Submission Bias and the Rise of Open Access Journals

Abstract

Substantial growth continues to occur in open access publishing.1 This developing trend in medical literature comes with the potential to accelerate the spread of knowledge worldwide, create a more informed public and ultimately improve health care through the dissemination of knowledge. However, it also brings inherent challenges that must be considered to ensure established standards of research are upheld. In particular, standalone open access journals must gain credibility as reliable outlets of quality research. Standalone open access journals often times lack the foundation and resources of hybrid journals, which are linked to traditional subscriber based publications. Plastic surgeons should be aware of the nuances accompanying open access publishing in order to successfully shepherd this relatively new format towards maturity within the field. Many open access journals utilize a business model that appears inherently contradictory to the publication of exclusively high quality research. Article processing fees are a cornerstone of open access publishing (Tables 1-2). Unlike traditional journals, which rely on institutional and personal subscriptions for a large percentage of revenue, no subscriber base exists to offset publishing costs in this new format of publication. A recent national survey of surgical faculty and residents found that the majority of respondents were not aware that article processing fees are customary in open access publishing.2 It is unclear why so many readers lack this important piece of information, which frames the content published in these journals. For readers, there are two important considerations that should be kept in mind regarding these fees. Examples of Standalone Open Access Journal Fees in Plastic Surgery Examples of Standalone Open Access Journal Fees in Plastic Surgery Examples of Hybrid Open Access Journal Fees in Plastic Surgery Examples of Hybrid Open Access Journal Fees in Plastic Surgery First, these journals are financially incentivized to publish as many articles as possible, which creates a conflict of interest between profitability and the quality of content.3 This dynamic is different than traditional journals where limited space incentives selection of research with the most significant scientific impact. While most open access publications seek legitimacy, the practice of predatory publishing has arisen as well.4,5 Authors and readers should consider this when first encountering an unfamiliar open access journal. Cross-referencing journals with Beall's List of Predatory Open Access Publishers or well-accepted indexing services such as The Directory of Open Access Journals may be a prudent step as well.5-7 Second, processing fees likely preclude manuscript submission by a large segment of potential authors, thus creating a “submission bias.” This bias may occur internationally as well as across institutions. Authors with greater access to funding or disposable income likely contribute a disproportionate amount of content. A great deal of variation exists in the fee structure of different open access journals, possibly causing some to have greater ‘submission’ bias than others. Research is needed to evaluate the status of open access publishing in plastic surgery. It is foreseeable that open access journals will undergo a process of natural selection, with credible journals rising to reach the influence of traditional publications while low quality outlets fade into quite obscurity. Perhaps reasonable guidelines set forth by leaders in our field promoting transparency in article selection can expedite this process. If the plastic surgery community accepts such recommendations, our specialty may serve as a model for upholding standards of research in open access publishing throughout medicine. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.