Hi Nate,
Some good questions. The problem right now with "online" is that the
reputation has been tainted by a large number of sketchy journals that
are in it for the money and do not have adequate (any?) peer review. On
the other hand, at the end of the day what matters is the impact
factors. In spite of some hand wringing by some over this metric, it
remains the most widely accepted measure of journal quality (and along
with the H index, researcher impact). I have heard some people express
frustration over even the most reputable online journals like PLoS
because the papers are of uneven quality - more so than print journals.
This may just reflect variation in editorial practices, and with a
dedicated editorial board, will improve over time.
I think the best advice at this point is to mix it up. I don't think
a CV with only online publications would get less attention, but it
would be a good idea to submit to traditional journals too - if for
nothing esle, than to support your scientific societies that often
publish these journals. The other deciding factor here is cost - online
journals charge between $1000 and $1500 or more per paper. Society
journals often do not have page charges for members. Unless you have a
source of funds to cover online publication this cost may be prohibitive.
Hope that helps.
Mitch Cruzan
On 2/27/2014 6:22 AM, Nathan Lemoine wrote:
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
