Meet the Journal of Cognition: A modern, society-backed, fair open-access journal

The end of 2018 saw the closure of the inaugural volume for the newly launched Journal of Cognition. In less than two years since the European Society for Cognitive Psychology (ESCoP) made the decision to switch from a subscription-focused, publisher-owned title to an open access, society owned alternative, the journal has seen great successes. Aided by the ability of ESCoP to move quickly, so that the details of the new journal were formalised and put in motion with minimal delay, the support for the journal has been exceptional, leading to 87 submissions, 45 publications, 50+ citations and nearly 40,000 views/downloads for Volume 1. The journal has been keen to not only publish open access papers but also promote open practices, such as open data and the adoption of Registered Reports as a submission option.

Here we speak to the Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Candice Morey, on the experience of setting up and running the journal:

Q: What were the primary motivations for ESCoP to move away from the existing publishing options and set up the Journal of Cognition?

A: When we made the decision, we were in the midst of negotiating a renewal of our contract with our publisher and simultaneously exploring starting an open-access arm of the old journal. We saw that there were few open-access journals specializing in cognitive psychology, and we discovered that many of our colleagues were sceptical of the existing open-access journals because many seemed motivated primarily by profiting from the article processing charges. We wanted to use our reputation to build an open-access journal that would be known for quality and rigour. One problem we encountered as we considered running two journals in parallel was that the publisher needed us to guarantee pages in the subscription-based journal. We had no trouble running one journal, but this seemed riskier when we were also planning to try and grow our open-access journal. We also realized that we needed to be able to control our article processing charge and provide a transparent justification of it, which would be challenging if we did not retain full control of the open-access journal’s title (which was never a possibility for us while working with our former publisher).

Q: Was there much resistance to such a change, or alternative models considered? If yes, what were the deciding factors that led to the decision?

A: One thing that surprised me most was how little resistance we encountered. Within ESCoP’s executive committee, we considered many alternatives, including continuing to publish in the traditional subscription-based manner. That would have been the least risky choice, but since we did not own our journal’s title, we did not receive much in royalties even though we were the ones ensuring the journal’s quality and promoting it. We ultimately determined that we did not have so much to lose by giving up the existing journal under those terms. Shortly after we decided to abandon the journal and establish an open-access journal we communicated this decision to ESCoP members, and I was expecting a backlash. I thought we would need to defend and justify the decision before our members would be convinced we made the right choice. In fact, we received strong support from members immediately. The whole editorial board of the old journal supported the decision. In general, the community reacted with strong enthusiasm, which was extremely helpful as we moved forward with launching the journal.

That’s not to say that there has been no criticism at all. The main criticism we face is that our article processing charge is a barrier to some authors who would like to publish with us. We are trying to find sustainable ways to help universities transition from the subscription-based model (where authors usually do not pay) to the fair open-access model where institutions pay a reasonable fee for evaluation and production.

Q: The journal pushes for open practises and reproducibility, not just for making the final publication openly available. How easy has it been to get authors, editors etc on board with these requests? Where do you think that the focus should be for more openness within research output/the publication process?

A: Most of the authors and editorial team working on the Journal of Cognition have been enthusiastic about our uptake of open practices and reproducibility. I am convinced that our progressive stance on these issues is part of the positive buzz around our journal, which I believe has given us increased visibility during these early years when our content is not yet indexed in all the databases. In my opinion, it is also an important part of ensuring that we publish rigorous work. There is a risk with making all aspects of one’s work publicly available: doing so means that if you have made an error it is more likely to be discovered than if the data and materials are not available. I think that research backed up by publicly-available data and materials is more likely to have been carefully inspected by the researchers producing it and of course openness means readers and reviewers may also take a closer look. I believe that openness will also increase the usefulness of the research we publish. The more people read our content and find something useful in it (the ideas expressed as well as data that may be re-used in novel analyses), the more frequently it will be cited.

Q: 2019 sees the journal implement of a novel scheme to (hopefully) expand the Editorial Board with suitable experts whilst simultaneously increasing reviewer uptake and reducing APCs for authors. Can you explain this process?

A: I was seeking a way to involve more people in our editorial process and to reward those involved with lower article processing charges. We already offer a reviewer discount for individuals who have helped us with peer review, but across the field, this is really not many people. We want to do more to encourage the reviewers who are helping us most to keep accepting review requests and providing timely, constructive feedback. One typical way high-quality reviewers are acknowledged by journals is by inviting them onto the editorial board, and we periodically invite consistently helpful ad-hoc reviewers to join our editorial board. At Journal of Cognition, we are going a step further by offering a €150 discount to our article processing charge for all editorial board members and extending this discount to colleagues at their institutions. I hope that this will help bring our article processing charge within the reach of more potential authors. I also hope that it will raise awareness of the fair open-access model amongst institutions, especially the growing need for institutions to provide funding explicitly for these fees. There is already a movement to shift money from subscription fees for this purpose among university libraries, and I hope that our institution-based discount may raise awareness of this problem and help accelerate that. My one worry is that I do not want to exclude anyone who would like to be involved. But in principle, we can have more editorial board members. Anyone interested should register as a reviewer in our system, and include keywords in your profile reflecting your expertise so that our system can suggest you as a reviewer when we receive appropriate content.

Q: How has the launch of the open access journal been received by people outside of ESCoP?

A: We receive submissions from both ESCoP members and people unaffiliated with ESCoP. Scholars who are publicly vocal about transparency have praised what we are doing.

Q: How has editing the first volume compared against your expectation of the tasks involved as Editor-in-Chief? What tips would you give to those considering a similar role?

A: I spent many years as an associate editor before taking on this role, so I knew more or less what to expect regarding evaluating manuscripts. But running a new journal, especially one like the Journal of Cognition that is attempting to succeed with a new model and practices, presents unusual challenges. There is much more promotion involved than there would be with a journal that already enjoys an outstanding reputation. I need to make frequent use of social media to promote our content and values and increase our visibility. It is also really important to have confidence in your associate editors. I am not an expert on everything. I depend on the judgment of the associate editors to ensure the quality of our content, and I think it is important to let them make decisions independently.

Q: What have been your biggest success stories since the journal was set up?

A: I have been very pleased with the quality of the content we are attracting. We have published two excellent special collections so far, as well as a controversial review article on selective attention that attracted an outstanding range of comments. I’m excited to see the work from our first volume already garnering citations. We are off to a great start.

Q: Have there been any unexpected challenges or negative consequences of flipping to the open model?

A: The only drawback to the open access model is that many authors do not have access to funding for the article processing charges. This is frequently discussed, and I know it is frustrating for many people. We hear regularly about how journal subscription fees are constantly on the rise and exceeding the budgets of university libraries. Flipping to an open-access model is the way to combat this, but unfortunately it has not happened fast enough for all authors to feel that they have their institution’s support. I hope to see more universities offering their staff funding for this, even if it is at the expense of some of their costly subscriptions.

Q: With such a successful Volume 1, what are the aims for 2019?

A: I want to see our submission rate increase this year. I hope that our new editorial board/reviewer discount will help with this, and we are currently exploring new ideas for our next special content collections. I am excited about Plan S, in which a coalition of funders (including some of the main funders of cognition research in Europe) will be pushing for the research they funded to be published under fair open-access terms. The Journal of Cognition is totally in line with the principles of Plan S, so we are ready to become the chosen outlet for cognitive psychologists and cognitive neuroscientists who want to publish their work under a fair open-access model.

Q: Two years on from their decision to switch to an open access model, what advice could ESCoP give to societies faced with similar questions today?

A: Not all societies face the exact pressures ESCoP did. We did not have the advantage of owning our journal title, and therefore did not benefit from the subscription-based model as much as societies who own their journals outright do. Societies who own their journals are in a better position than we were to push for more openness from within the subscription model (e.g., to try and lobby for a hybrid system that includes transparent pricing for making papers open access). Regardless of the publication model a society journal supports, I think it is important that scholarly societies embrace their role upholding the rigour and quality of published research. Societies are often the ones nominating editorial boards, who are directly governing the quality of published work. They should be pressing for policies that increase the quality of research, including those that increase transparency and reproducibility.

Read an Editorial reviewing Journal of Cognition’s first year of publishing at http://doi.org/10.5334/joc.54.

All content published in Journal of Cognition is 100% open access and free to read and re-use. The complete back content can be found at: https://www.journalofcognition.org/articles/