Taylor & Francis Online :: Improving Science by Improving Scientific Communication: The View From the APA Publications and Communications Board - Psychological Inquiry - Volume 23, Issue 3

"Brian A. Nosek and Yoav Bar-Anan (this issue) describe a utopian vision of the scientific communication of the future, in which papers are published online instead of in print, the business model of publication shifts from subscription to open access with publication fees, publication is disentangled from evaluation (peer review), evaluation is separated from editing and publication, and reviews are signed and published with the paper. Whether this vision will be realized in all its details is difficult to predict, but I can confidently predict that scientific communication will change in many of the ways Nosek and Bar-Anan envision. Nosek and Bar-Anan note a number of obstacles to change, including the profits that for-profit publishers make under the journal subscription model; the vested interest of professional societies, which fund many of their activities through subscription revenues; and not least, scientists themselves, who know the rules of the game of the current system and rely on it to pass judgment on the quality of scientific contributions. Nosek and Bar-Anan identify the American Psychological Association (APA) as a publisher that has resisted the open access model, suggesting that reluctance to relinquish revenue streams accounts for this resistance. As the outgoing chair of the APA Publications and Communications (P&C) Board, I have been privy to numerous discussions about a wide range of issues related to APA journals. My comments here represent my own personal view and do not represent the official views of the P&C Board, but they are informed by its deliberations. Unquestionably, APA journals generate revenue that supports a wide range of Association activities benefitting psychologists. Important as journal revenues are to the Association, however, they are not the only, or even the primary, source of resistance to open access journals. Many APA members are skeptical of a model in which authors pay a fee upon submission or acceptance of their manuscript. This skepticism is understandable, as many authors do not currently have access to funds to pay such fees. Members fear that some psychologists will be differentially hurt by a fee-based system, and it is not clear that they are wrong. Open access journals might (or might not) waive fees in cases of need, but even if they do, authors who view fee waivers as charity may be discouraged from submitting. Members also fear that fee-based systems will lead journals to lower their standards as a means to generate more fees. Based on these considerations, the APA Council voted to prohibit APA journals from charging publication fees. Despite these concerns, the APA P&C Board recognizes that scientific publishing is changing rapidly, in ways that promise to speed the advancement of science. We regularly discuss visions of the 'article of the future' and changes to publishing afforded by technological advances. Indeed, the P&C Board recently approved development of a new online-only, open access journal, titled Archives of Scientific Psychology, which will be launched by the time this comment is published. The P&C Board views Archives as a test of whether a psychology journal devoted to the best, most open scientific practices can survive and thrive in the current publishing environment. In addition to using an open access business model, Archives will require authors to deposit the data on which articles are based to a repository, where other scientists can access them. Freed from page constraints, it will require authors to include a nontechnical abstract and Methods section in addition to the usual technical versions, making the research reported more comprehensible to nonscientists. It will encourage more openness about methods, samples, and analyses by publishing author responses to questions based on APA's Journal Article Reporting Standards (APA Publication and Communication Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards, 2008). Finally, at the discretion of the editor, reviewers will have the option to publish their signed reviews along with the article; the reviews themselves will be citable contributions to the literature. Thus, Archives will put into practice at least three of Nosek and Bar-Anan's 'utopian' recommendations: digital communication, open access, and publication of peer review, and add additional requirements intended to create more open scientific communication. Many current editors of APA journals have agreed to serve as Associate Editors of Archives, lending their support to this initiative. Through the discussions of this new journal and other issues such as data sharing, the P&C Board has repeatedly returned to the question, 'What's good for the advancement of science?' Members of the P&C Board are scientists themselves, with their own issues and concerns about the changes in scientific communication that Archives will require. It has been inspiring to witness members set aside self-interest and express enthusiasm for the bold experiment that Archives represents. Archives is but one experi