The PhD Expedition

As someone on the publishing side of research, it is hard to escape the mistrust many researchers have towards publishers. The question that often comes up is, “Why do we as researchers have to pay publishers money for publishing? After all, we are the ones who have worked hard for the content and it is publishers who profit from it.”

The question is fair and deserves some explanation because I have reasons to believe that a lot of antagonism towards publishers also stems from a lack of understanding of the role of publishers. For most researchers, the role of publishers is limited to collecting research, uploading research on their platforms, and selling the research through. There are a thousand other steps that require manpower and technology that is completely invisible to an outsider. For instance, most researchers do not even think about how many people have been involved in a simple copyediting of one article and how many are involved in the system to ensure that all submissions received remain safe in the entire process. And that’s just one step.

Can the research community manage without publishers? Of course!

Can everyone manage to ensure that the research published meets the expectations of valid research the way publishers do? No.

Like everything else, there are pros and cons to consider between choosing to publish with a publishing house and under which model. It all boils down to what the researchers want to achieve from the publications and what are they willing to accept.

Just to simplify the situation, let us just assume that one decides to get healthy. Some will choose to go for regular walks outside or do home-based workouts. This needs only an investment of time but not money. Some will feel the need to accelerate or support their fitness goal by paying a membership fee and joining a gym. This needs an investment of time and some money. There may be some who are more focussed on their targets; for instance, besides getting healthy, they want their body to be toned, want 6-pack abs, have better flexibility, strengthen their core, etc. They will pay additional fees for a personal trainer and, perhaps even a nutritionist. This will need an investment of time and definitely investment of more money. In each of the scenarios, one thing remains common. The one who sets the goal is the one who must put in the work and sweat whether in a park or at the gym. Similarly, researchers and editors have options on how and where they publish, what are they getting in return, and whether they pay for the services and platform offered by a publisher or not.

Publishing houses are businesses like any other, and they exist because of a need and demand in the research community. Publishing houses have constantly evolved along with the changes in the research landscape and, indeed, it is the need from the research community for the gamut of services, such as creating necessary processes and building a robust system to filter content; marketing and distributing works to reach wider audiences and help authors build visibility for their work; publishing content that meets the quality expectation; protecting intellectual property through contracts, copyrights, and royalty payments; building support and resources for authors. Publishers also are constantly updating or creating new platforms to facilitate a better and more effective research experience for authors and readers. For all these reasons and more, publishers are an essential part of the research ecosystem.

Let us remember that not all publishing avenues available with a publisher require payment to publish. In the case of closed-access or subscription-based platforms/journals, it is the readers who must pay to access the content. This is not an optimum since it is a barrier to knowledge-sharing, which is an integral part of doing research in the first place.

So, who pays for publishing and accessing research?

The existing system of asking researchers to pay for publishing their work is difficult, especially for those without access to funds. Here, the growing success of Platinum Open Access (where the institute pays for OA journals thus making OA publishing free for authors and keeps access free for readers) is a step in the right direction towards a more accessible and equitable publishing model. It also is a great way to avoid predatory publishing that relies on misdirecting authors into paying for publication without following the necessary processes of looking into quality of publication nor making any effort towards dessimination of that research. Maybe it’s time for government and private funding bodies to re-think how they support research in a country.

The hope is that as things slowly change, may be we can start generating models that address our current problems and for that, not all the answers lie with publishers.