Nature and the Open Journal of Astrophysics
As I prepare to return to Sussex for the new term, I find that Nature News & Comment has published a piece on a pet project I’ve blogged about on a number of occasions, The Open Journal of Astrophysics.
There are a couple of sceptical comments quoted in the piece, which is fair enough. Such views are not at all unexpected. This is a new venture and there are bound to be people who prefer to stick to the established publishing channels. I and the others involved in the Open Journal think traditional journals have long since had their day. We’ll just have to see how many others agree!
Follow @telescoper
In the Dark 
January 5, 2016 at 9:59 am
No, van Dishoeck does not have an agenda and she is a highly respected scientist both in astrophysics and in chemistry. You may want to reconsider your opinion of her. She publishes mainly in A&A and MNRAS. These do not charge (at least within Europe) so there would be no cost savings for her personally. This situation is different from the main US journals which have publication charges. For her, the open access aspect will be the most important. the cost savings on subscriptions are for institutions.
However, I have noticed a move even in astronomy to limit the cc-by license for those papers which do no pay for gold open access. I have now run into that problem twice: it is difficult to pay for any costs (e.g. a colour figure) for a paper which has the wrong cc-by license. It has not yet forced us to pay for ‘gold’ open access but there has been pressure from the university to pay up. If this becomes widespread, there would be an immediate benefit even for van Dishoeck in bypassing the main journals.
In the end, a journal is judged on whether it adds value to a paper. Top journals do. Many journals do not and exist mainly to separate scientists from their funding. It will be interesting to see with which journals Peter’s brainchild will compete for market share. I hope the venture succeeds!
January 5, 2016 at 1:48 pm
I would be a lot more worried about this sort of comment:
“We have a small number of well established and high quality journals in astronomy that everyone respects.”
What do you say to van Dishoeck, and particularly to any young researcher trying to build a career? Academics are faced with a Prisoner’s Dilemma, where defecting to publish in a ‘traditional’ journal (or to use her words, a “well established and high quality journal… that everyone respects”) grants them career advantages (or perceived career advantages) over those that don’t, even if cooperating with everybody else will yield a better world for everyone.
The solution is obviously to make the Open Journal exactly one such well established and high quality journal, that everyone respects. Peter has talked about this issue before, so I know he’s considered it and its difficulties. I really hope this issue can be surmounted, even though I know it will be the most challenging part.
January 5, 2016 at 1:52 pm
This comment merely confirms my belief that academic publishing is now hardly different from vanity publishing, another highly lucrative industry.
January 5, 2016 at 9:32 pm
Peter, sure. I’m not convinced that’s what you want to be saying to young career academics though.
And Philiip, yes. Thanks for distilling that.
January 5, 2016 at 7:52 pm
The aim now is to gain a good reputation. That takes time and effort, and the fact that some people apparently prefer to disparage the fact OJA does not yet have one should not deter. I’ve nothing but praise and encouragement for OJA’s board in following their own vision.
January 6, 2016 at 12:01 pm
They’d be accused of getting preferential treatment. OJA just has to ignore negative criticism and win itself a reputation through talent, vision and hard work. It has what it takes.
January 5, 2016 at 8:17 pm
I don’t know when Andrew King became a cosmologist, but (as I’ve mentioned before) his point about such journals needing to be run by accountable organizations like the RAS seems bang on the money for me, and it’s the reason why I won’t be publishing in the OJA any time soon, much as I approve of your aims. What I basically want is MNRAS without the involvement of a profit-making publisher; I’m still hoping I may get it one day.
January 5, 2016 at 8:30 pm
I don’t see the word “accountable” in Andrew’s comments. The RAS does publish accounts however. They show that most of its income derives from the profit it takes from MNRAS, ie mostly from institutional subscribers. I regard this as a form of stealth tax.
January 9, 2016 at 8:59 am
the Royal Society has just started something similar: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/astronomy-astrophysics
January 9, 2016 at 9:45 am
I was aware of this – Rob Ivison told me about it some time ago. We will have to wait and see how long it remains free..
It’s not an overlay journal of course so isn’t the same concept…
January 11, 2016 at 7:31 am
There you have it. Another ripoff Journal..