Open-Access vs Traditional Publishing: Comparison for Scholarly Authors

The dilemma of open access or subscription-based publishing is likely one of the most important decisions that authors face today. This full analysis reveals important points of comparison, benefit, and reflection for researchers when considering how to best publish scholarly books.

Publication Timeline and Process Differences

Open Access Publishing Timeline

Open access publishers generally have simplified publication procedures, that is, accelerated peer review and digital first publication compared to the traditional ones (Frankland & Ray, 2017; Gasparyan et al., 2019; Haug, 2013). A typical publication takes 6-12 months from the date a manuscript is submitted to the date a paper is published, although many journals have quicker turnaround times for high- priority research.

Traditional Publishing Timeline

Traditional academic publishers typically have 12–24-month publication cycles, including lengthy peer review periods, assembly line like production scheduling, and print coordination. But traditional publishers may provide better editing and broader marketing exposure.

Financial Models and Author Responsibilities

From the economics of open access and traditional publishing, the economic structures are very different, with immediate and long-term economic consequences (Huang et al., 2024; Laakso et al., 2011; Willinsky, 2003).

Impact Measurement and Research Visibility

These two types of publishing have different benefits for assessing and enhancing research impact.

Open Access Impact Metrics

Open access journals receive full usage data, including download figures, social media mentions and altimetric scores (Collins, 2005; Ezema, 2011; Fecher & Friesike, 2013). Open access facilitates wider dissemination and exposure, which can lead to increased readership and increased citation of a work.

Traditional Publishing Impact Metrics

Legacy traditional publishers come with respected rankings, impact factors and association with prestigious publishing brands (Albert, 2006; Björk & Solomon, 2012). These publishers will provide additional marketing and inclusion in specialist academic databases.

References:

Albert, K. M. (2006). Open access: implications for scholarly publishing and medical libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 94(3), 253.

Björk, B. C., & Solomon, D. (2012). Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC medicine, 10(1), 73.

Collins, J. (2005). The future of academic publishing: what is open access?. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2(4), 321-326.

Ezema, I. J. (2011). Building open access institutional repositories for global visibility of Nigerian scholarly publication. Library Review, 60(6), 473-485.

Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2013). Open science: one term, five schools of thought. In Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing (pp. 17-47). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Frankland, J., & Ray, M. A. (2017). Traditional versus open access scholarly journal publishing: An economic perspective. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 49(1), 5-25.

Gasparyan, A. Y., Yessirkepov, M., Voronov, A. A., Koroleva, A. M., & Kitas, G. D. (2019). Comprehensive approach to open access publishing: platforms and tools. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 34(27), e184.

Haug, C. (2013). The downside of open-access publishing. N Engl J Med, 368(9), 791-793.

Huang, C. K., Neylon, C., Montgomery, L., Hosking, R., Diprose, J. P., Handcock, R. N., & Wilson, K. (2024). Open access research outputs receive more diverse citations. Scientometrics, 129(2), 825-845.

Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B. C., & Hedlund, T. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PloS one, 6(6), e20961.

Willinsky, J. (2003). The nine flavours of open access scholarly publishing. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 49(3), 263-267.