Detalle de: Conflicts of interest in scientific publishing

uring the past years, an increasing number of research funders and governments have been supporting Open Access (OA) publishing.In the USA, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act and the Public Access to Public Science Act require that results from research supported with public funding are made freely accessible [1].The EU has also decided that all publications funded by Horizon 2020 should be freely available [2].Most authors who publish their work as OA-whether mandated or not-usually choose Gold OA, in which the cost of publishing is covered by the authors (Fig 1).However, Gold OA has some drawbacks.Most importantly, it creates a conflict of interest: in a situation where the number of scientists is larger than the number of available positions, both journals and scientists benefit from publishing as many articles as possible [3].This is a fertile ground for cheaters on both sides, and helps to explain the emergence of predatory journals [4] and the increasing number of cases of scientific misconduct [5].An alternative to Gold OA is Green OA, by which authors self-archive their articles in online repositories [6].However, the fact that Green OA lacks peer review discourages many scientists from self-archiving their papers.In addition, journals offer a range of services such as editorial review, peer review, copy editing and long-term archiving and so that make it more attractive for scientists to submit their paper.New publishing alternatives therefore try to combine the advantages of both models by focusing on low costs and transparent peer review.One of these is F1000 Research.