# Open Access Journals

When open access journals launched, there was skepticism around how successful they'd be. They were a new model of research publishing and often involved costly upfront fees. However, the Public Library of Science (PLOS) and BioMed Central (BMC) proved there was a demand for open access journals and a sustainable business model to support them. While open access journals are becoming the norm, there is widespread confusion of what they are and if they are reputable. We examine these questions below.

## Myth 1: Open access journals are not - or are lightly - peer reviewed

This is false. Open access journals undergo the same peer review processes that subscription-based publishers perform. One key difference is that many open access journals judge research based on merit, not on perceived impact.

## Myth 2: Open access journals charge for publishing

This is partially true. While many open access journals do charge authors to publish their work openly, the majority do not \cite{Crawford_2015}.

## Myth 3: Open access journals have less impact than subscription journals

This is false. The impact of open access articles, as measured by citations, has increased \cite{Eysenbach_2006}.

###

###