If you say “open access” this month, especially around the science community, you’re likely to get an earful about the recent article in the journal Science that tested the peer-review process of OA journals. The gist of the article is that the author, John Bohannon, wrote an article about poorly done research that jumped to questionable conclusions under a fake name from a fake institution. He sent this article (or variants of it) to hundreds of supposedly peer-reviewed OA  journals that charge author fees. He selected the journals largely based on two sources: a list of probably predatory OA publishers maintained by Jeffrey Beall and the Directory of Open Access Jouranls (DOAJ), which many information professionals consider a moderately good source for determining if an OA journal is up-to-snuff.

There has been a big hullabaloo in response to this article. Many big names in the OA movement cite that there are major problems with Bohannon’s research. Mainly, he had no control group. He only sent his article to OA journals, no subscription journals. This is a real problem. A lack of a control group is grounds to call research lacking, or even crumby (and is one of the reasons Bohannon’s fake article is “poorly done”). After all, what kind of conclusion can you draw about the state of the OA publishing world if there’s no comparison to the subscription world?

There have also been loud voices about the bias Bohannon employed in his selection of which journals he submitted the article to. The way he selected OA journals gave him a higher chance of submitting to the disreputable ones. This is also a problem and a sign of less-than-perfect research. With bias like that, how could he not get the results he got?

So what results did he get?

More than half of the journals that responded accepted the crumby article without suggesting major revisions.

Let’s be real. The results are what caused the hullabaloo and Bohannon’s apparent conclusion that OA journals are sketchy is what caused our hearts to drop. OA advocates, like myself, poured over this article when we saw it. We scoured it looking for the flaws I mentioned above. We wrote blogs and articles pointing them out and calling attention to the down-played findings that some OA journals are as good as we thought.

But we didn’t do it just because we wanted to see better research (although we always do) or because we didn’t believe Bohannon exposed some bad publishers (we’re always on the look out for that ourselves). The real cause for the hullabaloo, for the outcry and panic we felt when we saw this article was that we knew – we KNOW – that the faculty and the researchers we try so hard to convince to publish OA didn’t pour over this article. They didn’t scour it. They read it and wrote OA off yet again. For OA skeptics, this article proved what they always thought. That fact is, at least to me, a major bummer.

But we OA advocates are doing what we do and staying positive. The buzz around the article is already dying down and we’re making some noise now during Open Access Week. We know a few things that the Science article didn’t feel the need to mention and we’ll continue to share with anyone who will listen:

•  The subscription model isn’t sustainable. We love the work a lot of them do, but we the libraries and we the public simply can’t afford it.
• Not all OA journals charge author fees. Not all OA journals that do charge author fees are sketchy.
• Some subscription journals charge author fees. Not all those are sketchy, but some of them are.
• There are some crumby OA publishers out there. There are crumby subscription ones, too.
• There are crumby subscription journal publishers, too. Just wanted to reiterate that.
• There are some amazing OA journals out there! Bohannon’s article shows that the ones we said were trustworthy are. We told you so and we’ll tell you more!

So what should  the take away be from Bohannon’s article? If you ask me, I’d tell you not to assume that OA publishers do not partake in peer-review or that all OA publishers are disreputable. No matter what kind of publication you’re publishing in, make sure it’s a good one. If you’re not sure, ask your librarian. We’ve been making sure you get access to quality journals for years and years. We’re happy to make sure only quality journals get access to you.

For more reactions to the Science article, check out these for starters:

Open access publishing hoax: what Science magazine got wrong from The Guardian
Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) response
Peter Suber’s response on Google+
Science Mag sting of OA journals: is it about Open Access or about peer review? by Jeroen Boasman. He lists many more reactions at the end.