Open access publishers: The new players

Rosângela Schwarz Rodrigues; Ernest Abadal; Breno Kricheldorf Hermes de Araújo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233432

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 6, 2020
19 Feb 2020 Decision Letter - Sergio A. Useche, Editor PONE-D-20-00381 Open access publishers: the DOAJ Seal profile PLOS ONE Dear Dr Abadal, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Your manuscript has been scientifically judged by two acknowledged experts in the area. Both them have remarked the overall merit of the submitted work, and (based in my own assessment) I should say that this paper has a good potential for being considered as publishable in PLOS ONE. Nevertheless, you will find some comments (below) suggesting many improvements (some of them major) that need to be addressed through a revision of the paper. Please perform a careful and complete revision of all these queries, comments and suggestion, and try to support as good as possible the statements contained in your rebuttal letter (and in the revised text), detailing all the modifications and improvements done. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 04 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 1. Please consider changing the title so as to meet our title format requirement (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines). In particular, the title should be "Specific, descriptive, concise, and comprehensible to readers outside the field" and in this case it is not informative and specific about your study's scope and methodology. 2. We note you have included tables to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 2,3,5,6 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: There is some interesting analysis here that adds to the understanding of open access and DOAJ’s role in helping identify high quality OA journals. The paper seems incomplete, however. Additional analysis, substantiation of several claims, and expanding the description of publishers would make this a better paper. In addition, the introduction to DOAJ should be expanded for those readers who are not familiar with it. See some details below. Lines 176, 177, 178. This statement is confusing and unsubstantiated. I suggest deleting it. You can just end the paragraph without it or find and cite a source that offers a substantiated version of what you are trying to say about novelty. Equating lack of novelty with higher quality and duplication confuses issues as it is stated. If the statement is rewritten and a source cited that supports it, note that “brings” should be “bring” in line 177. In the introduction you mention that 3 large commercial publishers dominate the publishing industry/number of titles. In the findings you mention that PLOS and Biomed Central, MDPI and Hindawi in addition to Springer dominate the findings. You need to describe these publishers more and earlier in terms of commercial or non-profit, subject matter, etc. I would suggest expanding the introductory section on publishers to give more details rather than just those top 3 so the publishers you mention in the findings are not completely new to the reader when we reach this point. Perhaps a table of publishers would help. (For example, an extension of Table 1 in https://www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf Lines 200+ you mention some characteristics, but information about publishers is scattered, so this introduction would help readers put these scattered statements into context. Your Table 1: should be titled “…by the Biggest Open Access Publishers” It seems that Table 2 should logically come before Table 1. Lines 257-260: This comment is unsubstantiated and should be supported or deleted. It is jarring and seemingly irrelevant. 257 “This highlights what appears 258 to be the real motivation behind the creation of new journals in Open Access: the 259 company’s portfolio interests in the market, rather than the needs of society or the 260 pursuit of scientific innovation.” Line 269: Also see: Shen, C., & Björk, B.-C. (2015). ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(230), 1-15. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2 You should expand the discussion of predatory OA and how DOAJ hopes to provide a “white list” that eliminates those. Since in your conclusion (lines 283-285) you make a bold prediction (283: “The high concentration of journals controlled by commercial publishers may 284 generate a price crisis in the Open Access movement similar to that of the 1960s, when 285 prices rose so high that libraries were forced to cancel subscriptions.”) you need to include analysis on prices. This statement again needs evidence and your study is in a position to do so, or at least include references and a discussion of price studies by others. In summary: include characteristics of publishers in introductory section, remove or substantiate several statements that are not substantiated by evidence from data analysis or literature review, add to the literature and discussion on predatory journals and how DOAJ serves as a white list to help authors select reputable OA journals. Reviewer #2: This manuscript represents an interesting analysis of the publishers business model and journals' behaviour respect to some critical variables in the OA era. Focussing on the DOAJ seal is a good point of analysis. The overall manuscript is well-written, the aims of the study and the conclusions are consistent. just a few observations: 2.Methodology section: when you give numbers, please specify the date of your search as nowaday the numbers are different, of course, even if slightly. 3.1: the observation of lines 210-212 deserves to be stressed also in the conclusion section because is very meaningful! 3.2 Distribution of knowlege areas, line 257-260: this statement is more a consideration than a description. you could put it in the Results and Discussion section. Just a final observation: discussing about PLOSone in PLOSone...I think your analysis is quite objective but... in conclusion, it's a manuscript, very interesting to be read! ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233432.r001
Revision 1
24 Mar 2020 Author Response PONE-D-20-00381 - Open access publishers: the DOAJ Seal profile Response to reviewers 1. Please consider changing the title so as to meet our title format requirement (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines). In particular, the title should be "Specific, descriptive, concise, and comprehensible to readers outside the field" and in this case it is not informative and specific about your study's scope and methodology. We have changed it. We propose three options but we are open to new suggestions coming from the reviewers or the editors. 2. We note you have included tables to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 2,3,5,6 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Revised. Reviewer #1 There is some interesting analysis here that adds to the understanding of open access and DOAJ’s role in helping identify high quality OA journals. The paper seems incomplete, however. Additional analysis, substantiation of several claims, and expanding the description of publishers would make this a better paper. Ok, we answer your comments below. In addition, the introduction to DOAJ should be expanded for those readers who are not familiar with it. See some details below. We have added more details about DOAJ (line 113). Lines 176, 177, 178. This statement is confusing and unsubstantiated. I suggest deleting it. You can just end the paragraph without it or find and cite a source that offers a substantiated version of what you are trying to say about novelty. Equating lack of novelty with higher quality and duplication confuses issues as it is stated. If the statement is rewritten and a source cited that supports it, note that “brings” should be “bring” in line 177. Deleted. In the introduction you mention that 3 large commercial publishers dominate the publishing industry/number of titles. In the findings you mention that PLOS and Biomed Central, MDPI and Hindawi in addition to Springer dominate the findings. You need to describe these publishers more and earlier in terms of commercial or non-profit, subject matter, etc. I would suggest expanding the introductory section on publishers to give more details rather than just those top 3 so the publishers you mention in the findings are not completely new to the reader when we reach this point. Perhaps a table of publishers would help. (For example, an extension of Table 1 in https://www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf We have included a list of the current biggest academic publishers according to Ulrich’s and a new paragraph analyzing the most prominent open access publishers (line 71). Lines 200+ you mention some characteristics, but information about publishers is scattered, so this introduction would help readers put these scattered statements into context. We agree on that, thanks. Your Table 1: should be titled “…by the Biggest Open Access Publishers” Added. It seems that Table 2 should logically come before Table 1. We do not agree with that. We think that table 1 is more general and offers a global overview of the publisher’s scenario. Table 2 includes just the years. Lines 257-260: This comment is unsubstantiated and should be supported or deleted. It is jarring and seemingly irrelevant. 257 “This highlights what appears 258 to be the real motivation behind the creation of new journals in Open Access: the 259 company’s portfolio interests in the market, rather than the needs of society or the 260 pursuit of scientific innovation.” Deleted. Line 269: Also see: Shen, C., & Björk, B.-C. (2015). ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(230), 1-15. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2 You should expand the discussion of predatory OA and how DOAJ hopes to provide a “white list” that eliminates those. We have added this reference beneath a previous one (Somoza et al, 2018). We have included also a comment about the role of DOAJ against predatory journals (“white list”). Since in your conclusion (lines 283-285) you make a bold prediction (283: “The high concentration of journals controlled by commercial publishers may generate a price crisis in the Open Access movement similar to that of the 1960s, when prices rose so high that libraries were forced to cancel subscriptions.”) you need to include analysis on prices. This statement again needs evidence and your study is in a position to do so, or at least include references and a discussion of price studies by others. We have changed the sentence and the argument and we have added the reference to Khoo, S.Y.-S., 2019. In summary: include characteristics of publishers in introductory section, remove or substantiate several statements that are not substantiated by evidence from data analysis or literature review, add to the literature and discussion on predatory journals and how DOAJ serves as a white list to help authors select reputable OA journals. Ok, thanks for your comments. Reviewer #2: This manuscript represents an interesting analysis of the publishers business model and journals' behaviour respect to some critical variables in the OA era. Focusing on the DOAJ seal is a good point of analysis. The overall manuscript is well-written, the aims of the study and the conclusions are consistent. Just a few observations: 2.Methodology section: when you give numbers, please specify the date of your search as nowaday the numbers are different, of course, even if slightly. Changed (line 127 … “in March of 2019”.) 3.1: the observation of lines 210-212 deserves to be stressed also in the conclusion section because is very meaningful! We have added a comment in the conclusions (line 440) 3.2 Distribution of knowledge areas, line 257-260: this statement is more a consideration than a description. you could put it in the Results and Discussion section. We agree on that, but this statement is now in the Results and Discussion section. This consideration or reflection is based on the data collected and starts a relevant discussion. Just a final observation: discussing about PLOSone in PLOSone...I think your analysis is quite objective but... in conclusion, it's a manuscript, very interesting to be read! Thanks for your comments. We have tried to discuss about open access publishers and PLOSOne is part of this reality. We think also that it is a good journal to send our manuscript and for improving it (correcting any bias or problem) with the help of our reviewers. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response-to-reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233432.r002
23 Apr 2020 Decision Letter - Sergio A. Useche, Editor PONE-D-20-00381R1 Open access publishers: the new players PLOS ONE Dear Dr Abadal, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the pertinence and quality of the amendments and clarifications, as well as the responses provided to our two reviewers. Both have expressed their satisfaction in regard to the work done during the revisions of your paper. You will find below (please see the comments from Reviewer # 2) an additional minor comment that, I believe, requires your attention and could maximize the value of the paper. Once received your revised manuscript, I will assess it and immediately proceed to make an editorial decision without needing an additional round of reviews. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 07 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing all of the comments. By making these changes the paper is now stronger. This is an interesting paper. Reviewer #2: Interesting paper, the observations well considered, just some misspelling at lines 89 - 4 Not 5 type of OA -, 148, 154. The conclusions are consistent with the aims of the study but, at the end, the DOAJ seal seems forgotten... I would recommend to remind readers that we are in this context... ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233432.r003
Revision 2
29 Apr 2020 Author Response Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing all of the comments. By making these changes the paper is now stronger. This is an interesting paper. Many thanks for your remarkable comments which have contribute to improve the paper prominently. Reviewer #2: Interesting paper, Many thanks for your remarkable comments which have contribute to improve the paper prominently. the observations well considered, just some misspelling at lines 89 - 4 Not 5 type of OA – Changed. 148, 154. We’re sorry but we haven’t found the mistakes in these lines. We hope that the copyeditor will find them. The conclusions are consistent with the aims of the study but, at the end, the DOAJ seal seems forgotten... I would recommend to remind readers that we are in this context... Changed, we’ve included a remind. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response-to-reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233432.r004
6 May 2020 Decision Letter - Sergio A. Useche, Editor Open access publishers: the new players PONE-D-20-00381R2 Dear Dr. Abadal, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. With kind regards, Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233432.r005
Formally Accepted
13 May 2020 Acceptance Letter - Sergio A. Useche, Editor PONE-D-20-00381R2 Open access publishers: the new players Dear Dr. Abadal: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Sergio A. Useche Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233432.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .