Four more reasons to be skeptical of open-access publishing.

We are clearly in the midst of a revolution in academicpublishing. Many scientists ﬁnd compelling reasons topublish open-access papers with traditional journals orto follow in the new wave of open-access-only e-journals,the latter of which typically place emphasis on scholarshipthat is sound, not on novelty, rigor, or likely impact.Making our work accessible to all and letting readersdecide the impact of individual papers is an attractiveproposition. Nonetheless, in addition to a ﬂood of bogusjournals [1], many scientists seem to be uncritically jump-ing on the open-access bandwagon. Given that fundingagencies are beginning to require supported work to bepublished as open-access, at the very least, we shouldinvestigate the following before submitting articles:(i) Know your publisher’s business model; most are for-proﬁt enterprises. For-proﬁt is not necessarily bad,but it is important to recognize that many publishingvenues are not ‘for the scientists, by the scientists’ asadvertised. Even not-for-proﬁt publishers are usinghigh open-access fees as a means to fund otheractivities, a business model that creates a conﬂict ofinterest to publish more papers at the expense ofrigorous evaluation.(ii) Know what you are getting. Most open-accessjournals entirely forgo copyediting and improvingillustrations. What you submit is what is printed,with little professional handling.(iii) Open-access papers are not cited more. On-goingrandomized studies ﬁnd that after 5 years, despitehigher downloads, open-access articles (in traditionaljournals) do not have more citations than non-open-access articles [2]. Additionally, despite the generalnotion of journal impact factors no longer beingimportant (it is the individual paper’s performancethat matters!), some open access journals haveenjoyed tremendous success in their initial impactfactors. Nonetheless,thistrendhasreversed,anditispredicted that their impact factors will continue todecline(http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/06/20/the-rise-and-fall-of-plos-ones-impact-factor-2012-3-730/).(iv) Consider the risks. Because it typically takes someyearsformostarticlestoachievecitations,evaluatorsof academic CVs often use journal metrics as a proxyfor quality or likely impact. Although nothing canreplace reading and directly evaluating a study,removing the standards associated with selectivejournalsintroducesambiguitytoapublicationrecord,especially for young scientists looking for jobs. Inother words, when a hiring committee examines ajunior scientist’s CV, a publication in a traditionaljournal carries with it the weight associated with thejournal’s reputation for selectivity,rigor, novelty, andyes, likely impact. On the surface, a publication in anopen-access journal only imparts ‘not scientiﬁcallyﬂawed’.Authorswhowishtoavoidrejectionandjoinamovementof open-access science for all are potentially unaware of theimplications: little quality control, conﬂicts of interest, andno stamp of rigor or potential impact. Nobel Prize winnerRandy Schekman has recently espoused a radical and dif-ferent view than mine (http://theconversation.com/how-to-break-free-from-the-stiﬂing-grip-of-luxury-journals-21669)andIcertainlyrespecthisposition.OfcourseIsupportopen-accessofourworktoallreadersthatareinterested.Mymaingoal here is to stimulate discussion and awareness, and tosuggestthatwehavenotyetarrivedatanalternativemodelof publishing that suits the primary goals of scientists.