How Open Access May Change the Way We (and You) Publish

As I write this column, the scientific scholarly publishing landscape is in the midst of significant upheaval. There is an intense discussion centering around open access publishing and how a large-scale shift to this publishing model might affect scientific research in the short and long term.

These discussions are not new. Early adoption of open access journals began nearly 20 years ago. But in 2020, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, along with key U.S. government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), are considering widespread changes to their funding requirements that could introduce immediate and free access to full research data and findings within their funding streams. This would represent a major change to the way science is disseminated.

APS has been fully engaged in these discussions with the administration, NIH, the National Academy of Sciences and others to ensure the best outcome for both researchers and the Society.

Two of our top priorities are to support the dissemination of scientific research and to understand and lessen the potential negative impacts of changes to scholarly publishing for our members.

As a scientific publisher, we are also acutely aware of the impact a move to a fully open access model would have on the APS publishing program, as well as on our ability to support and serve our members and the broader physiology community.

Fortunately, we are not caught flatfooted. APS has been experimenting for years with options such as AuthorChoice (www.physiology.org/AuthorChoice) and Read, Publish and Join (www.physiology.org/readpublishjoin) that offer researchers and institutional librarians innovative opportunities to publish open access across the APS journal portfolio. Our new high-profile journal Function—which launches later this year—will be fully open access, as is Physiological Reports, which APS jointly publishes with The Physiological Society. All articles published on APS journal websites are free within 12 months, in accordance with NIH policy.

While we still have work to do, I believe these offerings create a foundation that will allow APS to thrive despite changes in the publishing industry and reposition ourselves for a mostly open access future. There are no easy answers. Open access has its strengths, but it also has drawbacks and consequences. Our preference is to preserve choice, allowing researchers as much flexibility as possible.

We are creating resources to help educate you on these potential changes and how they might affect the way you disseminate your work. The first of these is a March 4 webinar, “Open Access: What Researchers Need to Know Now.” Our panelists will discuss the various open access models; author copyrights, benefits and repositories; article fees; and other critical information that authors need to understand to fully engage in the open access discussion. In case you miss the webinar, the replay will be available at www.physiology.org/webinars.

APS will continue to monitor these changes and keep you informed on what’s happening in the broader field of publishing as we move toward more open scholarship.

Scott Steen, CAE, FASAE, is executive director of the American Physiological Society.

This article was originally published in the March 2020 issue of The Physiologist Magazine.