Sharing Research Findings in the Modern World
Scott Christensen, DNP, MBA, APRN, ACNP-BC
Mass amounts of information are dispersed with the click of
a button in our modern world of affordable high-speed Internet and smartphones.
For example, five hours of material is posted to YouTube during each minute of
the day. In this changing landscape of how information is circulated, one must
carefully consider how much info they wish to receive, where they should turn
to find the facts, and how they will determine the credibility of what is being
shared.
(Creative Commons CC0, 2018)
This global shift in how information is spread has also
influenced how academic research is distributed. When researchers finish
conducting experiments and interviewing people, there are now many ways to
share the information they discovered with others. As with social media
postings and online news outlets, those interested in research findings must
carefully determine where to look for information and how to evaluate the
accuracy of the message. Likewise, researchers need to consider who they want
to reach with their findings and to then select the best approach for sharing
their message with their intended audience.
Researchers have a few different choices when it comes to
sharing their research findings. Most work with a publishing company to share
their results, which includes the choice of a traditional publisher or going
with open-access publishing. These two approaches will be described in more
detail.
Traditional closed-access
publishing
Research findings have traditionally been shared by
publishers who make the article “closed-access.” This means the publisher
copyrights the material and controls how the information is shared. These
publishing companies then charge people money to read the research, such as
requiring people and libraries to pay a fee for accessing the article.
One benefit
to using a closed-access journal is that the author does not have to pay to
publish. Another benefit is that traditional journals have been around for a
long time, bringing with them name recognition and a network of people who read
their findings.
The fees traditional journals charge to end-users is a
disadvantage, with some people or libraries not receiving research findings because
they cannot afford to pay for it. Another disadvantage is that traditional
publishers can take a long time to publish the research article.
Modern open-access
publishing
Open-access journals are a newer way to publish. The author
retains the rights to their article, and the publisher makes their findings available
for free to anyone who has access to the internet. Instead of charging people a
fee to read the article, the publisher makes money by instead charging the author to distribute the
publication.
The greatest benefit to open-access journals, as suggested
by their title, is that people can access the information without paying
money. Several reports suggest that this can double the number of people who
read the research findings. This also increases the chances that other people,
including researchers, will read and cite the research results. Another benefit
to open-access publishing is that the time it takes to publish is typically
quicker than a traditional journal. This could be a great advantage to an
author who has timely information to share.
Open-access articles are not without disadvantages. Some
authors cannot afford to pay the publishing fee. There are also malicious
publishers, known as “predatory journals,” who charge authors money to publish
articles in their fake journal. They send invitations to authors that look
legitimate, have journal titles that sound legitimate, but in the end authors
pay money to have their article published in a journal that will not reach very
many people.
Another disadvantage to open-access journals is that this
approach creates the opportunity for conflicts of interest. Publishers are
motivated to put out high quality work when they are reliant on people and
libraries to pay for information. However, with open-access, publishers just
need to collect a fee from the author. This creates the potential for legitimate
publishers to be a little less picky in what they choose to publish. Likewise,
if an author is under pressure to publish, there could be a conflict of
interest in the author paying someone to help assure that the work gets
published.
Conclusion
So which publication option is the best for publishing
research results? Well, that depends. Closed access and open access journals
each come with advantages and disadvantages. An author must carefully consider
which option will be the most appropriate way to share their findings. There
are also ‘hybrid open access journals,’ where a traditional journal gives the
author the choice of whether to have their work become closed access or open
access. The author pays the traditional publisher a fee to make their work open-access,
but it is a smaller fee than what might be charged by an open-access publisher.
The hybrid option might give an author the opportunity to have their cake and
eat it too.
While it is important for scientists to discover new
information, it is equally important for researchers to consider the best way
to share what they find. Selecting a publisher based on open and closed access
formats is an important consideration for any author who wishes to share
research findings in the modern world.
References
Beall, J. (2015,
January 1). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers.
Retrieved from https://beallslist.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/9/5/30958339/criteria-2015.pdf
Bohannon, J.
(2013, Oct 4). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60 – 65.
Retrieved from https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
Claudio, L. (2017,
March 30). Pros and cons of open access vs traditional publishing in scientific
journals. LinkedIn. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pros-cons-open-access-vs-traditional-publishing-journals-luz-claudio/
Creative Commons
CC0 (2018, Sept 1). Pxhere.com.
Retrieved from https://pxhere.com/en/photo/1448019
Conte, S. (n.d.)
Making the choice: Open access vs. traditional journals. American Journal Experts. Retrieved from https://www.aje.com/arc/making-the-choice-open-access-vs-traditional-journals/
Limbong, A. (2019, July 9). YouTube creators
are trying to fight radicalization online. NPR.
Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739999739/youtube-creators-are-trying-to-fight-radicalization-online
Suarez, A., &
McGlynn, T. (2017, November 15). The fallacy of open-access publication. The Chronical of Higher Education.
Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Fallacy-of-Open-Access/241786
No comments:
Post a Comment