Sir

I support Mark Riley in his protest against the outrageous price increases of some journals, but I do not think that all the blame rests with the commercial publishers (Nature 399, 623; 1999). They are in the business of making profits. We should ask ourselves why the scientific community lets these people run our research journals to their, rather than our, advantage.

The answer is in the fallacious system of ‘journal prestige’ which scientists have created. Nothing stops us from communicating our research results through less costly systems, such as preprints, electronic self-publishing, and small-scale journals run by interest groups.

But, unless a paper is published in a ‘prestigious’ journal, it does not count for much for grants, promotions, invited talks, and so on. This is how we let commercial publishers keep a grip on our throats. It is within our capacity to change it, if we wish. And, unless we do so, the commercial publishers cannot be blamed if they run our business as they see fit.

Although perceptual changes will be difficult to achieve by legislation from above, some much-needed adjustment in the research community can be started at the grassroots level. For example, any ‘official’ use of journal prestige ranking should be resisted or drastically minimized. Our obsession with numerical ranking of almost everything has gone too far and often brings more harm than good.

Second, the research funding system should encourage publication in local journals. In Canada, for example, it is considered almost a disgrace to publish in the ‘Canadian Journal of XYZ’ in some disciplines. Pressure to publish in only some celebrated journals has become an unhealthy obsession fuelled by the reward system in academic institutions.

Finally, the idea of discount publishing at the lowest possible commercial rates should be considered.