Open Access (OA) is a fairly new term in the world of publishing. In reality, OA publishing models have been around for more than a decade; however, recent discussions seem to indicate that we have reached a tipping point in scholarly communication, where access is a concern. The OA model was inspired as a social movement to change academic publishing for the better, with lower costs and expanded access to the latest research through global Internet connections. Currently, there are multiple online avenues that provide OA to ensure the widest distribution of findings by those engaged in scholarly work.1 As with all new concepts, products, and practices, there are many questions, opinions, and even misinterpretations. However, a new world order driven by digital data and electronic communication is in effect. The written word has taken on many new forms, bringing information and knowledge into practice more quickly. As I understand it, OA is a concept developed to offer published materials to anyone with an Internet access and to enhance the flow of information to move science forward more quickly.

Open-access publishing is worthy goal, serving to remove restrictions to the online access of traditional peer-reviewed scholarly research. Unfortunately, it has created variation and opportunity for predatory publishing practices.

The International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE) community, representing editors of credible and reputable nursing journals, believes that it is imperative to inform nurses of the harm inherent in this predatory problem and direct discussion and resources to help professionals navigate toward reputable publications. As they remind us, OA, itself, is not the problem.2 However, when conditions in any field change, there is opportunity for variation which may allow or encourage questionable models to emerge. Professionals must realize this and remain diligent to ensure that the integrity of the scholarly process is maintained. At the same time, understand that the copyright world is changing as the print world transitions to the digital area. Limited copyright may encourage dissemination of knowledge and support information sharing. Currently, many models exist, all allowing various levels of access. We must be informed and aware of these changes and the potential challenges they present.

Open Access is public-access model that exists for specific types of articles, allowing content for immediate open access and various levels of delayed access.1 Open Access journals may offer options for authors or their funders. Many follow the traditional steps to publication and simply offer the article through an open-access format. Some require the author to pay article-processing charges upfront. This represents a significant shift from the pay for subscription model of publication where the reader manages cost.

At this point in time, there are many levels within the open-access model: from a criterion Gold standard to predatory publishing. The higher levels support a noble goal of shared information; the lowest level is self-serving and driven by monetary gains. Under the "Gold" model, documents are made freely available from the moment of publication; institutional grants or author fees cover preparation costs. A peer-review process exists and often is carefully outlined. The "Green" model is often a subscription journal where the author's final peer-reviewed manuscript may be placed in a public repository, often becoming publicly available after some embargo period: designed to let the publisher try to sell access before access becomes free.3

The many options, models, and cost shifting cause confusion and suspicion. Perspectives differ, as it depends on whom you ask, the reader or the author.4

This discussion reminds us that publishers may be asking themselves whom they really serve; this may direct new discussion and innovations.

Unfortunately, this variation has resulted in unintentional outcomes, allowing a dangerous model that threatens the integrity of scholarly publishing. Beall,4 a medical librarian at the University of Colorado, regularly updates his blog entitled "Scholarly Open Access." Beall has become a watchdog for predatory publishers. He routinely updates a section called Beall's list, a compilation of questionable, scholarly open-access publishers. Beall equates open-access and predatory publishing to e-mail and spam. One great idea threatened by corruption.4 Beall remindes us that the changing field of publishing has given opportunity to less scrupulous organizations that support predatory publishing practices.

Translation of research into practice has been an ongoing challenge in healthcare; this we know. It has been a long journey from bedside to publication; often, important work is dated before it is published. Furthermore, our traditional methods of receiving information are becoming obsolete. Hard-copy journals, delivered to subscribers or members of professional organizations, offer only a slice of the information we need to efficiently pursue evidence-based practice. Academic employees and hospital-based staff may have expanded access to databases and resources; however, many professional still have limited access.

Recently, access to research, scholarly work, and innovation work is much improved. E-mail services send table of contents; blogs are tagged to new publications and ongoing research. Apps and digital platforms allow us to access journals and Web sites instantaneously. Moreover, many highly rigorous, scholarly, and professional journals are now exclusively open access, and many offer a range of traditional and open-access options.2

The topic of OA is complicated; it has challenged us to be more diligent. However, if we are to present our patients with the best care, we need information to flow freely and be properly vetted to protect the science that informs our practice. Changing the fiscal structure within publication is a major shift and still a work in progress. Publishers, editors, authors, and readers have questions, yet we are all focused on the same goal: quality publications that will lead to best practices and improved patient outcomes.

Often, this part of the discussion brings us to peer review, the process of how work is evaluated by peers and experts in the field. This hallowed process, of course, is only as good as the person(s) completing the review. Open access does not mean[horizontal ellipsis] open with our review. Although some journals require only a technical verification prior to publication, most credible journals freely describe the process and time to publication by detailing their peer-review process. One must ask questions about the peer reviewers[horizontal ellipsis] the people, the process, and even payment structures differ. Traditionally, peer reviewers provide services as a professional courtesy, serving at the pleasure of the editor or editorial staff. Monetary reimbursement is uncommon, but reviews may enjoy subscriptions at no cost or online access to journals. Many use the salutation as a means to meet job or professional requirements.

Rick Anderson encourages us to think about what we want the future of publishing and scholarly work to look like. Should we support the prevailing system (requires people to pay for access to what others publish), or, he asks, is it time to create a new one, in which access to what one publishes is freely available for reading and reuse? Perhaps a hybrid system with checks and balances that support the principles of scholarly work and allows improved access.3

It is important to follow all paths to find truth. PLoS, a reputable open-access publisher, offers comprehensive information about their model. PLOS applies the Creative Commons Attribution License to all publications. Under the Creative Commons Attribution License, authors retain ownership of the copyright for their article, allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy articles in PLOS journals, so long as the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers. This agreement allows anyone to share, defined as copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, or adapt, defined as, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. One criterion is essential to these freedoms. All use must contain attribution-the user must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.6

Fortunately, nurses are critical thinkers who notice variation in models and can determine when something is done well. However, we must be aware of the shifts that are occurring and be vigilant and aware of predatory models that are not in the best interest of science. Beall's list is 1 way to stay ahead of predatory journals. At the same time, it is difficult for any 1 person to keep up with so many emerging journals. In response to this challenge, the INANE Predatory Publishing Practices Collaborative was formed in 2014. The group encourages nursing authors to use Beall's list of predatory publishers at Scholarly Open Access and encourages potential authors to consult the Directory of Nursing Journals, a collaborative effort between INANE and Nurse Author & Editor, for journals that have been reviewed and vetted. Other useful resources they suggest include a blog by Thomas Long on Nurse Writing, which includes a compilation of recent reports on predatory open-access journals and scholarly conference scams. Finally, they direct us to the Directory of Open Access Journals.2

The answers will come; the important thing is that we are asking the questions. Anderson warns us that the issues around access to scholarship are complex and difficult, and the right position on them is not always clear.4

We are fortunate to have the support and guidance of professionals such as Jeffery Beall and the members of the INANE Predatory Publishing Practices Collaborative.

Kathleen Ahern Gould, PhD, RN

Editor in Chief Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing

Adjunct Faculty

William F. Connell School of Nursing

Boston College

Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts

References