Transformative Journals – Delta Think

“This month we look at Transformative Journals (TJs). We examine what their measures of compliance mean and how the criteria for growing OA in TJs compares with the typical growth of OA in hybrid journals….

The data suggest that historically, the OA proportion of journals’ output has not grown as fast as TJ requirements require:

Over the last three years, the total number of papers published across all journals currently marked as TJs is growing at roughly half the rate needed for them to continue to enjoy TJ status.
The number of journals meeting TJ requirements of OA growth is small. Only a dozen or so (out of around 2,000) have met TJ targets for each of the last three years. However, around two thirds have met TJ targets for at least one year out of the last 3.

The data also showed that only 20 or so journals (less than 1%) had over 75% OA uptake, while two thirds (68%) had 20% OA uptake or less. Smaller journals show the fastest growth in OA. Most of the larger ones appear to be virtually static….

The data suggest that the OA growth criteria for TJ status are aggressive, but not impossible. The current crop of TJs are on average growing OA proportions at around half the pace needed to be in compliance. (The average growth in OA uptake of hybrid journals from major publishers follows broadly similar patterns.) Many journals have previously met TJ targets for one year or even two, suggesting the challenges lie in adding to existing momentum, rather than building OA uptake from scratch.

 

However, the biggest caveat is timing. Support for TJs is due to be withdrawn completely in 2024, but two thirds of current TJs have less than 20% OA uptake. So many could meet their TJ targets, but still have only around one third OA uptake in 2024. Publishers would then be faced with a tough choice: flip minority-OA journals to fully OA, risk at least one third of output as zero-embargo Green impacting subscriptions … or fall out of Plan S compliance completely and lose one third of their submissions.”

Assessing number and quality of urology open access journals… : Current Urology

Abstract:  Background/Aims: 

There is clear evidence that publishing research in an open access (OA) journal or as an OA model is associated with higher impact, in terms of number of reads and citation rates. The development of OA journals and their quality are poorly studied in the field of urology. In this study, we aim to assess the number of OA journals, their quality in terms of CiteScore, percent cited and quartiles, and their scholarly production during the period from 2011 to 2018.

Methods: 

We obtained data about journals from www.scopus.com, and we filtered the list for urology journals. We obtained data for all Scopus indexed journals during the period from 2011 to 2018. For each journal, we extracted the following indices: CiteScore, Citations, scholarly output, and SCImago quartiles. We analyzed the difference in quality indices between OA and non-OA urology journals.

Results: 

Urology journals have increased from 66 journals in 2011 to 99 journals in 2018. The number of OA urology journals has increased from only 10 (15.2%) journals in 2011 to 33 (33.3%) journals in 2018. The number of quartile 1 (the top 25%) journals has increased from only 1 journal in 2011 to 5 journals in 2018. Non-OA urology journals had significantly higher CiteScore compared with OA journals till the year 2015, after which the mean difference in CiteScore became smaller with insignificant p-value.

Conclusion: 

Number and quality of OA journals in the field of urology have increased throughout the last few years. Despite this increase, non-OA urology journals still have higher quality and output.

Comparison of subscription access and open access obstetrics and gynecology journals in the SCImago database | Özay | Ginekologia Polska

Abstract:  Objectives: The aim of this study is to compare the annual SJR and to evaluate the other parameters that show the scientific effect of journals in terms of open access (OA) or subscription access (SA) in the field of obstetrics and gynecology according to the SCImago database. Material and methods: This study was conducted between September-December 2019 at Near East University. The SCImago Journal & Country Rank database was used to collect information about the journals. We evaluated and compared the changes in the one-year SJR (SCImago Journal Rank) and journal impact factor (JIF) of OA and SA journals. Results: Data from 183 scientific journals in the field of obstetrics and gynecology from the period between 1999 and 2018 were evaluated, where 140 of these journals were SA and 43 were OA. The average SJR of OA journals in 1999 was 0.17, while it was 0.38 for SA journals. In 2018, these values were 0.31 and 0.78 for OA and SA journals, respectively. In the comparison of JIF, the average of the OA journals in 1999 was 0.09, while it was 0.66 for SA journals. In 2018, these values were 0.80 and 1.93 for OA and SA journals, respectively. Conclusions: Access to information has become easier due to technological developments and this will continue to affect the access policies of journals. Despite the disadvantages of predator journals, the rise of OA journals in terms of number and quality is likely to continue. Key words: open access journal; impact factor; subscription access journal; SCImago; obstetrics; gynecology.

A renewed impetus for open research in Australia | Open Access Australasia

“There is now potential for a national approach to open science in Australia. However, Australian research and funding has some specific characteristics that mean that approaches in Europe or North America are not always easy to adapt. Furthermore, respecting Indigenous knowledge practices are essential. Protocols and practices for culturally appropriate publishing and data sharing are not yet widely adopted by publishers and infrastructure, although there is work in this area such as the CARE principles for Indigenous Data Governance and a thirst for engagement as shown at a 2020 OA week panel hosted by Australasian Open Access Strategy Group (AOASG). There is also more work to do to ensure that research on emerging, or regionally specific issues such as certain tropical diseases, Australian legal research, or work aimed at medical practitioners in regional and remote parts of the country is available and discoverable.

So how do we take open science forward at national and international levels? We recognise and welcome that change comes from many directions – from national governments, institutions, funders, intergovernmental agencies such as UNESCO but also individual researchers and participants in research themselves. Ultimately, though, universities must take the role as key drivers as well as final beneficiaries of more open science – since practices that drive open science will also support better reproducibility, robust translation and public trust in their research.”

A renewed impetus for open research in Australia | Open Access Australasia

“There is now potential for a national approach to open science in Australia. However, Australian research and funding has some specific characteristics that mean that approaches in Europe or North America are not always easy to adapt. Furthermore, respecting Indigenous knowledge practices are essential. Protocols and practices for culturally appropriate publishing and data sharing are not yet widely adopted by publishers and infrastructure, although there is work in this area such as the CARE principles for Indigenous Data Governance and a thirst for engagement as shown at a 2020 OA week panel hosted by Australasian Open Access Strategy Group (AOASG). There is also more work to do to ensure that research on emerging, or regionally specific issues such as certain tropical diseases, Australian legal research, or work aimed at medical practitioners in regional and remote parts of the country is available and discoverable.

So how do we take open science forward at national and international levels? We recognise and welcome that change comes from many directions – from national governments, institutions, funders, intergovernmental agencies such as UNESCO but also individual researchers and participants in research themselves. Ultimately, though, universities must take the role as key drivers as well as final beneficiaries of more open science – since practices that drive open science will also support better reproducibility, robust translation and public trust in their research.”

Boldly growing: PLOS’ new titles and business model update for institutions

“With PLOS’ recent announcement of five new titles in April, PLOS is keen to introduce our newest titles and business model to the library community.

Join PLOS’ outreach, publishing, and partnerships teams for an introduction to these new titles and PLOS’ newest non-APC based, equity-focused business model.

You can learn more about the rationale for launching new titles on the PLOS blog: https://theplosblog.plos.org/2021/04/launching-new-journals-2021/
and recent coverage from Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01907-3

This webinar is open to libraries, consortia, and PLOS institutional partners and registration is required….”

China ‘pursuing national open science strategy’ | Research Information

“China is working on a master plan for the internationalisation of its domestic journals and plans to pursue an open science strategy at a national level.

That was one of the main messages of a session at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Society of Scholarly Publishing (SSP) held last week, and hosted by Cactus Communications (Cactus), a technology company accelerating scientific advancement….

During an interview with Christine Hu, general manager of Greater China for Cactus, Dr. Lyu stated: ‘China has always focused on the global progress of Open Science and has actively participated in it. The Excellence Action Plan, led by CAST, has an OA (open access) ratio of 81 per cent for new journals, which shows that Chinese STM journals are becoming an important force in the open access landscape….”

CONSECUENCIAS EN LA PRODUCCIÓN CIENTÍFICA DE LA COVID-19

[Spanish-language article with an English-language abstract.]

Abstract:  The impact and the universality of the pandemic by SARS-CoV-2 has caused the need to have information quickly and accessible for the benefit of decision-making among healthcare professionals. In 10 months the scientific production on this new coronavirus has exceeded the number of 66 thousand articles, according to the LitCovid database, created by the National Library of Medicine, doubling and tripling every few weeks. This same urgency has characterized some of the main features of this voluminous production, in addition to its continuous and exponential growth, such as greater dissemination in open access and preprint  repositories, a certain acceleration in the manuscript review process by editorials and an abundance of opinion articles, recommendations or comments compared to a smaller number of original articles with clinical data from large groups of patients.

To boldly grow: five new journals shaped by Open Science – The Official PLOS Blog

“We are extremely excited to announce the imminent launch of five new journals, our first new launches in fourteen years. These new journals are unified in addressing global health and environmental challenges and are rooted in the full values of Open Science:

PLOS Climate
PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
PLOS Water
PLOS Digital Health
PLOS Global Public Health…”