“But when I click on it, I get a paywall…Open access papers aren’t like that — I just get to learn about the research.”
Say Hello to Aerin Jacob — scientist at the Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) Conservation Initiative and five-time FACETS author.
This post is part of our Open A Conversation Q&A series for Open Access Week.
What does open access mean to you?
I think of that GIF that I often use on Twitter when talking about paywalls: there’s a manatee in an aquarium, it’s coming toward the glass window, but then it bonks into the glass and its nose gets all smooshed in… Often I see research papers relevant to my work and I think “Oh my gosh, I want to read that”. But when I click on it, I get a paywall. BONK! As an NGO-based scientist, I’m the manatee hitting the invisible barrier. Open access papers aren’t like that — I just get to learn about the research.
What do you think the future of open access will look like?
I expect that we will see more open access research — it’s clear that funding bodies are heading that way — but I also think we’ll see more pre-prints, emphasis on other aspects of accessibility (e.g., for people with sensory disabilities), and critical thought about where and why people submit their work to certain places.
We should think carefully about our audience. For instance, there can be valid reasons to aim for society or regional journals, to prioritize rapid publication, or to seek out narrow and specialized versus broad and general readership. And let’s remember that not all authors have the ability to pay open access fees… One publishing metric shouldn’t rule us all, whether it’s open access or impact factor.
Why did you choose FACETS as the home for your science?
As an applied conservation scientist, I work across a lot of sectors (e.g., academia, government, non-profit, community), on many subjects, and often on time-sensitive issues. For instance, four out of the five FACETS papers I’ve published delve into the role of science in Canadian law and policy issues, including species at risk, impact assessment, or climate action. Those manuscripts didn’t fit neatly into a box: they’re not exactly reviews, some is empirical and some is synthesis, and they bring perspectives from biology, law, and public policy.
We wanted a journal that was interdisciplinary, with fairly fast turnaround, a strong editorial board, and broad readership in Canada. And we wanted the article to be available open access from the start but without outrageous article publishing fees. It’s kind of funny to see the pattern now, but aiming for FACETS’ Science Applications Forum was the best choice for every one of those manuscripts.
As well, I’ve had positive publishing experiences with FACETS including critical but constructive reviews, helpful editors, and publishing staff with an eye for detail. I like that plain language summaries are encouraged.
How has open access helped your research reach users?
I care about scientific research that helps to inform wildlife conservation and environmental management in real life. Papers in FACETS are open access by default, which means that the end-user is one step closer to reading, understanding, and perhaps even using that research.
There is a broad idea that non-scientists are not interested in reading actual research papers; yet in the last three months I’ve been asked for actual peer-reviewed research papers by visual artists, a photographer, a travel writer, a helicopter pilot, and a cowboy. Whether or not users can find the papers I refer to factors into how I plan for and write policy briefs, give public presentations, and meet with people outside the research community.
It’s not the only factor — clear writing, nice figures, and non-technical summaries help a lot! — but open access is certainly on my mind.
Responses to questions are the views of the author (Aerin Jacob).
Read Aerin’s papers in FACETS:
Cross-sectoral input for the potential role of science in Canada’s environmental assessment
