Neuroscience publishing is too important to leave to publishers
PDF
XML

Keywords

Open access
Scholarly publishing
Neuroscience
Reproducibility
Open data
Preregistration

How to Cite

Khoo, S. Y.-S. (2019). Neuroscience publishing is too important to leave to publishers. Neuroanatomy and Behaviour, 1(1), ed1. https://doi.org/10.35430/nab.2019.e7

Abstract

Almost every open access neuroscience journal is pay-to-publish. This leaves neuroscientists with a choice of submitting to journals that not all of our colleagues can legitimately access and choosing to pay large sums of money to publish open access. Neuroanatomy and Behaviour is a new platinum open access journal published by a non-profit association of scientists. Since we do not charge fees, we will focus entirely on the quality of submitted articles and encourage the adoption of reproducibility-enhancing practices, like open data, preregistration, and data quality checks. We hope that our colleagues will join us in this endeavour so that we can support good neuroscience no matter where it comes from.

https://doi.org/10.35430/nab.2019.e7
PDF
XML

References

Beall J. Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access. Learned Publishing. 2013;26(2):79-84. doi: 10.1087/20130203.

Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012;489(7415):179. Epub 12 September 2012. doi: 10.1038/489179a.

Haspelmath M. Why open-access publication should be nonprofit—a view from the field of theoretical language science. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2013;7(57). doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00057.

Houghton JW. Crisis and transition: the economics of scholarly communication. Learned Publishing. 2001;14(3):167-76. doi: 10.1087/095315101750240412.

Tananbaum G. Of wolves and and boys: the scholarly communication crisis. Learned Publishing. 2003;16(4):285-9. doi: 10.1087/095315103322422035.

Prosser DC. The next information revolution - How open access repositories and journals will transform scholarly communications. LIBER Quarterly. 2003;14(1). doi: 10.18352/lq.7755.

Khoo SY-S. Article processing charge hyperinflation and price insensitivity: An open access sequel to the serials crisis. LIBER Quarterly. 2019;29(1):1-18. doi: 10.18352/lq.10280.

Green T. We’ve failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach. Learned Publishing. 2017;30(4):325-9. doi: 10.1002/leap.1116.

Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA. 1998;280(3):231-3. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.231.

Callaham ML, Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLOS Medicine. 2007;4(1):e40. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040.

Stossel TP. Reviewer status and review quality. New England Journal of Medicine. 1985;312(10):658-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198503073121024.

Evans AT, Mcnutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1993;8(8):422-8. doi: 10.1007/bf02599618.

Winchester C. Give every paper a read for reproducibility. Nature. 2018;557(7705):281. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05140-x.

Barnett AG, Zardo P, Graves N. Randomly auditing research labs could be an affordable way to improve research quality: A simulation study. PLOS ONE. 2018;13(4):e0195613. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195613.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.