survey, 4, 1219-229. https://doi.org/10.3897/vcs.110296

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3897/VCS.110296

Keywords: open access, predatory journals, scientific publishing, article processing charges, diamond open access, bibliometrics, ecology, publishing ethics, science funders, journal impact factor, Priorities, journal