Health Policy and Planning’s transition to Open Access: moving into the future | Health Policy and Planning | Oxford Academic

“From 2024, Health Policy and Planning (HPP) will become a fully Open Access journal, in line with the overall trend in the publishing landscape.

A few decades ago, almost all journals were based on subscriptions, paid by libraries, universities and research institutes. More recently, we have seen strong growth in Open Access journals, where the cost of publishing is covered by authors, their funders or employing organizations.

At HPP, we have demonstrated our commitment to transitioning to a fully Open Access journal by gradually increasing our Open Access content in line with growth targets set by cOAlition S. This final step completes our transformative commitment to Open Access.

This change has no impact on the journal’s editorial policy, standards or processes.”

Cultivating sustainable in-house scholarly publishing programs: Community conversation PT 2

“Gaynor Redvers-Mutton, Associate Director of Business Development and Sales at the Biochemical Society, and Maxine Aldred, Director of Publications Production at the American Society of Civil Engineers, respond to the questions:

What factors do you consider essential for scholarly societies and institutes to sustainably operate in-house publishing programs like yours?
How is your team working to increase publishing efficiencies, promote research equity, and provide more value to the academy?…

We acknowledge that the scientific communities must adapt to changing scholarly norms and develop new dissemination models that address open and equitable access. However, this must be done in a way that preserves the scholarly value of the peer-reviewed version of research. This must be fixed at the time of publication without any possibility of historical rewriting –– meaning that the original work cannot be altered by the author or anyone else. ASCE also believes that learned societies, acting in accordance with their educational mission, should be able to recover their costs of investing in managing the peer review process, editing, publishing, disseminating, and maintaining an ever-growing archive in perpetuity.”

BJA Open: a new open access journal for anaesthesiology, critical care, and pain medicine – BJA Open

“BJA Open is a new open access journal to complement British Journal of Anaesthesia. This editorial describes the rationale for the journal and the breadth of content it is seeking to attract. As with other BJA titles, BJA Open conforms to the highest standards of editorial and publication practice, and it aims to provide sector-leading author experience combined with reliable peer-reviewed content for the reader.”


Costs of scientific journals have reached unsustainable level – The future of subscriptions in jeopardy – FinELib

“Publishers are demanding increasingly higher fees for reading scientific journals and open access publishing, even though the scientific community can’t sustain even the current costs. The expenses have risen to a level that doesn’t correspond to the benefits received from the services….

The consortium is prepared that if the goals are not achieved, it’s possible that not all current scientific journal agreements can be continued….”


How Academic Publishers Exploit Authors & Readers

“In a digital age where access to information is increasingly recognized as a fundamental human right, a deeply concerning trend has emerged in academic publishing. There’s a rising misuse of publishing models that burden authors with charges for their work to be published and levy fees on readers for accessing the published content. This practice, known as “double-dipping,” has sparked a chorus of protest from a broad spectrum of stakeholders: academics, librarians, students, and, particularly, open-access advocates.

Historically, the conventional model for academic publishing functioned on a no-charge basis for authors, with publishers profiting through subscription fees paid by readers or institutions such as universities and libraries. In stark contrast, the prevailing trend in today’s publishing landscape requires authors to pay to publish their work, ostensibly under the pretense of making these works freely available to the public — a model referred to as “author pays” or “gold open access.”…”

News & Views: Can open access be made more affordable? – Delta Think

“One of many ideas being discussed is basing fees upon what is affordable locally, rather than pricing them at an identical level for customers irrespective of their geographic location. Precedents exist, such as the tiered pricing of vaccines….

The APC barrier effect suggests that “APCs impede researchers with fewer resources in publishing their research as OA”. Transformative Agreements (TAs) and Read & Publish (R&P) deals, which may base their pricing on APCs, can bring similar problems of affordability to those of APCs themselves. The expense of subscriptions too, even for the wealthy, has been discussed at length, and their cost is one of the drivers behind advocacy of a move to OA. Affordability is an issue whatever the business model.


Waivers are the usual fix, but they can be problematic. Their implementation varies, and they may be perceived as patronizing or undermining the dignity of those receiving them (“Waivers are a charity; why can we not pay in our own way with our own money?”). Waivers are typically applied based on World Bank income categories, but, as our analysis of its data shows, these may not match affordability….

At first glance, exploring a PPP [Purchasing Power Parity]-based pricing model is attractive. It strikes at the heart of affordability, by accounting for participants’ ability to pay. However, as we have seen, it is not that simple. A move to PPP, in most cases, causes price increases for many (some of which are unexpected) to subsidize the others that need more affordable options. This may result in some controversial changes. That impact would be magnified if publishers attempted to adjust prices upwards overall to counteract market value shrinkage.

A PPP based pricing system, while attractive in principle, would need to be carefully implemented in practice. Prices or pricing tiers would need to account for more than the raw numbers. Optics would need to be carefully considered. There will be winners and losers. And, like William Gibson’s view of the future, they will be unevenly distributed.”

Article Processing Charges in Gold Open Access Journals: An Empirical Study: Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries: Vol 0, No 0

Abstract:  This study focuses on analyzing the trends in article processing charges (APCs) levied by open access journals. To gather the required data, a CSV file was generated from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The APC values were assessed and converted into standardized currencies, including INR and USD. Among the 17,379 journals included in the DOAJ, only 5,122 journals were found to charge APCs. Through the examination of the collected data, it was discovered that the highest APC amount recorded was INR 518,334.95 (equivalent to USD 6680.46), while the lowest APC observed was INR 1.04 (equivalent to USD 0.013).

Pensoft’s statement on the European Union’s Conclusions on OA scholarly publishing

“On behalf of Pensoft Publishers, we express our support for the Conclusions on high-quality, transparent, open and equitable scholarly publishing, recently published by the Council of the European Union. We do share all concerns articulated in the document that highlight major inequities and outstanding issues in the scholarly publishing environment.

In our opinion, it is of utmost importance to promptly address the existing issues in the publishing system, where healthy competition can thrive and contribute to a reality safe from potential mono-/oligopolies and corporate capture.

We firmly believe that only an industry that leaves room for variously-scaled pioneers and startups is capable of leading a long-awaited shift to a high-quality, transparent, open and equitable scholarly publishing landscape aligning with the principles of FAIRness….”

RE: NASA Public Access Plan for Increasing Access to the Results of NASA-Supported Research

“We appreciate the benefits that collaborations with external partners, such as CHORUS, may provide. Because third-party vendors operate under terms that are subject to change, they should serve as a supplement to support compliance, rather than a proxy to indicate compliance. This approach ensures that NASA remains in a strong position to leverage external partners where it benefits the agency and its grantees while retaining flexibility to adapt its approach should the terms change under which services such as CHORUS are offered—without the burden of revising policy.

We further recommend that NASA explicitly emphasize the availability of compliance options that do not present financial barriers. NASA’s plan and associated policies and guidance should clearly describe how authors can fully comply with its public access policy at no cost by depositing the author’s accepted manuscript into NASA’s PubSpace or any other agency-approved repository.

Because authors may be encouraged to pay added Open Access fees in circumstances when they are unnecessary for compliance, NASA should clarify that any charges from publishers are publication charges—not compliance charges. It is critical that authors do not conflate compliance with article processing charges (APCs), which create significant barriers for less-well-resourced authors and institutions to make their research available. It is important for researchers to understand that the option to post their final peer-reviewed manuscript into an agency-designated repository is an affordable and equitable full compliance mechanism that is available to them.

Institutional repositories run by libraries and other research institutions generally do not charge authors to deposit articles or manuscripts. These can play an important role in easing compliance burdens on authors, improving discoverability of research outputs, and providing long-term preservation support. Therefore, we strongly recommend that NASA allow for the deposit of publications into other repositories beyond PubSpace, and suggest that NASA utilize the guidance set out in the U.S. Repository Network’s Desirable Characteristics of Digital Publications Repositories….”

The Corporate Capture of Open-Access Publishing

“As the heads of progressive university presses on two sides of the North Atlantic, we support open and equitable access to knowledge. If history is any guide, however, the new policies may unintentionally contribute to greater consolidation in academic publishing — and encourage commercial publishers to value quantity over quality and platforms over people. Unless the new open-access policies are accompanied by direct investment from funders, governments, and universities in nonprofit publishers and publishing infrastructure, they could pose a threat to smaller scholarly and scientific societies and university presses, and ultimately to trust in published knowledge….

Without meaning to, many putatively open-access policies could further privatize the results of academic research….

The open-access movement has its roots in the practice of self-archiving (also called “Green” open access), wherein scholars deposit prepublication versions of their work in university repositories or community-owned preprint servers that function (to the extent possible) outside the economic strictures of formal publishing. Publishers effectively co-opted the movement by promoting instead models in which authors or their institutions pay publishers for the privilege of openness (also called “Gold” open access). As a result, open-access policies that enforce openness at any cost, under any model, have paradoxically, and against the intentions of policymakers, furthered the commodification of knowledge….

With paid open access, the academy is being asked, in effect, to subsidize the commercial sector’s use of university-research outputs with no reciprocal financial contribution….

Questions about academic freedom, widening inequality, the impact on smaller publishers, and the applicability of science-based policy for the arts, social sciences, and humanities have long been overlooked in conversations about open access….

The answers, we propose, lie somewhere in that overlooked, undervalued middle ground of nonprofit or fair-profit university-press publishing, mission-aligned with the academy. Many of those presses have been leaders in findings ways to meet the goals of providing both equitable access to knowledge and equitable participation in the creation of new knowledge. These are the publishers that universities should protect, invest in, and make deals with. Perhaps an international network of university-based publishers, libraries, and other public-knowledge providers could work together, balancing paid-for and open research content in a way that is sustainable rather than extractive, and that still values the research itself. Such a network could face down the likes of….”

the source / Introducing the All-New Journalytics Academic & Predatory Reports

“We have some exciting news to share – a new and improved Journalytics Academic & Predatory Reports platform will soon be here. Our team has been working on multiple updates and enhancements to our tried and true platform that will benefit users in multiple ways. Along with our ongoing addition of new verified and predatory journals, users will experience better search results, new data points and visualizations, increased stability and speed, and more secure logins.

In addition to the visual elements and expanded analytics of this redesign, a key component is the full integration of our Journalytics and Predatory Reports databases. This integration will allow for comprehensive searches that present the full range of publishing opportunities and threats in a given area. Our goal is to facilitate journal discovery and evaluation so our users know the journals and know the risks.

Last month we hosted a webinar to give users a sneak peek at the upcoming changes, which include a new guided search page to jumpstart journal discovery, updated platform and journal card designs, and new data points such as fees and article output. Check out the video below or visit our YouTube channel where you’ll find a time-stamped table of contents in the description for easy navigation to specific points in the video….”

Wiley journal board resigns en masse after monthlong strike

“At least two-thirds of the editorial board of Wiley’s Journal of Biogeography has resigned, citing the publisher’s push toward “exorbitant” open-access fees and what they claimed was a policy to steer rejected manuscripts to other titles.

Former editor in chief Mike Dawson announced his resignation in June, and 64 of his associate editors have been refusing to handle new manuscripts since then, a move that is part of an increasing trend of journal editorial boards deciding to take action en masse.

The editors who resigned objected to the publisher flipping the journal to open access, having to deal with an increase in papers and the automatic referral of rejected manuscripts to other Wiley journals.”

Is the Tide Turing in Favour of Universal and Equitable Open Access? – International Science Council

“The current scientific publishing system is not prepared to evolve accordingly. With so many advancements in digital technologies, why stick to an outmoded system which is hindering the progress of science? The International Science Council (ISC) recognized the urgency of reforming the entire publishing system. Based on an analysis in the ISC position paper: Opening the Record of Science: making scholarly publishing work for science in the digital Era, the ISC steering group established 8-core principles as guiding concepts to maintain integrity and ensure an equitable and universally accessible system.”

“Preprints present an opportunity for a fairer, more transparent, and streamlined approach to disseminating research. As the concept of preprints continues to evolve, it’s becoming increasingly evident that they could become the way forward for academic publishing if the research community takes on the responsibility of ensuring rigorous validation and is credited in the research assessment process as the legitimate output.”


Wiley journal editors resign en masse, fired chief editor speaks – Retraction Watch

“Two-thirds of the associate editors of the Journal of Biogeography, a Wiley title, have resigned in a dispute with the publisher, and more resignations are likely, according to those involved. 

Most of the resignations, reported first by Times Higher Education, were effective immediately, but a portion of the associate editors set August 28 as their effective date in hopes Wiley may negotiate with them about their concerns….

The Journal of Biogeography is not fully open access, but charges APCs of $4,800 for authors who wish to make their articles freely available.

Such fees are “excessive,” and “not affordable,” said Krystal Tolley, one of the associate editors who put in her resignation for the end of the month. Tolley is based in South Africa, and said she and other researchers in the Global South “just don’t have those kinds of funds.” 

Wiley and other major publishers often waive fees for authors in low-income countries, and “transformative agreements” in which funding agencies or universities pay publication fees rather than authors….”