Wed 12 Aug 2015 10:31PM

Point of information: JoV goes CC-By in Jan 2016

TW Tom Wallis Public Seen by 199

>While there has always been free access to Journal of Vision and TVST (Translational Vision Science & Technology, another ARVO journal), the copyright for the articles is held by ARVO. However, effective January 1, 2016, the ARVO family of journals (IOVS, JOV, and TVST) is going open access. All content published prior to January 1, 2016, will still be copyrighted to ARVO but will be freely accessible; however, all articles published on or after January 1, 2016, will be open access based on a Creative Commons license (discussed below).

From here.

In terms of our discussion, does this change anything? I remain enthusiastic about the PeerJ platform and the "journal within a journal" structure... but this change also makes the need for a new vision journal less pressing, in my opinion. Thoughts?


Alex Holcombe Fri 14 Aug 2015 11:52AM

Certainly it is less pressing in that many UK authors could not publish with JoV previously due lack of the CC-BY license, but now they can. That is, if I understand what's happened correctly! Here's my attempt: https://alexholcombe.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/what-just-happened-with-open-access-at-the-journal-of-vision/

Anyway I think for most researchers the dramatically cheaper price of PeerJ is still very attractive. JoV will now be charging $1850 per article, plus $500 to get CC BY instead of from CC BY-NC-ND.


Lee de-Wit Fri 14 Aug 2015 12:37PM

I don't see that this changes much - JoV are still charging a fee that seems unrelated to actual costs, even if the end result has the correct copyright licence. I especially can't see why they are charging an extra 500 dollars for that licence, except that they know people with UK research grants will have to pay it anyway.


Jonas Kubilius Fri 14 Aug 2015 5:05PM

Isn't this $1850 more than an average fee that people used to pay? I remember paying around $1000 for our recent paper, and it was not short. I'm afraid they're just using the situation to raise their fees.


Steve Haroz Sat 15 Aug 2015 1:35AM

I can't really figure out what benefits the publisher or authors get by using Non-Commercial or No Derivatives. A publication is not a patent, but can it be used as such?


Alex Holcombe Sat 15 Aug 2015 1:42AM

They might be able to get revenue by requiring payment from textbook companies that wish to use a figure or two from a paper, and there may be other uses of vision journal figures and possibly whole articles, like in ophthalmology handbooks.


Steve Haroz Sat 15 Aug 2015 1:45AM

I hadn't thought about figures. I'd be pretty annoyed if someone paid the publisher instead of me to use a figure that I made.


Marco Bertamini Sat 15 Aug 2015 9:34AM

Hope this is not too far off topic. This authors-pay system is becoming dominant in English-speaking countries but there are countries that have found better alternatives. Here is a quote from a recent paper analysing the situation in Brazil and Spain:

"A key aspect to note in both countries is the absence of the “author pays” system, with few titles in Brazil and none in Spain. Although this model is widespread in English-speaking countries, especially in the health sciences, it is practically nonexistent in the journals analyzed. This is a clear distinguishing feature, and shows another road toward OA based, as we have seen, on institutional funding by the government, universities, and research centers."

Scientific journals in Brazil and Spain: Alternative publishing models
Rosângela Schwarz Rodrigues1 andErnest Abadal2
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23115
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
Volume 65, Issue 10, pages 2145–2151, October 2014