Publishers Association defends hybrid journals
"The Publishers Association has hit back at criticisms of hybrid journals, saying they are 'fundamental' to the success of open access. The publishers' comments come in response to an article published by Jisc, Research Libraries UK, the Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL) and the Association of Research Managers in February this year. That article looked at both the newer fully open-access journals as well as legacy subscription journals, which usually offer open access as an option and are referred to as hybrid journals. It concluded that the hybrid-journal market was not performing well in enabling a transition to open access. However, the Publishers Association article, published on 11 April, says that hybrid journals play a 'valuable and important role delivering the open access ambitions of the UK government and the research community'. The February article questions whether using additional public funds to pay for article processing charges (APCs) for publication in hybrid journals is a good use of such funds. However the Publishers Association says this 'fails to acknowledge' that the hybrid option is the best way to grow open-access publishing, arguing that it does, therefore, help meet government policy objectives. The association says that hybrid journals are preferred by academics because they offer the option to publish in a well-established journal while still publishing open access. It adds that the higher cost for hybrid journals is justified because of the value that researchers put on such journals, seeing them as publications with high editorial standards, higher impact factors, greater levels of citation, higher standards of peer review—and therefore higher rejection rates—and higher production standards ..."