Comments on “Factors affecting global flow of scientific knowledge in environmental sciences” by Sonne et al. (2020)

• Published in: The Science of the total environment 2020-06, Vol.721, p.136454-136454, Article 136454
• Main Authors: Pourret, Olivier, Irawan, Dasapta Erwin, Tennant, Jonathan P., Wien, Charlotte, Dorch, Bertil F.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Environment and Society; Environmental Sciences; Humanities and Social Sciences; Library and information sciences; Open Access; Open science; Plan S; Predatory journals; Scholarly communication
• ISSN: 0048-9697; 1879-1026
• DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136454

There are major challenges that need to be addressed in the world of scholarly communication, especially in the field of environmental studies and in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Recently, Sonne et al. (2020) published an article in Science of the Total Environment discussing some of these challenges. However, we feel that many of the arguments misrepresent critical elements of Open Access (OA), Plan S, and broader issues in scholarly publishing. In our response, we focus on addressing key elements of their discussion on (i) OA and Plan S, as well as (ii) Open Access Predatory Journals (OAPJ). The authors describe OA and Plan S as restricting author choice, especially through the payment of article-processing charges. The reality is that ‘green OA’ self-archiving options alleviate virtually all of the risks they mention, and are even the preferred ‘routes’ to OA as stated by both institutional and national policies in Denmark. In alignment with this, Plan S is also taking a progressive stance on reforming research evaluation. The assumptions these authors make about OA in the “global south” also largely fail to acknowledge some of the progressive work being done in regions like Indonesia and Latin America. Finally, Sonne et al. (2020) highlight the threat that OAPJs face to our scholarly knowledge production system. While we agree generally that OAPJs are problematic, the authors simultaneously fail to mention many of the excellent initiatives helping to combat this threat (e.g., the Directory of Open Access Journals). We call for researchers to more effectively equip themselves with sufficient knowledge of relevant systems before making public statements about them, in order to prevent misinformation from polluting the debate about the future of scholarly communication.