Un des arguments en faveur de l'Open Access est de dire que les délais de publication sont plus rapides que ceux des journaux classiques. Sur le blog "Scholarly Kitchen", le 7 octobre 2011, Kent Anderson a examiné les délais de publication de PLoS ONE entre 2006, année de lancement et 2011. Il suggère qu'avec la croissance, le volume d'articles ayant augmenté, les avantages de l'OA sont moins importants…. Il faut trouver des reviewers compétents, gérer le volume des articles, etc… et les avantages de la rapidité de publication disparaissent….. Voici le constat :
Sample data comparing speed between 2006 and 2011 suggest that PLoS ONE is slowing down significantly. Taking 10 articles published at the end of September 2011 and their times between submission and acceptance, acceptance to publication, and then overall (submission to publication), then comparing these to 10 articles published at the end of 2006, the data indicate a significant slowdown in every aspect of PLoS ONE’s process:
- Average times from submission to acceptance increased from 58 days to 161 days
- Average times from acceptance to publication increased less, from 36 days to 52 days
- Overall, times from submission to publication increased from 94 days to 213 days, or from 3+ months on average to 7+ months on average
- The maximum time to publication increased as well, from 141 days in 2006 to 330 days in 2011
- The fastest time to publication in 2006 was 18 days, while in 2011 it was 42 days
- The maximum time to publication increased 234% between 2006 and 2011, while the minimum time to publication increased by 163%
Patience, patience car les affrontements entre OA, journaux anciens, etc.. ne font que commencer….
