We will not review manuscripts for closed-access journals
Scientific research in the field of planetary science is often, if not exclusively, undertaken using public funds, and the output of most research is published in scientific journals so that others may use and build upon the results. When scientific research is financed using public funds, either entirely or in part, it is self-evident that the fruit of this work should be accessible to the public.
As part of a scientific researcher’s professional duties, we are expected to participate in the peer-review of manuscripts that are submitted to academic journals. Reviewing manuscripts is a community service and this service is almost never financially compensated. The time used to read a manuscript, to assess the work, and to write and submit the review is time consuming and is usually taken out of our professional work hours. It is not uncommon for reviews to take anywhere from half a working day to a day or more. On top of this, most manuscripts are revised and re-reviewed at least once during the peer-review process. If public funds are used to pay a reviewer’s salary, the final product of the review process should be accessible to the public.
The problem today is that many journals do not publish all of their content as open access. Some journals use a hybrid open-access publishing model where only some articles are accessible for free, and where the others require a paid subscription. As a reviewer, one can never be certain if the authors will ultimately choose to pay the extra open-access fees or not. Other journals use a subscribe to open (S2O) publishing model, where all manuscripts are converted to open access once the journal’s subscriptions exceed a certain amount. Though subscribe to open journals often have good intentions, there is no guarantee that a manuscript submitted to such a journal will be published as open access. And lastly, some journals use a “green” open-access publishing model that allows authors to self-archive the accepted author-formatted manuscript on a preprint server or personal website. Authors, however, are rarely required to do so, and journal websites rarely provide direct links to freely accessible preprints.
We, the undersigned of this open letter to academic publishers, believe that any scientific research that benefits from public funds, including the time of reviewers, should be published as open access. We will refuse to participate in the peer-review process of any journal that publishes closed-access content, including hybrid journals, subscribe to open journals, and green open-access journals.
Offending journals that are used by the planetary science community include the following:
- Acta Astronautica
- Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Science
- Astronomy & Astrophysics
- Earth and Planetary Science Letters
- Experimental Astronomy
- Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
- Icarus
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets
- Meteoritics and Planetary Science
- Nature
- Nature Astronomy
- Nature Geoscience
- Nature Reviews: Earth & Environment
- Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors
- Planetary and Space Science
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America
- Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry
- Science
- Space Science Reviews
This list will be updated when necessary.
(If you feel that a journal should be added or removed from this list, please use this contact email.)
