4 ms·

PLOS ONE is only one of many PLOS journals. The others do also review for importance. This is probably why PLOS ONE is cheaper than their other journals: http:/

PLOS ONE is only one of many PLOS journals. The others do also review for importance. This is probably why PLOS ONE is cheaper than their other journals: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/publication-fees http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/publication-fees So Eisen is correct, it's the same thing. A non-open access publisher could make a non-open access equivalent of PLOS ONE if they wanted to (and maybe somebody has). It's not a question of open access.

dougmccune 11y ago
I agree that OA vs non OA isn't the argument, and that there are examples of OA journals with a particular focus on "impact", like eLife. My point is really about megajournal-style peer review vs traditional peer review. But in the press these two things get conflated, and when referencing how cheap publishing should be people always quote the lower price of megajournal APCs and not the higher price of traditionally peer reviewed journal APCs. But it is worth noting that a move to APCs dramatically changes the incentive structure for a publisher, and there are built-in mechanisms in such a system to produce new strange dynamics that we haven't really seen much of before (ie the tension between needing to accept a certain volume to stay in business vs try to keep the reputation of the journal high).
capnrefsmmat 11y ago
I don't think the cost difference comes from the type of review, or at least not entirely. Consider that PLOS ONE, because it doesn't review for importance, has a much higher acceptance rate. Only accepted papers pay processing charges, so each accepted article has to subsidize the review and rejection of all the rejected papers. In PLOS Biology or PLOS Medicine, with a low acceptance rate, each accepted article has to subsidize review of numerous other articles, driving the cost per published article way up.
- dougmccune 11y ago
  I was arguing the cost of APC can only be low in the megajournal review format precisely because of the points you mentioned. So I think we agree, the type of peer review drives the acceptance rate, so with a higher acceptance rate you can charge a lower per-article APC.

dougmccune 11y ago

I agree that OA vs non OA isn't the argument, and that there are examples of OA journals with a particular focus on "impact", like eLife. My point is really about megajournal-style peer review vs traditional peer review. But in the press these two things get conflated, and when referencing how cheap publishing should be people always quote the lower price of megajournal APCs and not the higher price of traditionally peer reviewed journal APCs. But it is worth noting that a move to APCs dramatically changes the incentive structure for a publisher, and there are built-in mechanisms in such a system to produce new strange dynamics that we haven't really seen much of before (ie the tension between needing to accept a certain volume to stay in business vs try to keep the reputation of the journal high).

capnrefsmmat 11y ago

I don't think the cost difference comes from the type of review, or at least not entirely. Consider that PLOS ONE, because it doesn't review for importance, has a much higher acceptance rate. Only accepted papers pay processing charges, so each accepted article has to subsidize the review and rejection of all the rejected papers. In PLOS Biology or PLOS Medicine, with a low acceptance rate, each accepted article has to subsidize review of numerous other articles, driving the cost per published article way up.

dougmccune 11y ago
I was arguing the cost of APC can only be low in the megajournal review format precisely because of the points you mentioned. So I think we agree, the type of peer review drives the acceptance rate, so with a higher acceptance rate you can charge a lower per-article APC.