fundamentals of eDNA

I appreciated our discussion this week on the McKiernan et al. (2016) paper as I previously did not have much knowledge about the extent of open access publishing and data. It was good to see that the stereotype centered around open access journals seems to be switching as researchers are embracing the transparency, accountability and accessibility associated with OA research. I was unaware about the use of open peer review but it seems very beneficial to both reviewers and researchers. It takes a considerable amount of time and effort for reviewers to do their job, and having an open peer review process allows them to get some form of credit for their work that is not financially compensated. Open peer review also increases both the accountability and credibility of the review process because reviewers are more likely to do a better job when they know that their name will be publicly linked with their work. It seems like open peer review could solve some of the flaws commonly associated with the peer review process. I also appreciated how OA makes information more accessible to the larger community. We are all lucky that through University of Maine we can get access to many private journals for free, but unfortunately that is not the case for the majority of the public. The financial barrier associated with private journals narrows the audience that receives scientific information which is counterproductive to the spread of knowledge. Lastly, I liked that the paper commented that open access can be a ‘continuum of practices’, depending on the comfort of the researchers involved. It might be daunting for researchers with no prior experience with OA to dive right in and make their work accessible to everyone. However, the paper gives several relatively simple ways that can be used as baby steps to introduce OA into one’s own work. I think OA is an important tool for science communication and is important to introduce to young developing scientists.