The revolutionary global access and exchange of information introduced by the Internet stimulated the open access (OA) publishing movement during the late 1990s and the turn of the current century. The concept of OA publishing of research results is philosophically founded on the belief that information derived from scholarly research pursuits funded by the public should be transparent and accessible to all. This idea is now embodied in the policies of many federally and state-funded agencies, whereby funded researchers are obligated to use OA repositories that are discipline or institution specific to make available research published in limited-access peer-reviewed journals (with permission of the publisher). OA is cast as an unconventional but positive and equitable alternative to the subscription print journal that has been the universally accepted and esteemed mainstay of “restrictive” dissemination of scientific knowledge since the 17th century. OA publications of research results, free from “pay per view” fees, are available to a wide audience and provide rapid and highly effective dissemination of the content of a scientific article, which may have the potential to keenly impact the direction of research being conducted within a specific discipline. Full texts of OA publications can be read, downloaded, copied, and distributed at no cost, thereby enhancing global visibility that can translate into increased citations and greater opportunity for collaboration with other scientists working in the same or complementary disciplines. Aquaculture researchers are now confronted with decisions about different vehicles for publication and what they offer relative to the advancement of science and their careers.

During my 36-yr career as an aquaculture researcher, my publications have almost exclusively appeared in limited print journals, due to both the unavailability of such an option followed by the protracted time for confident acceptance and assimilation of OA publishing. The basic philosophy and value of OA publishing have merit and should be embraced by the scientific community. However, my fervent endorsement comes with cautious realization and an uneasiness, because the OA publishing movement has unfortunately also spawned the proliferation of opportunistic journals, termed “predatory,” that conduct “business” using fraudulent and exploitative tactics. These journals lack transparency, purport spurious impact factors, and fail to adhere to ethical standards of editorial practice. The published results of research endeavors lack rigorous scientific methodology and reliable, if any, peer review. Profit motivation is not allied with integrity. Unfortunately, many researchers have found these journals to be an attractive and convenient way to publish to meet a driving need to establish professional status. The current rampant and increasing presence of predatory OA publishing and its effect on the progress of science must be met with an earnest and sustained effort to monitor and expose them, as exemplified by Beall (2016).

The reputation of a recognized, scholarly peer-reviewed journal, regardless of access policy, is established by the high quality of scientific content as guided by performance of conscientious editors and reviewers. Some OA journals have indeed established exceptional reputations for subjecting submissions to rigorous review and exercising principled editorial oversight. For example, as a comparison, over the past 10 yr, the median time for review of articles submitted to Nature has increased from 85 to just over 150 d, and the median time of those submitted to PLoS One, a highly respected OA journal founded in 2000, has increased from 37 to 125 d (Powell 2016).

The Journal of the World Aquaculture Society (JWAS) recognizes and embraces the benefits and impacts of OA publishing, including the public (i.e., “free for all”) availability of OA articles. Accordingly, JWAS offers that option to authors who submit review and research articles for a service cost that can be absorbed by the authors or the authors' institution or funding agency. Without prior knowledge of whether authors will ultimately choose the OA publication option, submissions to JWAS are subject to the same high level of editorial scrutiny as that of other articles that are published. Whatever the measures of impact, and they remain a subject of continued debate (Engle 2016), OA publication will definitely enhance the reputation of those who choose this publishing forum as it notably contributes to the combined focus of JWAS on exceptional and highly relevant contributions to all aspects of aquaculture. Choosing OA to publish in the JWAS is also an individual statement of refutation of predatory OA journals that do not adhere to the primary principle of progress in science – trust. The OA publishing option offered by JWAS represents an ongoing effort to provide effective dissemination of aquaculture knowledge to promote progress in global aquaculture science, technology, and commercial enterprise. Authors should seriously consider this opportunity when making the choice of publication that best meets their needs and objectives.

References

Beall, J. 2016. Beall's list of predatory publishers. Accessed Sept. 7, 2016 at https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/.

Engle, C. R. 2016. Beyond impact factors: research that contributes to the growth and development of aquaculture. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 47(5):603–604.
Wiley Online Library | Web of Science®

Powell, K. 2016. The waiting game. Nature 530:149–151.