Publishing Open Access (OA) has always been something important to me. It stems from my utopian belief that science should be for everyone and that the funders (taxpayers) should have access to it. Most of my publications are Open Access, something I was somewhat proud of as a novice researcher.

If you are reading this, you have definitely heard of “Publish or Perish” culture. With the advent of predatory journals and journal hijacking scams, this saying has been modified to “Publish high-impact or Perish” in the last decade. There came a point in my career, around the fourth year of my postdoc, when a PI (whom I respect profoundly) told me that I needed a paper.  “Any paper.”

Some time ago, at a friend’s party, a conversation came up about the peer-reviewing process. I know what you might be thinking, my dear reader. “Wow, this guy must be fun at parties”. But really, I am. I promise I was not enforcing an academic topic on a non-academic audience. I think… Crap, now I’m not sure. This friend of mine – it is important to mention – is not an academic.

Something I never even questioned when starting my PhD has now become a daily struggle in my mind.  When I first contributed to a scientific article in 2012, I remember that picking the name I will use as an author was a substantial decision (“Do I add my middle name?...”). After all, I did not want to be confused with another scientist later on during my career (yes, I am now aware of ORCID).  Sounds like an unimportant decision.