Open Letter to The American Association for the Advancement of Science

  • Jonathan P. Tennant
  • Timothée Poisot
  • M Fabiana Kubke
  • François Michonneau
  • Michael P. Taylor
  • Graham Steel
  • Jérémy Anquetin
  • Emily Coyte
  • Benjamin Schwessinger
  • Erin C. McKiernan
  • Tom Pollard
  • Aimee Eckert
  • Liz Allen
  • Dalmeet Singh Chawla
  • Elizabeth Silva
  • Nicholas Gardner
  • Nathan Cantley
  • John Dupuis
  • Christina Pikas
  • Amy Buckland
  • Lenny Teytelman
  • Zen Faulkes
  • Robert J. Gay
  • Peter T.B. Brett
  • Anders Eklund
  • Johannes Björk
  • William Gunn
  • Philippe Desjardins-Proulx
  • Joseph R. Hancock
  • Joshua M. Nicholson
  • Scott Edmunds
  • Steven Ray Wilson
  • Stuart Buck
  • B. Arman Aksoy
  • Nazeefa Fatima
  • Ross Mounce
  • Heather Piwowar
  • Avinash Thirumalai
  • Jason Priem
  • Clayton Aldern
  • Marcus D. Hanwell
  • Kristen L. Marhaver
  • David Michael Roberts
  • Brian Hole
  • Alexander Grossmann
  • David L. Vaux
  • John Murtagh
  • Alecia Carter
  • Alex O. Holcombe
  • Ignacio Torres Aleman
  • Sarah Molloy
  • John Lamp
  • Matthew Todd
  • Anusha Seneviratne
  • Guido Guidotti
  • Joseph McArthur
  • Carlos H. Grohmann
  • Jan de Leeuw
  • Jung H. Choi
  • Ernesto Priego
  • Brian Pasley
  • Stacy Konkiel
  • Elizabeth HB Hellen
  • Raphael Levy
  • Paul Coxon
  • Nitika Pant Pai
  • David Carroll
  • Jacinto Dávila
  • Marco Arieli Herrera-Valdez
  • Juan Pablo Alperin
  • Jan P. de Ruiter
  • Xianwen Chen
  • Jeanette Hatherill
  • Katharine Mullen
  • Pedro Bekinschtein
  • Quentin Groom
  • Karen Meijer-Kline
  • Pietro Gatti-Lafranconi
  • Jeffrey Hollister
  • Lachlan Coin
  • MooYoung Choi
  • Oscar Patterson-Lomba
  • Rowena Ball
  • Daniel Swan
  • Stephen Curry
  • Abigail Noyce
  • Jordan Ward
  • Ben Meghreblian
  • Ethan P. White
  • Sean R. Mulcahy
  • Sibele Fausto
  • Lorena A. Barba
  • Ed Trollope
  • Stephen Beckett
  • Andrew D. Steen
  • Mari Sarv
  • Noam Ross
  • Erika Amir
  • Martin Paul Eve
  • Franco Cecchi
  • Jason B. Colditz
  • Philip Spear
  • Mythili Menon
  • Matthew Clapham
  • Karl W. Broman
  • Graham Triggs
  • Tom Crick
  • Diano F. Marrone
  • Joseph Kraus
  • Steven Buyske
  • Gavin Simpson
  • Colleen Morgan
  • Kara Woo
  • Peter Murray-Rust

This is an open letter concerning the recent launch of the new open access journal, Science Advances. In addition to the welcome diversification in journal choices for authors looking for open access venues, there are many positive aspects of Science Advances: its broad STEM scope, its interest in cross-disciplinary research, and the offering of fee waivers. While we welcome the commitment of the Association to open access, we are also deeply concerned with the specific approach. Herein, we outline a number of suggestions that are in line with both the current direction that scholarly publishing is taking and the needs expressed by the open access community, which this journal aims to serve.

The first of these issues concerns the licensing terms of the journal articles. The default choice of a non-commercial licence (CC BY-NC) places unnecessary restrictions on reuse and does not meet the standards set out by the Budapest Open Access Initiative. Many large funders, including Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust, do not recognise this as an open license. The adoption of CC BY-NC as the default license means that many researchers will be unable to submit to Science Advances if they are to conform to their funder mandates unless they pay for the upgrade to CC BY. There is little evidence that non-commercial restrictions provide a benefit to the progress of scholarly research, yet they have significant negative impact, limiting the ability to reuse material for educational purposes and advocacy. For example, NC-encumbered materials cannot be used on Wikipedia. The non-commercial clause is known to generate ambiguities and uncertainties (see for example, NC Licenses Considered Harmful) to the detriment of scholarly communication. Additionally, there is little robust evidence to suggest that adopting a CC-BY license will lead to income loss for your Association, and the $1,000 surcharge is difficult to justify or defend. The value of the CC BY license is outlined in detail by the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association.

We raise an additional issue with the $1,500 surcharge for articles more than 10 pages in length. In an online-only format, page length is an arbitrary unit that results from the article being read in PDF format. Can the AAAS explain what the additional costs associated with the increased length are that would warrant a 50% increase in APC for an unspecified number of additional digital pages? Other leading open access journals, such as PeerJ, the BMC series, and PLOS ONE, offer publication of articles with unlimited page lengths. The extra costs create constraints that may adversely incentivize authors to exclude important details of their study, preventing replication and hindering transparency, all of which are contrary to the aims of scholarly publication. Therefore it seems counterproductive to impose this additional charge; it discriminates against researchers' best effort to communicate their findings with as much detail as necessary.

We feel that the proposed APCs and licencing scheme are detrimental to the AAAS and the global academic community. As such, we recommend that Science Advances:

1. Offers CC BY as standard for no additional cost, in line with leading open access publishers, so authors are able to comply with respective funding mandates;

2. Provides a transparent calculation of its APCs based on the publishing practices of the AAAS and explains how additional value created by the journal will measure against the significantly high prices paid by the authors;

3. Removes the surcharges associated with increased page number;

4. Releases all data files under CC0 (with CC BY optional), which has emerged as the community standard for data and is used by leading databases such as Figshare and DataDryad.

We hope that you will consider the points raised above, keeping in mind how best to serve the scientific community, and use Science Advances to add the AAAS to the group of progressive and innovative open access scholarly publishers. We hope AAAS will collaborate with the academic community to facilitate the dissemination of scientific knowledge through a journal committed to fully embracing the principles of Open Access.

We kindly request that you allow your response(s) to be made public along with this letter, and look forward to hearing your response soon.

(Please note that the views expressed here represent those of the individuals and not the institutions or organization with which they are affiliated)

Reviews

Showing 5 Reviews

  • Jonathan tennant
    Jonathan Tennant
    2

    A follow up email to this letter was delivered on the 28/08/2014. Text as follows:

    Dear AAAS,


    We are writing to request a status update on our open letter, delivered to the AAAS on Friday August 15 and since published in The Winnower and a range of additional venues. We note that an article published in the Times Higher Education today has cited the letter, and that the AAAS has published a formal response to the THE journalist, Paul Jump, regarding licensing and fees. However, the public response by AAAS is not directed to the 115 open letter signatories from the academic community and does not address our concerns or recommendations.


    Does the AAAS plan to publish a formal response to the academic community? Such a public response is in agreement with AAAS's commitment to “engaging further with readers, authors, and editors as we move forward with this new venture” and is necessary to keep the dialogue open. If such a response is planned, please indicate when and where we might expect to see it published.


    Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your response.


    Jonathan Tennant et al

    This review has 1 comments. Click to view.
    • Graham%20 steel
      Graham Steel

      And this was the "response" from AAAS http://scienceadvances.org/faq/

      • Graham%20 steel
        Graham Steel

        Coverage today via New Statesman http://www.newstatesman.com/science/2014/08/new-scientific-journal-science-advance-condemned-open-access-advocates

  • Graham%20 steel
    Graham Steel
    Originality of work
    Quality of writing
    Quality of figures
    Confidence in paper
    2

    Here is the complete list of the 115 signatories at the time that this item was released.

  • Hontas%20 farmer
    Hontas Farmer
    Originality of work
    Quality of writing
    Confidence in paper
    1

    This open letter states what I feel about this issue precisely.  As someone who has blogged for almost seven years for a site dedicated to a new way of doing science (science2.0) I could not be happier to see this change.  It is a good thing that Science is starting an open access online journal.  It is mystifying that page length would be an issue which would cause a paper to cost more to publish.   I would suggest that instead of a surcharge for being over a certain page length charge more per megabyte of storage. 

  • Jonathan tennant
    Jonathan Tennant
    Originality of work
    Quality of writing
    This review has 1 comments. Click to view.
    • Placeholder
      Gerard Ridgway

      I agree with the letter itself. However...

      It seems slightly confusing to have multiple versions of the same letter with different titles and authorship (e.g. the figshare citation has the Swing title and is given with just Steel & Tennant as authors). Which (if any) is considered the official location? Do any locations other than the Google Doc allow signatures to be added? If someone "signs" via a comment somewhere but doesn't edit the Doc would someone transfer that signature? Will any attempt be made to pool all comments/responses from different locations? If so, will the pooled set then be spread back to all sources or just centralised at one source (which?)?

      The multiple sources (including multiple DOIs) also make article level metrics a bit messy, e.g. the total number of times that *any* version has been viewed isn't easily available (e.g. a couple of the blogs don't seem to show obvious view counts), and things like altmetric don't allow tracking tweets (etc) to multiple DOIs at once, as far as I know.

      Personally, I would have preferred multiple blogs etc to simply link to a single official source, ideally one with a DOI (unlike Google Docs) and ideally allowing signatories to sign in a verified (and easily countable) way. Maybe the Winnower could develop a special article type allowing (account-based) signatures? Another possibility (for future petitions) might be to submit them as reviews to publons.com (particularly if there is a paper to which the petition can be considered a response). Publons allows separate comments and "endorsements" (from registered users), and which adds DOIs after a certain number (2 or 3, I think) of endorsements.

      Secondly, though more of a comment for the Winnower, is that I think these "reviews" (and particularly their ratings) are misleading; it's great to have comments from authors providing further links etc. but I don't think it makes sense to have authors rating their own papers as 5/5, or to indicate elsewhere on the site that this paper has been reviewed twice (since many would interpret that statement in terms of two independent peer reviews rather than two comments from its authors).

      • Placeholder
        Gerard Ridgway

        There were blank lines to indicate paragraphs in my comment originally...

      • Placeholder
        Gerard Ridgway

        It seems the Google Doc isn't editable (at least not right now), so I was wrong to assume that this would be one (if not the main) way to add a signature. I am still unsure about the method(s) to sign...

  • Jonathan tennant
    Jonathan Tennant
    0

    The AAAS have issued their response informally as an FAQ here: http://scienceadvances.org/faq/ 
    It neither addresses the letter as a catalyst for this, or makes any of the changes we recommended in the letter. 

License

This article and its reviews are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and redistribution in any medium, provided that the original author and source are credited.