Should you publish in overlay journals

Should You Publish in Overlay Journals?

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

Academic publishing is currently undergoing a midlife crisis of some sort. For decades, the traditional model of shipping papers off to a corporate giant, waiting six months for peer review, and then paying to read your own work has been the standard. 

However, as the internet matured, researchers began to realize that the heavy lifting of publishing (the writing, the reviewing, and the editing) was already being done by the community for free. This realization gave birth to the “overlay journal,” a publishing model that sits on top of preprint repositories like arXiv or bioRxiv. These journals provide the essential services of peer review and branding without the baggage of traditional production costs or paywalls.

Whether one should publish in an overlay journal is no longer a concern for open-access advocates. It is a practical consideration for any researcher who cares about speed, transparency, and the ethical distribution of knowledge. While the concept sounds like a dream for those tired of Elsevier’s profit margins, it comes with its set of hurdles, ranging from prestige anxiety to technical quirks. Let’s explore the mechanics of the overlay model, the tangible benefits it offers, and the lingering reasons why some scholars still prefer the traditional journals.

The Mechanics of the Overlay Model

To understand the overlay journal, one must first appreciate the preprint. In fields like physics and mathematics, posting a manuscript to arXiv before formal peer review is as natural as breathing. An overlay journal simply takes that existing infrastructure and adds a layer of quality control. When a researcher submits to an overlay journal, they are essentially sending a link to their preprint. The journal then manages a peer-review process that is often identical to that of a traditional journal. Once the paper is accepted, the journal issues a “seal of approval,” and the final version is updated on the repository with a formal DOI and the journal’s branding.

This approach effectively decouples the “content” from the “platform.” By using repositories that are already funded by university consortia or grants, overlay journals bypass the need for expensive hosting platforms and digital preservation teams. The cost of running an overlay journal is significantly lower than a traditional one, often ranging from $10 to $100 per article, compared to the thousands of dollars charged by legacy publishers. This lean operation allows many overlay journals to operate without charging authors any Article Processing Charges (APCs), creating a truly “Diamond” open-access environment.

The Speed and Efficiency Advantage

If you have ever had a paper sit in “Reviewer Invited” status for three months, you know the exquisite pain of traditional publishing timelines. Overlay journals tend to move faster because they eliminate the “production” bottleneck. In a traditional setup, after acceptance, a paper goes through typesetting, proofreading, and layout, which can add weeks or months to the timeline. In the overlay model, the paper is already live as a preprint. The peer review happens in the public eye or at least in parallel with the public existence of the work, meaning the community can engage with the findings while the formal “stamp” is being prepared.

Furthermore, the transparency of the overlay process often discourages the “reviewer 3” syndrome. Since the paper is already public, reviewers are less likely to ask for irrelevant experiments that take a year to complete just to satisfy a whim. There is a sense of communal accountability. The efficiency of this system is not just about saving time; it is about the rapid dissemination of data. In fast-moving fields like machine learning or epidemiology, waiting a year for a journal to print a PDF is practically a death sentence for the relevance of the research.

The Cost Equation and Sustainability

Money makes the world go round, and in academic publishing, it mostly goes into the pockets of shareholders. Traditional publishers often boast profit margins exceeding 30 percent, which is higher than most oil companies or tech giants. Overlay journals represent a radical shift in economics. By leveraging existing repository infrastructure, these journals minimize overhead. A study of the journal Discrete Analysis showed that its costs were incredibly low because it utilized the arXiv for hosting. This sustainability model relies on the idea that if the community provides the labor, the infrastructure should be a public good.

However, the “free” nature of overlay journals can be a double-edged sword. While it removes the barrier to entry for authors from underfunded institutions, it raises questions about long-term stability. If the volunteer editors get burned out or the host repository loses its funding, what happens to the journal? Thankfully, because the papers are stored in major repositories like Zenodo or arXiv, the “version of record” is often safer than it would be on a proprietary server of a small, independent publisher. The financial logic is sound, provided the academic community continues to value service over profit.

We cannot talk about publishing without talking about the “p” word: prestige. For many early-career researchers, the decision of where to publish is dictated by tenure committees and hiring panels who still worship the Impact Factor. Traditional journals have decades of branding and historical weight behind them. Overlay journals, being relatively new, often struggle to compete in the prestige economy. There is a lingering perception that if a journal doesn’t have a glossy cover or a 100-year-old pedigree, it must be “lesser.” This is a purely psychological barrier, but in academia, psychology is reality.

Fortunately, the tide is turning. High-profile mathematicians and physicists have lent their names to overlay projects, lending them instant credibility. When a Fields Medalist publishes in an overlay journal, the rest of the community takes notice. The prestige gap is closing as more researchers realize that a paper’s impact is measured by its citations and its utility to the field, not by the logo on the header. If you are a tenured professor with nothing to prove, publishing in an overlay journal is a heroic act of leadership. If you are a postdoc, it is a calculated risk that is becoming safer by the day.

Technical Hurdles and the User Experience

While the philosophy of overlay journals is elegant, the user experience can sometimes be a bit clunky. Traditional publishers spend a lot of money on sleek submission portals that hold your hand through every step of the process. Overlay journals often use open-source software like Open Journal Systems (OJS) or Scholastica. While functional, these systems can occasionally feel like they were designed in 2004. Authors used to a “concierge” experience might find the DIY nature of overlay submissions a bit frustrating. You are often responsible for your LaTeX formatting and ensuring your metadata on the repository is perfect.

There is also the issue of discovery. While Google Scholar and other indexing services are getting better at recognizing overlay journals, some legacy databases are slow to catch up. Being indexed in Web of Science or Scopus is still a requirement for many international funding agencies. Most established overlay journals eventually get indexed, but the “new kids on the block” might face a period where their papers are harder to find through traditional library search tools. This requires authors to be more proactive in promoting their work through social media and academic networks.

The Ethics of Open Research

Choosing an overlay journal is an ethical statement. It is a rejection of the “double dipping” practiced by many big publishers who charge libraries for subscriptions and authors for open access. By publishing in an overlay journal, you are ensuring that your work is accessible to a doctor in a developing nation, a teacher at a community college, or a curious high school student. There are no paywalls to scale and no institutional logins to navigate. This democratization of knowledge is the primary driver behind the overlay movement.

The ethics also extend to the peer-review process itself. Many overlay journals experiment with “open peer review,” where the reviewers’ comments are published alongside the article. This reduces the likelihood of bias and creates a constructive dialogue rather than a secretive gatekeeping ritual. When the process is transparent, the quality of the reviews often improves because the reviewers know their peers will read their critiques. It fosters a culture of collaboration rather than one of adversarial judgment, which is precisely what science needs right now.

The Role of Funding Agencies

Governments and funding bodies are the silent architects of the publishing landscape. With the rise of initiatives like Plan S in Europe, there is a massive push for immediate open access. Funding agencies are becoming increasingly skeptical of paying high APCs to for-profit publishers. In this climate, overlay journals are the “golden children” of policy. They provide exactly what the funders want: immediate, low-cost, and permanent open access. Some funders are even considering setting up their overlay platforms to host the research they have already paid for.

This institutional support is the missing piece of the puzzle for the overlay model. Once grant requirements specify that research must be published in a way that doesn’t waste taxpayer money on corporate profits, the migration to overlay journals will accelerate. We are seeing a shift where “open” is no longer an optional add-on but a fundamental requirement. If you want your next grant to be approved, showing a track record of publishing in sustainable, open venues like overlay journals might soon be a major advantage.

Challenges of Niche Fields

Not every discipline is ready for the overlay revolution. The model works exceptionally well in fields with a strong preprint culture, like physics, math, and computer science. In these areas, the infrastructure is mature and the community is accustomed to the workflow. However, in the humanities or certain branches of biology, preprints are still viewed with suspicion. If there is no central repository where everyone in your field hangs out, an overlay journal has nothing to “overlay” on. Building that repository infrastructure from scratch is a much bigger task than simply starting a journal.

There is also the “long-form” challenge. Overlay journals are perfectly suited for standard research articles, but they struggle with monographs or data-heavy projects that require specialized hosting. The humanities, in particular, rely heavily on books, and the “overlay book” is still a concept in its infancy. For a historian or a philosopher, the traditional publisher still offers value in terms of physical distribution and specialized editing that a lean overlay model might not be able to replicate. The model must adapt to the specific needs of different “tribes” within the academic world.

The Future of Scholarly Communication

The overlay journal is likely not the final destination of academic publishing but rather a transitional state toward something more integrated. Imagine a future where the “journal” isn’t a collection of PDFs but a live, versioned stream of data, code, and text. In this world, the overlay model evolves into a decentralized web of peer review where experts can “tag” and “verify” content across any platform. The boundaries between a blog post, a preprint, and a formal article will continue to blur, and the overlay journal provides the template for how we manage quality in that fluid environment.

We are moving away from the “unit” of the journal issue and toward the “unit” of the individual contribution. Overlay journals facilitate this by making the article the star of the show, rather than the journal’s brand. As AI-driven search tools become the primary way we find research, the importance of being in a “famous” journal will diminish, while the importance of being “verified” by a trusted editorial board will remain. The overlay model is the most efficient way to scale that verification process for the 21st century.

Conclusion

So, should you publish in an overlay journal? If you value transparency, speed, and the ethical use of public funds, the answer is a resounding yes. These journals represent the best instincts of the scientific community: a desire to share knowledge freely and a willingness to build better systems when the old ones fail. While you might have to deal with some minor technical clunkiness or explain your choice to a confused department chair, the long-term benefits to your field and your research visibility are significant.

The transition to overlay journals is part of a larger movement to reclaim the “commons” of academic research. It is a way to prove that we don’t need giant corporations to tell us what is good science. By supporting these venues, you are contributing to a more sustainable and equitable future for scholars everywhere. At the very least, you will save yourself a few thousand dollars in publication fees, and that is a victory in any language. The next time you finish a manuscript and upload it to a preprint server, take the extra step and look for an overlay journal that fits your work. It is the smartest move you can make in a changing publishing landscape.

Leave a comment