“Publish or perish” is a mantra that is familiar to all involved in academia. With their careers on the line, publications have become a crucial outlet that most academics have worked towards.
Today, there are numerous journals that are springing up every other day. An academic can easily receive up to ten emails soliciting for submissions to the various new journals. Some are genuine, but the bulk is dodgy, lacking reputable editorial boards and charging high publication fees for open access.
While open access is the new direction for academic publishing, it often comes with a high cost for the authors. Not only are the research funds used to fund their actual research costs, often it also has to fund manpower and overhead costs. With open access, research funds are now further diverted to pay for publications. Little wonder why many older academics of the past feel that open access journals are of lower quality, failing to balance safeguarding good science and maintaining a profit for the publisher.
There may be some truth that publishers and editors are under pressure to churn out a certain number of publications for financial reasons, and this can result in a decrease of the scientific quality of publications. However, it is without a doubt that “Open Access” has also improved scientific communication to scientists and layman alike. No longer is the poor student or interested reader facing a paywall when trying to gather information. However, another wall still persists in publications for the novice, and if ignored, this is at the peril of both students and professional academics.
It is an open secret that peer review is not often the best safeguard of academic quality. The friendly scientist may let something of lower quality pass upon seeing a familiar name in the author list. On the contrary, a rival academic, who is in the same field or who is biased against a particular premise in the field, may reject a high quality article. Either way, the student with no track record nor good network of peers clearly draws the shortest stick in the publishing arena. Given that in general, student research is of lower quality than professional academics, should they also work in a controversial area, they are doomed from publications. While the name of the supervisor may mitigate some of these disadvantages, in general, the student’s work would not be published.