Editorial pubs.acs.org/ac
Cite This: Anal. Chem. 2019, 91, 1673−1674
The Evolving World of Scientific Publications: From Unethical Behaviors to New Mandates from Funding Agencies
Anal. Chem. 2019.91:1673-1674. Downloaded from pubs.acs.org by 94.158.22.159 on 02/07/19. For personal use only.
T
going to decide? Surprising some, during December 2018, an individual from China recently suggested their agencies looked favorably on the Plan S concept, though corroboration of this has yet to be forthcoming.2 If China ends up supporting Plan S, I wonder how the plan will evolve given that many Chinese (and other) universities reward scientists for publishing in high-impact journals such as Science, Nature, and Cell, which are not OA, and thus not permitted publishing options under Plan S. Would a manuscript published in a lower impact OA journal be viewed as favorably as it would be if published in Science, currently a non-OA journal? Will a plan that eventually provides a low value per published OA article to a journal result in the creation of a few overarching journals for each field? Would these very large journals become more profitable to run compared to the current situation with greater numbers of smaller, tailored, and perhaps, higher quality journals that have carefully vetted their articles? Clearly there are many complex issues for scientists, editors, and for society-run journals such as Analytical Chemistry to consider before Plan S is scheduled to take effect (on January 1, 2020). Do you think the Plan S mandates, if they become universal, will end publishing as we know it? This is certainly what many of the dire comments shared with me seem to suggest. I am aware of a recent open letter, initiated by chemistry researchers and garnering over 1,600 signatures of support, which succinctly highlights a number of far ranging serious concerns surrounding Plan S as it stands.5 My hope is that the OA requirements will become more nuanced and flexible, allowing journals to evolve stronger partnerships with our associated research communities. While I do not know where these discussions will eventually take us, I am certain that the next several years will be an interesting time for scientific publishing.
his editorial focuses on two separate topics related to manuscripts−authorship solicitations and open access mandates−and their impact on the future of scientific publishing. Colleagues, including many readers of Analytical Chemistry, have expressed their concerns to me, suggesting that both issues may spell the end of scholarly journals as we know them. The first topic relates to several e-mails that have been forwarded to me, asking recipients if they will agree to add authors to a manuscript in exchange for a cash payment! One such e-mail states: “We’d like to provide funds for you to get authorship on your paper. What we want is the first authorship or full authorship of Science Citation Index/Social Science Citation Index (SCI/SSCI) papers. The amount of our grant will depend on the quality of your paper and the authorship you would like to transfer to us.” Some of the e-mails specify that “they” are willing to provide $5,000 for full authorship and $1,500 for first authorship. Another e-mail offered to pay the editors to publish specific articles. While I discussed authorship issues in a recent editorial,1 I never even considered having to address practices that are this unethical. Of course, I am aware that they exist, but I had not expected to see these types of brazen and up-front solicitations being sent to random scientists. It is certainly true that if this unprincipled behavior ever became common, scientific journals would have a serious problem. At Analytical Chemistry, we take our ethical responsibilities seriously and will take formal action should such activity be identified or brought to our attention. Obviously, if you fall for this tactic, you may ruin your career. Moving onto a completely different subject related to publications and authors, what do you think about forcing legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific articles to be published in specific journals or specific types of journals? Currently, like most scientists, I enjoy the freedom to publish my work anywhere I choose. Plan S2,3 may change this by restricting author choices. In case you not familiar with Plan S, it is an initiative advanced by several members of a consortia of European funding agencies that requires scientists to publish their manuscripts in immediately accessible open access (OA) journals. Another requirement is that the costs of OA publication are to be paid by the funding agencies with the maximum amounts set by the plan. Even though many details remain unresolved, 16 organizations have signed up for Plan S (to date), accounting for about 4% of published manuscripts.2 While there are merits to each side of the debate, many questions about Plan S remain unanswered and a number of researchers are criticizing certain aspects.4 For instance, authors have contacted me to ask what Plan S means for Analytical Chemistry as we are not fully open access and thus not compliant with Plan S. Can there be two versions of a journal: a non-OA and an OA format (e.g., Analytical Chemistry and Analytical Chemistry OA)? How much will a funder have to pay for OA? And also importantly, what are the larger countries such as Germany, India, the USA and China © 2019 American Chemical Society
■
Jonathan V. Sweedler AUTHOR INFORMATION
ORCID
Jonathan V. Sweedler: 0000-0003-3107-9922 Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS. Published: February 5, 2019 1673
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.9b00332 Anal. Chem. 2019, 91, 1673−1674
Analytical Chemistry
■
Editorial
REFERENCES
(1) Sweedler, J. V. Anal. Chem. 2018, 90, 2977. (2) Rabesandratana, T. Science 2019, 363 (6422), 11. (3) Kwon, D. Plan S: The Ambitious Initiative to End the Reign of Paywalls. The Scientist 2018; https://www.the-scientist.com/newsopinion/plan-s--the-ambitious-initiative-to-end-the-reign-of-paywalls65231. (4) O’Malley, B. Plan S for open access is far too risky, say researchers. University World News; November 7, 2018; https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20181107234431569. (5) https://sites.google.com/view/plansopenletter/open-letter.
1674
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.9b00332 Anal. Chem. 2019, 91, 1673−1674
