Boumil Marcia M, Salem Deeb N
Department of Public Health and Community Medicine (Ms Boumil) and Tufts Medical Center, Department of Medicine (Dr Salem), Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Qual Manag Health Care. 2014 Jul-Sep;23(3):133-7. doi: 10.1097/QMH.0000000000000035.
Open access (OA) journals are a growing phenomenon largely of the past decade wherein readers can access the content of scientific journals without paying for a subscription. The costs are borne by authors (or their institutions) who pay a fee to be published, thus allowing readers to access, search, print, and cite the journals without cost. Although the OA model, in and of itself, need not diminish scientific rigor, selectivity, or peer review, the "author pays" model creates an inherent conflict of interest: it operates with the incentive on the part of the journal to publish more and reject less. This is coupled with cost containment measures that affect the journals' ability to engage experienced editors and professional staff to scrutinize data, data analyses, and author conflicts of interest. While some OA journals appear to be comparable to their print competitors, others are "predatory" and have no legitimacy at all. Two recent "scams"--one recently published in Science--highlight the urgency of addressing the issues raised by OA publication so that OA does not lose its credibility just as it begins to gather substantial momentum. High-quality journals develop their reputations over time, and OA outlets will be no exception. For this to occur, however, the OA audience will need to be satisfied that OA can deliver high-quality publications utilizing rigorous peer review, editing, and conflict of interest scrutiny. Academic tenure and promotion committees that review scholarly credentials are understandably skeptical of publications in unrecognized journals, and the large number of new OA outlets contributes to this urgency from their perspective as well.
开放获取（OA）期刊在很大程度上是过去十年中不断发展的一种现象，读者无需支付订阅费用就能访问科学期刊的内容。费用由作者（或其所在机构）承担，他们支付发表费用，从而使读者能够免费访问、搜索、打印和引用这些期刊。虽然OA模式本身不一定会削弱科学严谨性、选择性或同行评审，但“作者付费”模式产生了内在的利益冲突：期刊有动力发表更多文章、拒绝更少文章。这还伴随着成本控制措施，影响了期刊聘请经验丰富的编辑和专业人员来审查数据、数据分析以及作者利益冲突的能力。虽然一些OA期刊似乎与它们的纸质竞争对手相当，但其他一些则是“掠夺性”的，完全没有合法性。最近的两起“骗局”——其中一起最近发表在《科学》杂志上——凸显了解决OA出版引发问题的紧迫性，以免OA刚刚开始获得巨大发展势头就失去公信力。高质量的期刊需要时间来建立声誉，OA期刊也不例外。然而，要实现这一点，OA的受众需要确信OA能够通过严格的同行评审、编辑和利益冲突审查来提供高质量的出版物。审查学术资质的学术终身职位和晋升委员会对在未被认可的期刊上发表的文章持怀疑态度是可以理解的，从他们的角度来看，大量新的OA期刊也加剧了这种紧迫性。
