Ethical publishing in biodiversity conservation science
For many researchers, particularly in academia, publishing in peer-reviewed journals is a necessity, with major implications for their career progression. Yet, it is increasingly recognised that the current scientific publishing model is not fair and equitable, which can have severe consequences for...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Medknow Publications
2020
|
| _version_ | 1797060619781799936 |
|---|---|
| author | Verissimo, D Pienkowski, T Arias, M Cugniere, L Doughty, H Hazenbosch, M de Lange, E Moskeland, A Grace, M |
| author_facet | Verissimo, D Pienkowski, T Arias, M Cugniere, L Doughty, H Hazenbosch, M de Lange, E Moskeland, A Grace, M |
| author_sort | Verissimo, D |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | For many researchers, particularly in academia, publishing in peer-reviewed journals is a necessity, with major implications for their career progression. Yet, it is increasingly recognised that the current scientific publishing model is not fair and equitable, which can have severe consequences for the way science is accessed and used in nature conservation. We evaluated the publishing model of 426 conservation science journals against the Fair Open Access (FOA) principles. Two-thirds of journals, together publishing nearly half of all articles, complied with only two or fewer FOA principles. Only twenty journals (5%), publishing 485 articles per year (<1%), complied with all five principles. We uncovered a weak negative correlation between journal impact factor and the number of FOA principles fulfilled. Lastly, we found that Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Springer represented 48% of all journals, but 80% of the 25 journals with the highest impact factor. Our results show that conservation science journals largely fail to meet the FOA standards. Conservation researchers are likely to face obstacles such as limited access to published literature, high publishing charges, and lack of ownership of their research outputs. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T20:19:39Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:2d59746e-8efb-47b5-9f95-c0302d719627 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T20:19:39Z |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publisher | Medknow Publications |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:2d59746e-8efb-47b5-9f95-c0302d7196272022-03-26T12:42:27ZEthical publishing in biodiversity conservation scienceJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:2d59746e-8efb-47b5-9f95-c0302d719627EnglishSymplectic ElementsMedknow Publications2020Verissimo, DPienkowski, TArias, MCugniere, LDoughty, HHazenbosch, Mde Lange, EMoskeland, AGrace, MFor many researchers, particularly in academia, publishing in peer-reviewed journals is a necessity, with major implications for their career progression. Yet, it is increasingly recognised that the current scientific publishing model is not fair and equitable, which can have severe consequences for the way science is accessed and used in nature conservation. We evaluated the publishing model of 426 conservation science journals against the Fair Open Access (FOA) principles. Two-thirds of journals, together publishing nearly half of all articles, complied with only two or fewer FOA principles. Only twenty journals (5%), publishing 485 articles per year (<1%), complied with all five principles. We uncovered a weak negative correlation between journal impact factor and the number of FOA principles fulfilled. Lastly, we found that Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Springer represented 48% of all journals, but 80% of the 25 journals with the highest impact factor. Our results show that conservation science journals largely fail to meet the FOA standards. Conservation researchers are likely to face obstacles such as limited access to published literature, high publishing charges, and lack of ownership of their research outputs. |
| spellingShingle | Verissimo, D Pienkowski, T Arias, M Cugniere, L Doughty, H Hazenbosch, M de Lange, E Moskeland, A Grace, M Ethical publishing in biodiversity conservation science |
| title | Ethical publishing in biodiversity conservation science |
| title_full | Ethical publishing in biodiversity conservation science |
| title_fullStr | Ethical publishing in biodiversity conservation science |
| title_full_unstemmed | Ethical publishing in biodiversity conservation science |
| title_short | Ethical publishing in biodiversity conservation science |
| title_sort | ethical publishing in biodiversity conservation science |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT verissimod ethicalpublishinginbiodiversityconservationscience AT pienkowskit ethicalpublishinginbiodiversityconservationscience AT ariasm ethicalpublishinginbiodiversityconservationscience AT cugnierel ethicalpublishinginbiodiversityconservationscience AT doughtyh ethicalpublishinginbiodiversityconservationscience AT hazenboschm ethicalpublishinginbiodiversityconservationscience AT delangee ethicalpublishinginbiodiversityconservationscience AT moskelanda ethicalpublishinginbiodiversityconservationscience AT gracem ethicalpublishinginbiodiversityconservationscience |