“Author pays” publishing model

Editor—Delamothe et al assert that in the “author pays” world of medical publishing, peer review would occur exactly as it does now—the “author pays” model would not become a form of vanity publishing.¹ They also say that submission fees are likely to become routine parts of the process.

But consider this. All editors receive and reject many papers that are competent and methodologically acceptable, but highly unlikely to be of any interest to many other than those who have worked on the paper. Experience teaches editors which sort of papers are uncitable.

For example, our journal, Tobacco Control, could easily sink under the weight of parochial smoking prevalence studies. We receive an unending stream of these, and reject most not because they are poorly done but because we know that they are relatively unimportant, dull, and a poor use of expensive publishing space.

But if the cost factor is removed via an “author pays” system, should we now accept such papers? The many authors of such papers would certainly agree, but would our readers see this as progress? While editors who cherish the “feel” and overall quality of their journals are likely to argue that “author pays” should not compromise quality, how long would it take for their profit conscious publishers to begin urging them to relax a little?

As an editor, I can often tell from a title and abstract whether a paper will be rejected before review. An author's submission fee will certainly encourage expectations in authors that their work should be reviewed rather than immediately rejected. Will such expectations be passed on to already overloaded reliable peer reviewers? Or will submission fees be a cynical little impost on authors naive to the concerns of editors to produce journals with papers that people want to read?