Hey ECOLOGers, I have a question regarding the perception of publishing in open-access journals. First, I really like the idea behind PLoS and PeerJ (particularly PeerJ, due to its more reasonable price). These journals makes science accessible to those who are interested but can’t afford the pricey subscription tag of for-profit journals, and it does work. PLoS is cited by popular magazines (like Men’s Health), I hear it referred to on podcasts where the speaker cites an article from PLoS. I see references to PLoS everywhere in the popular literature, etc., much more so than traditional journals. It’s pretty amazing how widely read it is.
In theory, it’d be a great principle to adopt a “publish only in open-access journals” philosophy. I’m wondering how this would be received. If someone submits a post-doc, faculty, or grant application with only PLoS, PeerJ, Ecosphere, Scientific Reports, etc. articles, would that place them behind others with the same quantity of publications (and ostensibly same quality of work) in more established journals? I get the sense that it might, which may discourage grad students and other early-career individuals from publishing more in these journals who typically want to have high-impact and well-recognized publications. Am I correct on this, or are times changing? Nate
