The most significant publications with regards to scientific impact
Open Access principles for universities state that the results of research carried out at universities shall be published using the most significant channels with regards to scientific impact. This is in line with e.g. the recommendation of The Academy of Finland (17.9.2014): “When there are Open Access science publications in the field of the same quality as traditional subscription journals, The Academy encourages researchers to publish their research results there and to archive duplicate versions of their publications in an open publication archive”. It is especially important to avoid fraudster publishers: see section ‘Vanity and fraudster publishers’ below.
Some journals have questionable motives for publishing, so make sure you choose carefully. A large number of journals sending spam to researchers may either be so-called vanity publishers or downright fraudulent. Vanity publishers are not established publishing houses, but rather seek to make money by sending admiring letters to a large number of writers in the hope of easy money from sales, since the writer is required to do the layout for them. If you have received a grant and published your thesis, expect to receive mail from at least one such publisher. Vanity publishers usually have impressive websites featuring the logos of esteemed international organisations and made-up impact figures, in order to create a good impression. Fraudster publishers are openly discussed in scientific communities online: you find the discussions by searching the name of the publisher and journal online. From the results you can usually deduce if publishing your research with this publisher would be an academic merit or a threat to you.
All publications listed on Publication Forum, Thomson Reuter’s Web of Knowledge or Elsevier’s Scopus database are established academic publications.
Read more about fraudster publishers:
Butler, D. 2013. Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature, vol. 495 (7442), pp.433-435. doi:10.1038/495433a. http://www.nature.com/news/investigating-journals-the-dark-side-of-publishing-1.12666
Beall, J. 2012. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, vol. 489 (7415). doi:10.1038/489179a. http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-access-1.11385
Beall, J. 2013. Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access. Learned Publishing, vol. 26 (2), pp. 1741-4857. doi:10.1087/20130203.