Anderson R. P.

Beger M.

Bolliger J.

Brotons L.

Burridge C. P.

Cobos M. E.

Cuervo‐Robayo A. P.

Di Minin E.

Diez J.

Elith J.

Embling C. B.

Escobar L. E.

Essl F.

Feeley K. J.

Green D. M.

Hawkes L.

Jimenez L.

Jiménez‐García D.

Knop E.

Kühn I.

Lahoz‐Monfort J. J.

Lira-Noriega A.

Lobo J. M.

Loyola R.

Machado-Stredel F.

MacNally R.

Martínez-Meyer E.

McCarthy M.

Merow C.

Nori J.

Nuñez‐Penichet C.

Osorio L.

Peterson A. T.

Pyše P.

Rejmànek M.

Ricciardi A.

Robertson M.

Rojas Soto O.

Romero‐Alvarez D.

Roura‐Pascual N.

Santini L.

Schoeman D. S.

Schröder B.

Soberon J.

Strubbe D.

Thuiller W.

Traveset A.

Treml E. A.

Varela S.

Václavík T.

Watson J. E. M.

Wiersma Y.

Wintle B.

Yanez-Arenas

Zurell D.

English

Rejmànek M.

Archivio della ricerca- Università di Roma La Sapienza

Diversity and Distributions. 2019;25:5–8.	 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ddi	 	 | 	5© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Received:	10	September	2018  |  Revised:	5	October	2018  |  Accepted:	11	October	2018DOI:	10.1111/ddi.12885B I O D I V E R S I T Y  L E T T E ROpen access solutions for biodiversity journals: Do not replace one problem with anotherA. Townsend Peterson1  | Robert P. Anderson2  | Maria Beger3 |  Janine Bolliger4  | Lluís Brotons5  | Christopher P. Burridge6  |  Marlon E. Cobos1  | Angela P. Cuervo‐Robayo7 | Enrico Di Minin8,9  | Jeffrey Diez10 |  Jane Elith11  | Clare B. Embling12 | Luis E. Escobar13 | Franz Essl14  | Kenneth J. Feeley15  |  Lucy Hawkes16  | Daniel Jiménez‐García17  | Laura Jimenez1 | David M. Green19  |  Eva Knop20  | Ingolf Kühn21  | José J. Lahoz‐Monfort11  | Andres Lira‐Noriega22 |  Jorge M. Lobo23 | Rafael Loyola24  | Ralph Mac Nally25  |  Fernando Machado‐Stredel1  | Enrique Martínez‐Meyer7 | Michael McCarthy11  |  Cory Merow26 | Javier Nori27  | Claudia Nuñez‐Penichet1  | Luis Osorio‐Olvera18  |  Petr Pyšek28,29  | Marcel Rejmánek30 | Anthony Ricciardi31 | Mark Robertson32 |  Octavio Rojas Soto22  | Daniel Romero‐Alvarez1  | Núria Roura‐Pascual33  |  Luca Santini34  | David S. Schoeman35  | Boris Schröder36  | Jorge Soberon1  |  Diederik Strubbe37  | Wilfried Thuiller38  | Anna Traveset39  | Eric A. Treml40 |  Tomáš Václavík41  | Sara Varela42,43,44 | James E. M. Watson45,46  | Yolanda Wiersma47  |  Brendan Wintle11,48  | Carlos Yañez‐Arenas49 | Damaris Zurell501Department	of	Ecology	&	Evolutionary	Biology	and	Biodiversity	Institute,	University	of	Kansas,	Lawrence,	Kansas2City	College	of	New	York	and	Graduate	Center,	City	University	of	New	York,	New	York,	New	York3School	of	Biology,	Faculty	of	Biological	Sciences,	University	of	Leeds,	Leeds,	UK4Swiss	Federal	Research	Institute	WSL,	Birmensdorf,	Switzerland5CSIC	at	InForest	Jru	(CTFC-CREAF),	Cataluña,	Spain6School	of	Natural	Sciences,	University	of	Tasmania,	Hobart,	Tasmania,	Australia7Universidad	Nacional	Autónoma	de	México,	Ciudad	de	México,	Mexico8Department	of	Geosciences	and	Geography,	University	of	Helsinki,	Helsinki,	Finland9School	of	Life	Sciences,	University	of	KwaZulu-Natal,	Durban,	South	Africa10University	of	California,	Riverside,	California11University	of	Melbourne,	Parkville,	Victoria,	Australia12University	of	Plymouth,	Plymouth,	UK13Department	of	Fish	and	Wildlife	Conservation,	Virginia	Tech,	Blacksburg,	Virginia14Division	of	Conservation	Biology,	Vegetation	and	Landscape	Ecology,	University	Vienna,	Vienna,	Austria15University	of	Miami,	Coral	Gables,	Florida16College	of	Life	and	Environmental	Sciences,	University	of	Exeter,	Penryn,	UK17Centro	de	Agroecología	y	Ambiente-ICUAP,	Benemérita	Universidad	Autónoma	de	Puebla,	Puebla,	MexicoThis	article	is	commented	on	by	the	publisher.	To	view	this	Publisher’s	Note	visit	https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12888.6  |     PETERSON ET al.18Centro	del	Cambio	Global	y	la	Sustentabilidad	en	el	Sureste	AC,	Tabasco,	Mexico19Redpath	Museum,	McGill	University,	Montreal,	Quebec,	Canada20University	of	Bern,	Bern,	Switzerland21Helmholtz	Centre	for	Environmental	Research	–	UFZ,	Halle,	Germany22Instituto	de	Ecología	(INECOL),	Xalapa,	Mexico23Museo	Nacional	de	Ciencias	Naturales,	Madrid,	Spain24Universidade	Federal	de	Goiás,	Goiânia,	Brazil25University	of	Canberra,	Bruce,	Australian	Capital	Territory,	Australia26Yale	University,	New	Haven,	Connecticut27Universidad	Nacional	de	Córdoba,	Córdoba,	Argentina28Institute	of	Botany,	Czech	Academy	of	Sciences,	Prague,	Czech	Republic29Faculty	of	Science,	Charles	University,	Prague,	Czech	Republic30University	of	California,	Davis,	California31McGill	University,	Montreal,	Quebec,	Canada32University	of	Pretoria,	Pretoria,	South	Africa33Departament	de	Ciències	Ambientals,	Universitat	de	Girona,	Girona,	Catalonia,	Spain34Radboud	University,	Nijmegen,	The	Netherlands35University	of	the	Sunshine	Coast,	Maroochydore,	Queensland,	Australia36Technische	Universität	Braunschweig,	Braunschweig,	Germany37Ghent	University,	Gent,	Belgium38Université	Grenoble	Alpes,	Saint-Martin-d’Hères,	France39Mediterranean	Institute	of	Advanced	Studies	(CSIC-UIB),	Mallorca,	Spain40Deakin	University,	Burwood,	Victoria,	Australia41Palacky	University	Olomouc,	Olomouc,	Czech	Republic42Université	Grenoble	Alpes,	Grenoble,	France43CNRS,	Université	Savoie	Mont	Blanc,	Chambéry,	France44LECA-Laboratoire	d’Ecologie	Alpes,	Gières,	France45School	of	Earth	and	Environmental	Sciences,	University	of	Queensland,	Brisbane,	Queensland,	Australia46Wildlife	Conservation	Society,	Bronx,	New	York47Department	of	Biology,	Memorial	University,	St.	John’s,	NL,	Canada48University	of	Queensland,	St	Lucia,	Queensland,	Australia49Laboratorio	de	Biología	de	la	Conservación,	Parque	Científico	y	Tecnológico	de	Yucatán,	Facultad	de	Ciencias-Universidad	Nacional	Autónoma	de	México,	Mérida,	Yucatán,	México50Humboldt-Universität	zu	Berlin,	Berlin,	GermanyCorrespondenceA.	Townsend	Peterson,	Biodiversity	Institute,	University	of	Kansas,	Lawrence,	KS.Email: town@ku.eduFor	much	of	the	twentieth	century,	many	or	most	scholarly	journals	in	biodiversity,	ecology,	biogeography	and	conservation	were	owned	and	published	by	scientific	societies	and	made	available	to	the	broader	scientific	community	at	relatively	low	cost.	However,	the	past	several	decades	have	seen	a	dominant	process	of	commercialization	of	 the	publication	process	in	this	field,	either	by	commercial	publishing	firms	taking	over	publication	of	journals	owned	by	a	society	(e.g.,	Evolution),	or	by	commercial	publishers	starting	new	journals	to	fill	“niches”	that	were	until	then	empty	in	the	scholarly	publishing	ecosystem.	Diversity and Distributions	is	an	example	of	this	latter	category	of	journals,	hav-ing	been	created	by	Wiley	Publishers	in	1993	(as	Biodiversity Letters).	Being	a	journal	owned	by	a	commercial	publisher,	it	has	always	been	accessed	by	readers	via	subscription,	but	the	publication	process	has	been	free	to	potential	authors	whose	work	has	passed	peer	review.A	recent	announcement	from	Wiley	Publishers	on	the	Diversity and Distributions website,	however,	was	as	follows:We	 are	 pleased	 to	 announce	 that	 Diversity	 and	Distributions	will	join	the	Wiley	Open	Access	portfo-lio	as	of	1st	January	2019,	when	all	articles	(including	the	entire	back	catalogue)	will	become	free	 to	 read,	download	and	share	for	all.	This	exciting	development	will	place	the	journal	at	the	forefront	of	open	science	in the community.This	change	would	appear	to	be	positive,	as	it	would	remove	the	for-pay	subscription	barrier	to	reader	access	to	the	journal,	and	thus	would	appear	to	constitute	an	intriguing	step	in	a	series	of	advances	     |  7PETERSON ET al.in	opening	access	to	the	scientific	 literature,	 in	 line	with	recent	pro-posals	 as	 those	of	 cOAlition	S	 (https://www.scienceeurope.org/coa-lition-s/).	However,	 the	good	news	on	the	webpage	 is	 followed	by	a	more	ominous,	“...	all	submissions	received	after	8th	October	2018	will	be	subject	to	an	Article	Processing	Charge	(APC).”	We	have	come	to	understand	 that	 these	APCs	will	 be	US$2,200	per	paper	published,	which	is	very	expensive	compared	with	the	bulk	of	open	access	jour-nals	in	the	fields	of	ecology	and	conservation	science	(Van	Noorden,	2013;	Solomon	&	Björk,	2012a,	2012b).As	authors	(generators),	reviewers	and	editors	(evaluators),	and	readers	(consumers)	of	papers	published	in	this	field,	we	write	this	commentary	to	express	our	strongest	disagreement	with	the	planned	shift	 to	 APC-based	 open	 access	 for	 Diversity and Distributions. Whatever	the	business	model,	Diversity and Distributions has	become	a	lead	journal	in	the	field	thanks	to	the	free-of-charge	support	of	the	scientific	community	as	editors	and	reviewers	and	has	long	been	a	zero-cost	publishing	outlet.	Of	course,	it	has	not	been	an	easily	ac-cessible	journal	for	the	readers,	as	it	has	been	behind	a	paywall	(i.e.,	pay-for-view),	but	the	work	has	indeed	been	published,	and	readers	have	accessed	papers	via	author	request,	institutional	subscriptions,	Sci-Hub	 (Himmelstein	 et	 al.,	 2018),	 institutional	 repositories,	 pre-print	archives	that	conform	to	copyright	restrictions,	or	other	plat-forms.	Wiley's	“open	access”	solution	changes	the	equation	radically,	making	the	journal	accessible	to	readers,	but	effectively	off-limits	to	many	potential	authors.The	community	of	scholars	in	biodiversity,	ecology,	biogeography,	and	conservation	has	become	and	 is	 continuing	 to	be	 increasingly	diverse	 and	 global,	 distributed	 across	 borders	 of	 countries,	 levels	of	economic	potential,	and	institutional	size.	As	a	consequence,	the	community	varies	dramatically	 in	 its	economic	ability,	for	example,	to	pay	US$2,200	to	publish	a	paper.	The	Diversity and Distributions page	states,	“...	automatic	APC	waivers	and	discounts	will	be	given	to	authors	from	countries	on	the	Waivers	and	Discounts	List,”	yet	the	list	is	quite	short,	including	automatic	waivers	to	only	69	countries	worldwide	and	discounts	to	only	49	countries	that	have	contributed	few	papers	to	Diversity and Distributions	(7	with	waivers	and	7	with	discounts	in	2017,	according	to	information	provided	by	Wiley),	and	excluding	 countries	 with	 scarce	 economic	 resources	 for	 science	such	as	Cuba	and	Venezuela.	In	addition	to	scientists	in	countries	for	which	the	discounts	are	not	sufficient,	researchers	in	many	countries	not	on	that	 list	will	also	not	be	able	 to	pay,	with	the	planned	APC	exceeding	a	senior	investigator's	yearly	income	in	some	cases.In	truth,	authors	at	smaller	institutions	or	working	without	grants	at	larger	institutions	even	in	the	United	States,	Canada,	Australia	and	Europe,	will	often	find	 it	difficult	 to	come	up	with	 this	sum.	 In	 re-sponse	 to	 initial	 protests,	 particularly	 from	 a	 large	 number	 of	 the	Associate	Editors	of	the	 journal,	Wiley	agreed	to	a	broader	waiver	policy:	“Ability	to	pay	the	APC	should	not	be	a	barrier	to	the	publi-cation	of	important	science.	Authors	without	funding	for	publication	charges	will	be	provided	with	a	waiver	of	the	APC.”	Although	Wiley	Publishers	plans	to	offer	waivers,	we	note	that	a	substantial	body	of	literature	documents	the	fact	that	such	fee-waiver	requests	carry	a	stigma,	and	frequently	constitute	a	significant	barrier	to	participation	in	a	wide	variety	of	activities	 (Berk	&	Moon,	2016;	Challed,	1996).	Also,	Wiley	Publishers	has	not	made	clear	whether	they	will	include	university	funds	in	the	“ability	to	pay,”	or	what	sort	of	documentation	will	be	required	to	document	authors’	inability	to	pay.	Quite	simply,	given	the	global	nature	of	the	challenges	of	biodiversity	conserva-tion,	 excluding	 voices—and	 particularly	 voices	 from	 countries	 that	frequently	are	those	holding	the	richest	biodiversity—does	not	seem	to	be	a	beneficial	or	equitable	path	to	take,	and	we	do	not	wish	to	see	Diversity and Distributions make	such	a	change.We	think	that	this	problem	arises	from	an	inappropriate	choice	of	business	model	for	scientific	journals	and	for	lack	of	consultation	with	the	client	community.	Surely,	Wiley	Publishers	is	well	aware	of	 the	 increasing	number	of	 journal	subscription	cancellations	by	large	research	institutions	(SPARC,	2018)	and	is	presumably	explor-ing	and	developing	new	future	revenue	streams	for	 its	massively	profitable	 enterprise.	 That	 is	 to	 say,	 the	 traditional	 subscription	model	may	be	approaching	the	end	of	its	profitability	(Else,	2018);	for	publishers	 and	 scientists	 alike,	 another	model	 is	needed,	 and	an	open	access	model	sounds	good	politically.	However,	any	such	change	should	be	made	considering	the	consequences	for	the	com-munity	in	question,	and	for	the	journal	itself.	Clearly,	the	Diversity and Distributions decision	was	 not	 taken	out	 of	 a	 deep,	 carefully	considered	concern	for	open	participation	in	scholarly	publishing,	which	would	have	taken	into	account	the	effects	of	high	APC	rates	on	full	participation	by	the	journal's	constituency.The	authors	of	this	commentary	are	a	 large	group	of	scientists	based	at	 institutions	around	the	world,	 including	40	of	 the	associ-ate	editors	of	Diversity and Distributions	 at	 the	 time	of	writing.	All	of	us	view	Diversity and Distributions	as	an	important	element	in	our	community's	 scholarly	 communications	 universe.	 The	 shift	 to	 an	“author	 pays”	 publishing	model	 damages	 the	 essential	 role	 of	 the	journal	 deeply,	 as	 it	will	make	publishing	 there	 expensive	 and	po-tentially	off-limits	 for	us	 and	many	of	our	 colleagues.	Collectively,	we	 have	 published	 numerous	 papers	 in	Diversity and Distributions and	 have	 donated	many	 hundreds	 of	 hours	 reviewing	 and	 editing	papers	 for	 the	 journal	 as	well,	 to	 the	massive	 financial	 benefit	 of	Wiley	 Publishers.	We	note	 that	Wiley	 Publishers	 saw	 a	 net	 profit	of	 $252,000,000	 in	 2017	 (Matthews,	 2018),	 which	 is	 enough	 net	profit	to	cover	the	APCs	for	114,545	articles	costing	$2,200!	Hence,	presumably,	substantial	room	exists	to	reduce	profit	margins	and	in-crease	participation	for	a	journal	in	a	field	like	that	of	Diversity and Distributions.We	 therefore	 tentatively	 applaud	 Wiley	 Publishers’	 reconsid-eration	of	 its	 initial	 author-pays	plans	 for	 the	 journal	Diversity and Distributions,	 and	 their	 offer	 of	 strong,	 equitable	waivers	 and	 dis-counts.	 If	Wiley	 Publishers	 indeed	 holds	 to	 its	 promise	 not	 to	 let	APCs	 be	 a	 barrier	 to	 scholarly	 communication,	we	would	 see	 the	new	 situation	more	 positively;	 even	 better	would	 be	 a	 “platinum”	open	 access	 business	model,	 in	which	 external	 subsidy	 is	 used	 to	avoid	crippling	APCs.	Some	platinum	open	access	journals	have	close	relationships	 with	 scientific	 societies	 or	 charitable	 foundations,	are	subsidized	by	a	particular	 institution	or	entity,	or	charge	much	more	modest	APCs	in	exchange	for	membership	dues;	examples	of	8  |     PETERSON ET al.journals	using	these	different	funding	solutions	include	Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation,	 Current Science,	 Current Zoology,	Emerging Infectious Diseases,	European Journal of Ecology,	Neotropical Biodiversity,	and	Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad.	If,	however,	Wiley	Publishers	does	not	hold	to	its	“no	APC	barriers”	policy	(e.g.,	if	they	start	withholding	waivers	to	authors	claiming	lack	of	funds),	we	an-ticipate that Diversity and Distributions will	see	a	rather	rapid	decline	in	submission	rates	of	quality	papers,	out	of	both	economic	neces-sity	and	 “protest”	by	 the	community.	As	members	of	 the	 research	community,	 we	would	 likely	 send	 our	manuscripts	 for	 publication	elsewhere	and	reconsider	our	customary	volunteer	work	as	referees	and	editors	for	such	a	high-cost	and	low-participation	journal.	More	generally,	we	urge	that	Wiley	Publishers	and	other	commercial	pub-lishers	realize	that	the	future	of	scholarly	publishing	is	not	just	one	of open access,	 but	 rather	open participation,	 such	 that	 the	 fullest	scholarly	 community	 can	participate	 in	 all	 dimensions	of	 scholarly	communications.ORCIDA. Townsend Peterson  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0243-2379 Robert P. Anderson  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7706-4649 Janine Bolliger  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8145-559X Lluís Brotons  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4826-4457 Christopher P. Burridge  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8185-6091 Marlon E. Cobos  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2611-1767 Enrico Di Minin  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5562-318X Jane Elith  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8706-0326 Franz Essl  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8253-2112 Kenneth J. Feeley  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3618-1144 Lucy Hawkes  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6696-1862 Daniel Jiménez‐García  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2237-3305 David M. Green  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4438-2285 Eva Knop  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9402-2216 Ingolf Kühn  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1691-8249 José J. Lahoz‐Monfort  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0845-7035 Rafael Loyola  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5323-2735 Ralph Mac Nally  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4473-1636 Fernando Machado‐Stredel  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8378-3172 Michael McCarthy  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1039-7980 Javier Nori  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7127-7934 Claudia Nuñez‐Penichet  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7442-8593 Luis Osorio‐Olvera  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0701-5398 Petr Pyšek  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8500-442X Octavio Rojas Soto  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0201-1454 Daniel Romero‐Alvarez  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6762-6046 Núria Roura‐Pascual  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0025-2972 Luca Santini  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5418-3688 David S. Schoeman  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1258-0885 Boris Schröder  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8577-7980 Jorge Soberon  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2160-4148 Diederik Strubbe  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2613-4985 Wilfried Thuiller  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5388-5274 Anna Traveset  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1816-1334 Tomáš Václavík  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1113-6320 James E. M. Watson  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4942-1984 Yolanda Wiersma  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4604-9240 Brendan Wintle  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4234-5950 Damaris Zurell  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4628-3558 R E FE R E N C E SBerk,	M.,	&	Moon,	L.	M.	(2016).	Effects	of	a	facilitated	fee	waiver	pro-gram	on	participation	in	youth	sports	programs.	Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,	 34,	 99–105.	 https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2016-V34-I3-6434Challed,	D.	G.	 (1996).	Student	fee	waivers	 in	public	schools:	Have	fees	created	a	private	school	within	a	public	school.	Clearinghouse Review,	30,	121.Else,	 H.	 (2018).	 Radical	 open-access	 plan	 could	 spell	 end	 to	 jour-nal	 subscriptions.	 Nature,	 561,	 17–18.	 https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06178-7Himmelstein,	 D.	 S.,	 Romero,	 A.	 R.,	 Levernier,	 J.	 G.,	 Munro,	 T.	 A.,	McLaughlin,	 S.	 R.,	 Tzovaras,	B.	G.,	&	Greene,	C.	 S.	 (2018).	 Sci-hub	provides	access	to	nearly	all	scholarly	literature.	eLife,	7,	e32822.Matthews,	D.	(2018).	Is	it	time	to	nationalise	academic	publishers?	TImes	Higher	Education;	2	March	2018.Solomon,	D.	 J.,	&	Björk,	B.-C.	 (2012a).	Publication	 fees	 in	open	access	publishing:	 Sources	 of	 funding	 and	 factors	 influencing	 choice	 of	journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences,	63,	98–107.Solomon,	D.	J.,	&	Björk,	B.	C.	 (2012b).	A	study	of	open	access	 journals	using	article	processing	charges.	Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,	63,	1485–1495.SPARC	 (2018).	 Big deal cancellation tracking.	 Scholarly	 Publishing	 and	Academic	 Resources	 Coalition.	 Retrieved	 from	 https://sparcopen.org/our-work/big-deal-cancellation-tracking/Van	Noorden,	R.	(2013).	The	true	cost	of	science	publishing.	Nature,	495,	426–429.

Open Access Solutions for Biodiversity Journals: Don’t Replace One Problem with Another

https://iris.uniroma1.it/bitstream/11573/1529139.2/1/Peterson_Open_2019.pdf

Open Access Solutions for Biodiversity Journals: Don’t Replace One Problem with Another

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archivio della ricerca- Università di Roma La Sapienza