At the 2014 Annual Meeting a Round Table panel discussed some of the issues surrounding publishing science in today’s world, touching on open access vs. traditional publishing formats, plagiarism, and the increasing number of “rogue” journals to avoid. This RT will explore in more depth the very likely scenario that all journals and authors will have to adapt to open access publishing and this will cost more all round. Is this an advantage or deterrent to younger scientists and how will traditional journals adapt to the pressure to change? Will Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) replace the impact factor (IF) as a best measure of journal quality or is it a gimmick by a major publishing house? There is no standard for being able to review, usually being an author, but this does not mean they are effective reviewers. Many experienced authors refuse to do reviews leaving it to others. Another issue is the low quality of submissions, either poor or repeated research, not well-thought out methodologies, too long a text relative to the merit of the research, and unacceptable English. Journals also want reviews to reject perhaps 50% of submissions as there are more submissions than journal space for monthly or quarterly publications. With the likelihood that all journals will become electronic, space will no longer be an issue for publication only quality. Scientific societies such as IAFP will have to appoint forward-thinking editorial boards to be ready to consider several publication alternatives well in advance of what publishing companies start to promote before it may be forced upon them by dwindling submissions. This roundtable will have panelists representing four scientific journals, and a young scientist to review the issues and suggest ways out of the publication maze. There will opportunities for audience input as well.