Re: [visionlist] [cvnet] Re: Open Access responses | Computer Vision News

"Over nine months ago, our journals were asked to '…respond to the survey, particularly addressing exactly why each journal is as expensive / cheap as it is, particularly its open access option, and whether each journal will provide transparent accounting of costs.”To my knowledge, four publishers (ARVO, Perception / SAGE, Frontiers and Psychonomics) have provided at least a cursory response, whereas Vision Research (Elsevier), the APA (JEP:HPP), Multisensory Research and MDPI’s Vision journal have provided no response. I recently decided to refuse a review request for Vision Research, providing the editor with the following letter:

Dear Editor,

As you’re aware, in January 2016 CVNet hosted a long discussion about open-access charges and journal costings more generally. This discussion resulted in a survey of the community (results here: http://ift.tt/jCE3DI). All journals publishing vision-related content were invited to respond to the survey, particularly addressing 'exactly why each journal is as expensive/cheap as it is, particularly its open access option, and whether each journal will provide transparent accounting of costs. Given that the data indicate that 'Full academic or professional society control” is a high priority, editors should also comment on the ability of themselves and the rest of us to affect their journal’s policies, features and cost.'.

To my knowledge, Vision Research has as yet failed to respond to this survey, despite having agreed to such a response at its editorial board meeting at VSS in May. This is in contrast to some other journals and publishers, such as Perception / iPerception and ARVO. If this understanding is mistaken, please let me know and I will correct my stance.

Failing that, I therefore choose to withhold my services as a reviewer until such time as Vision Research / Elsevier engage with the community they supposedly serve."