© Sonia Fernandez

Corina Logan
Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellow
Department of Zoology
University of Cambridge
cl417@cam.ac.uk
Twitter: @LoganCorina
Impactstory - ORCID


CV.pdf
Publications + Full CV
Lab


100% open access journals (in the DOAJ) at publishers that keep profits inside academia
in the fields of animal behavior and general science

Journal Article
Processing Charge
Open
Reviews
Registered Reports
accepted
License Articles selected for scientific validity not subjective impact Society-
owned
Publisher
Royal Society Open Science Free Yes Yes CC-BY Yes Yes Royal Society (non-profit)
PeerJ $399 (lifetime membership) Yes No CC-BY Yes No PeerJ (for-profit*)
eLife $2500 Yes No CC-BY No No eLife (non-profit)
Comparative Cognition and Behavior Reviews Free for authors^ No No CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 Yes Yes The Comparative Cognition Society (non-profit)
PLOS (several journals) $1495-2900 No No CC-BY Some yes, others no No PLOS (non-profit)
ScienceOpen Research $400 or 800 Yes No CC-BY 4.0 Yes No ScienceOpen (for-profit*)
Biology Open $1495 No No CC-BY Yes No Company of Biologists (non-profit)

*These for-profit publishers a) have low or no article processing charges, and/or b) heavily invest profits in academia, and/or c) are working to modernize publishing infrastructure
^If institutions can pay, an APC of $1000 is requested
+Also offers Replication Reports


Don't see your favorite society journal on this list?
Ask them to switch their journal to 100% open access and an ethical publisher. Below is a draft of an email I sent in May 2017 to the Cambridge Philosophical Society, which owns the journal Biological Reviews. Feel free to use it as a template to write to your societies.

- - -
Dear [fill in the blank],
I am writing because you are the Editor in Chief and Council Members of the [insert society name], which publishes [insert journal name]. I have been a member of the [insert society name] since 2008 and I want [insert journal name] to change from their current exploitative publisher ([insert publisher name]) to an ethical publishing business model, which will stop exploiting the researchers that give away their products for free (Logan 2017 https://f1000research.com/articles/6-518/v1).

The publishing landscape is changing rapidly and there are many options for scientific societies to consider when changing their journal to ethical publishing practices. The cheapest way to run a 100% open access journal is to use free, open source software such as Scholastica (https://scholasticahq.com) or eLife Continuum (https://elifesciences.org/elife-news/materials-publishers-elife-continuum) that overlays a preprint server such as http://www.biorxiv.org. An author would submit a preprint to bioRxiv and then submit this preprint to the journal, which would use free software to engage in the editorial and peer review process. If the paper passes peer review, it would be published by having the authors upload the revised version to bioRxiv and the journal would update their website to link to the revised version. Using this process, it costs only $10 USD to publish a paper, which is 100% open access.

Here are two case studies of journals that overlay arXiv using Scholastica software:
1) Discrete Analysis (born digital, based out of the University of Cambridge) https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an-arxiv-overlay-journal/
2) Internet Mathematics (changed from a big publisher) http://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/internet-mathematics-publishing-solo-using-scholastica/

If that method does not appeal, one can use an ethical open access publisher such as Copernicus Publications (http://publications.copernicus.org) or Ubiquity Press (http://www.ubiquitypress.com) who charge a per page flat fee that covers their processing costs. Article processing charges are incurred in this route, but grants, such as the one I mentioned above, can be obtained to offset costs rather than charging authors.

I realise that many scientific societies rely on income from the publishers of their subscription-based journals; however, this business model is not sustainable in the long-term because universities and researchers are tired of paying outrageous fees to read their own research products. I have been talking with senior people at a variety of scientific societies and have learned that some are in the process of changing their business models to make money off of ventures that are not related to the publication of articles. For example, The Association for Field Ornithologists makes much more money off of the company they recently purchased (that produces bird banding materials) than their Journal of Field Ornithology (published by Wiley).

If you would like to discuss any of this, please feel free to contact me.

All my best,
Corina