Letter: The Rising Shift to Open Access Journals in... : Neurosurgery (original) (raw)

Department of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

To the Editor:

Before online access, scientific knowledge was primarily disseminated through print media, with journals relying on subscription-based models.1 Institutions typically bore the cost of these subscriptions, granting students and researchers access to critical information.1 With the rise of digital access, it was expected that costs would decrease, but instead, subscription fees have grown exponentially, outpacing inflation.1

Recently, 3 well-known neurosurgical journals—World Neurosurgery (Elsevier), Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases (Elsevier), and Acta Neurochirurgica (Springer)—have transitioned to open-access publishing models that require authors to pay article processing charges (APCs).2-4 Although open access aims to make scientific research more widely available,5-7 this shift raises important concerns about the financial burden it places on authors. The escalating APCs create significant barriers for many researchers, calling into question the sustainability and equity of this approach in neurosurgical publishing.1

The current cost of APCs is substantial, often reaching several thousand dollars per article. For instance, World Neurosurgery charges 3200andActaNeurochirurgicacharges3200 and Acta Neurochirurgica charges 3200andActaNeurochirurgicacharges3990 to publish the paper.2-4 These numbers raise significant ethical questions regarding the accessibility of academic publishing, particularly in a field such as neurosurgery where global collaboration and innovation are crucial.

Moreover, the shift to open access often forces researchers to choose between visibility and financial strain. The adoption of fully open-access models by journals in this field, while might be commendable in intent, seems to benefit only those with sufficient resources.1,5 Unfortunately, this model may also contribute to a broader issue of “pay to play,” where only well-funded researchers are able to publish their work.1,5 We fear that this trend may inadvertently create an inequitable landscape in neurosurgical research, where valuable contributions from underfunded institutions are marginalized, and nonvaluable contributions from well-funded groups are rewarded.

Another downside is that the APCs will probably decrease the number of submissions which could push journals to lower their bar accepting manuscripts with no merit that would not have been accepted in the previous model. Open-access journals, because of their free availability, tend to have a broader readership and receive more citations compared with their subscription-based counterparts. Studies have corroborated this, showing that open-access articles typically have higher citation rates.1,8,9 However, this has given rise to concerns about the promotion of open access for the wrong reasons, with some journals and publishers openly marketing the potential for increased citations as a selling point.1 Such practices blur the line between ethical publishing and opportunism, as they can pressure researchers to opt for open-access options solely to enhance their citation count, rather than to prioritize rigorous peer review and scientific integrity.1

In addition, we suggest the idea of compensating peer reviewers for their time and expertise. Currently, peer review is largely an unpaid service, yet it is critical to the scientific process. Offering compensation to reviewers, either financially or through credits that could offset publication fees in the future, might enhance the quality of reviews and provide additional support to underfunded researchers who contribute their efforts without remuneration. This model could create a more sustainable and equitable system, where contributors at all levels are acknowledged and supported.

In conclusion, while we support the open-access movement and its potential to foster greater transparency and collaboration, it is crucial that the financial implications for authors are addressed. We urge neurosurgical journals to consider more inclusive models that enable equitable access to both publish and read critical scientific advancements and try to minimize disparities.

Acknowledgments

Author Contributions: Writing and approval of the letter: B.M and P.J.

Funding

This study did not receive any funding or financial support.

Disclosures

Pascal Jabbour is a consultant for Medtronic, MicroVention, Balt and Cerus Endovascular. The other authors have no personal, financial, or institutional interest in any of the drugs, materials, or devices described in this article.

REFERENCES

1. Chakravorty N, Sharma CS, Molla KA, Pattanaik JK. Open science: challenges, possible solutions and the way forward. Proc Indian Natl Sci Acad. 2022;88(3):456-471.

2. Acta Neurochirurgica: How to Publish With Us. Springer Nature Link. Accessed October 7, 2024. https://link.springer.com/journal/701/how-to-publish-with-us

Cited Here

3. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases: Insights. ScienceDirect. Accessed October 7, 2024. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-stroke-and-cerebrovascular-diseases/about/insights

Cited Here

4. World Neurosurgery: Insights. ScienceDirect. Accessed October 7, 2024. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/world-neurosurgery/about/insights

Cited Here

5. Khan S, Yaqoob E, Chaurasia B, Javed S. Democratizing neurosurgical knowledge: a call for publishing reform. Neurosurg Rev. 2024;47(1):380.

6. Logullo P, de Beyer JA, Kirtley S, Schlüssel MM, Collins GS. Open access journal publication in health and medical research and open science: benefits, challenges and limitations. BMJ Evid-Based Med. 2024;29(4):223-228.

7. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Open access: changing global science publishing. Croat Med J. 2013;54(4):403-406.

8. Hajjem C, Gingras Y, Brody T, Carr L, Harnad S. Ten-year crossdisciplinary comparison of the growth of open access and how it increases research citation impact. Retrieved May 13, 2008. 2005.

9. Kousha K, Abdoli M. The citation impact of open access agricultural research: a comparison between OA and non‐OA publications. Online Inf Rev. 2010;34(5):772-785.