Research Centre, CHUM, Notre-Dame Hospital, Montreal, Quebec H2L 4M1, Canada
Received Date: August 23, 2013; Accepted Date: August 24, 2013; Published Date: August 27, 2013
Citation: Zhang Y (2013) OA: not “If” but “How”. Human Genet Embryol 3:e109. doi: 10.4172/2161-0436.1000e109
Copyright: © 2013 Zhang Y. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Visit for more related articles at Human Genetics & Embryology
Disclosing conflict of interest (COI) is critical for the quality of peer-reviewed publications . The perceptions of Open Access (OA) include low quality and low COI requirements. We should not assume that OA pursues more revenue so COI requirements are lowered. The OA debate is not about economics; it is about access [2,3]. For instance, the Journal of Visualized Experiments initially chose the OA model but sounds difficult to cover costs, so they adopted subscriptions. Most OA articles undergo the same peer-reviewing process as traditional models, especially in high-profile OA publications (e.g. PLOS Medicine, PNAS, Nature Communications, Nature (open), and so on. A few journals may abuse OA . The legal issues urge us to develop new policies and laws for OA publishing. A package including the following may help to filter fakes:
• Novel fair-crediting requirements,
• Sagacious interactive reviews, interactive publications,
• Fast, fair but strict indexing systems,
• Post-publication assessment systems and general impact classification,
• Independent systems  for verifying key experiments (e.g. funding agencies may make this mandatory, or simply a “sting” at the discretion of reviewers or editors),
• Step-by-step online methods and protocols for OA publications.
• Individual OA publication element with DOI assignments for identification and crowd-sourcing confirmation.