Category Archives: oa.hybrid

Fully Open Access Journals – Size Does Matter

Posted on by
Reply

“Most publishers need to ensure that their income at least covers their costs, whether they are mission based or profit driven. Assuming constant prices, for open access publishing, income is driven primarily by the number of papers published. For subscription publishing, it’s driven primarily by the numbers of journals published. Costs scale based on numbers of papers for both. It would then be logical to assume that publishers focus increasingly on article volumes over numbers of journals as they publish more open access. But what do the data tell us?…

OA Only publishers publish more articles per journal….OA Only publishers’ journals contain 4 to 5 times as many papers as journals from Mixed Model publishers….

It appears that publisher type, rather than journal type, is a better predictor of journal size. Whatever the journal’s economics – and whether the organization is for profit or not – it seems that Mixed Model publishers continue to publish fully OA journals of similar sizes to their other journal types. OA Only publishers have historically published slightly larger journals, but the size of their journals has really taken off over the last decade.

It appears that Mixed Model publishers continue apply their tried and trusted subscription thinking to their fully OA journals. This means that they need to create more and more journals to keep up with demand, with all the overhead that implies. Meanwhile, the new kids on the block have no such qualms. Why publish more journals when you can simply publish more stuff?”

The future of scholarly publishing – 2023 – Journal of Food Science – Wiley Online Library

Posted on by
Reply

“Take-up of Open Access (OA) publication in the Journal of Food Science (JFS) has increased substantially in the past year, and we continue to monitor this. In JFS, we published about 10% of our manuscripts as OA last year, but it’s significantly higher in Comprehensive Reviews (CRFSFS). We’ve heard of publishers pushing society journals to switch to Gold OA (fully-OA publications), but our near-term future will still be hybrid publishing with authors deciding if they want to pay for OA.

Another concern in the move to OA is the risk that underfunded researchers will not be able to pay the OA fees. We participate in Research4Life, so authors in low-income nations can get waivers, but will APC be an obstacle for researchers from middle-income nations not on the Research4Life list?…”

Levels of Open Access · nasa/Transform-to-Open-Science · Discussion #454 · GitHub

Posted on by
Reply

“There’s a lot of different terminology around open access, particularly around various levels of open access. I thought it might be helpful to aggregate some of the disparate information into one source on the TOPS Github, which is below! This is sourced from Open Book Publishers, Researcher.Life, and Taylor & Francis.There are many kinds of open access, but they broadly fit into three categories: libre, which is open access that allows content to be free to read and generally, there are no barriers for reuse, gratis, which is open access that allows content to be free to read, but has barriers for reuse, and then there’s one level (black) that fits into neither libre nor gratis….”

News & Views: Open Access Charges – Popular Price Bands Become More Expensive – Delta Think

Posted on by
Reply

“We are seeing an increasing spread of popular price bands. These are skewed slightly to the higher end of the pricing spectrum, and average prices paid will continue to increase.

As we explored at length in our analysis “APC Price Changes – When does up mean down?”, average headline price rises can lead to falling overall spend or vice versa, depending on the numbers of papers published and spread of price increases across a portfolio.

Per-APC information is useful in a wider context too. Even where deals are calculated based on bundles, they are often set by discounting from list APCs – especially where publication activity exceeds agreed caps. Similarly, understanding revenues generated per paper is important to calculate thresholds for journal flips or for launching and sustaining a Subscribe to Open (S2O) model.

Studying individual journal list APCs remains foundational for understanding pricing across all OA business models.”

The funding effect on citation and social attention: the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a case study | Emerald Insight

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Purpose

Academic citation and social attention measure different dimensions in the impact of research results. The authors quantify the contribution of funding to both indicators considering the differences attributable to the research field and access type.

Design/methodology/approach

Citation and social attention accumulated until the year 2021 of more than 367 thousand research articles published in the year 2018 are studied. The authors consider funding acknowledgments (FAs) in the research articles. The data source is Dimensions, and the units of study are research articles in the United Nation (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Findings

Most cited goals by researchers do not coincide with those that arouse greater social attention. A small proportion of articles accumulates a large part of the citations and most of the social attention. Both citation and social attention grow with funding. Thus, funded research has a greater probability of being cited in academic articles and mentioned in social media. Funded research receives on average two to three times more citations and 2.5 to 4.5 times more social attention than unfunded research. Moreover, the open access (OA) modalities gold and hybrid have the greatest advantages in citation and social attention due to funding.

Research limitations/implications

Specific topics were studied in a specific period. Studying other topics and/or different time periods might result in different findings.

Practical implications

When funding to publish in open or hybrid access journals is not available, it is advisable to self-archiving the pre-print or post-print version in a freely accessible repository.

Social implications

Although cautiously, it is also advisable to consider the social impact of the research to complement the scientific impact in the evaluation of the research.

Originality/value

The joint evaluation of the effect of both funding and OA on social attention.

Factors Associated With Open Access Publishing Costs in Oncology Journals: Cross-sectional Observational Study

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Background:

Open access (OA) publishing represents an exciting opportunity to facilitate the dissemination of scientific information to global audiences. However, OA publishing is often associated with significant article processing charges (APCs) for authors, which may thus serve as a barrier to publication.

Objective:In this observational cohort study, we aimed to characterize the landscape of OA publishing in oncology and, further, identify characteristics of oncology journals that are predictive of APCs.

Methods:We identified oncology journals using the SCImago Journal & Country Rank database. All journals with an OA publication option and APC data openly available were included. We searched journal websites and tabulated journal characteristics, including APC amount (in US dollars), OA model (hybrid vs full), 2-year impact factor (IF), H-index, number of citable documents, modality/treatment specific (if applicable), and continent of origin. All APCs were converted to US-dollar equivalents for final analyses. Selecting variables with significant associations in the univariable analysis, we generated a multiple regression model to identify journal characteristics independently associated with OA APC amount. An audit of a random 10% sample of the data was independently performed by 2 authors to ensure data accuracy, precision, and reproducibility.

Results:Of 367 oncology journals screened, 251 met the final inclusion criteria. The median APC was US $2957 (IQR 1958-3450). The majority of journals (n=156, 62%) adopted the hybrid OA publication model and were based in Europe (n=119, 47%) or North America (n=87, 35%). The median (IQR) APC for all journals was US $2957 (1958-3540). Twenty-five (10%) journals had APCs greater than US $4000. There were 10 (4%) journals that offered OA publication with no publication charge. Univariable testing showed that journals with a greater number of citable documents (P<.001), higher 2-year IF (P<.001), higher H-index (P<.001), and those using the hybrid OA model (P<.001), or originating in Europe or North America (P<.001) tended to have higher APCs. In our multivariable model, the number of citable documents (?=US $367, SD US $133; P=.006), 2-year IF (US $1144, SD US $177; P<.001), hybrid OA publishing model (US $991, SD US $189; P<.001), and North American origin (US $838, SD US $186; P<.001) persisted as significant predictors of processing charges.

Conclusions:OA publication costs are greater in oncology journals that publish more citable articles, use the hybrid OA model, have a higher IF, and are based in North America or Europe. These findings may inform targeted action to help the oncology community fully appreciate the benefits of open science.

Open access: a journey from impossible to probable, but still uncertain | Profesional de la información

Posted on by
Reply

An overview of the evolution of open access (OA) to scientific publications over the last 20 years is presented. This retrospective look allows us to make two observations that seem to overlap: on the one hand, how close the initial objective seems to be to what initially seemed utopian and, on the other, the unanticipated and solid obstacles that open access has encountered along the way, as well as the unexpected and diverse solutions that are emerging to overcome them. The overall assessment of OA is positive, and it underscores that open access is (or is becoming) possible, that it is good, and that it is necessary. However, this overall positive evolution has come up against two major obstacles that are slowing its progress: the double payments generated by hybrid journals (subscription and article processing charges [APCs]) and the unchecked growth in APCs. In addition, this intensive use of APCs is creating a publishing gap between publishers that charge fees to authors and those that do not, and ultimately, it is causing dissension regarding the (previously shared) strategy toward open access. There are no immediate, one-off solutions to overcome the aforementioned dysfunctions, although three actions that, in the medium term, can remedy them can be mentioned: changing the approach to the evaluation of science, adopting measures to regulate APCs, and promoting alternative publication models. Finally, it should be noted that OA has acted as the vanguard and spearhead of a broader movement: that of open science.

watershed moment for the BJD: Authors retain their article copyright | British Journal of Dermatology | Oxford Academic

Posted on by
Reply

“I am delighted to confirm that under the terms of our new publishing agreement with OUP, authors of all BJD papers, whether published as open access or not, will retain copyright of their article. Rather than handing over copyright, authors are asked to provide to the BJD an ‘Exclusive licence to publish’ instead. If you don’t believe me, look at the copyright statement at the bottom of the page! …”

Wiley and CzechELib Sign First Open Access Agreement in Czech Republic | John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Posted on by
Reply

“Wiley, one of the world’s largest publishers and a global leader in research and education, today announced an open access agreement with Czech National Library of Technology (NTK) (CzechELib).

The four-year agreement will provide CzechELib participants access to view and publish in Wiley’s complete hybrid journal portfolio, which includes 1,400 journals, beginning January 16, 2023. Wiley is pioneering the open access movement in Czech Republic, being one of the first publishers to sign an open access agreement within the country. Participating researchers will be able to publish nearly 650 articles open access within the first year….”

Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in Biology | bioRxiv

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Authors are often faced with the decision of whether to maximize impact or minimize costs when publishing the results of their research. For example, to potentially improve impact via increased accessibility, many subscription-based journals now offer the option of paying a fee to publish open access (i.e., hybrid journals), but this solution excludes authors who lack the capacity to pay to make their research accessible. Here, we tested if paying to publish open access in a subscriptionbased journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles. We identified 146,415 articles published in 152 hybrid journals in the field of biology from 2013-2018 to compare the number of citations between various types of open access and closed access articles. In a simple generalized linear model analysis of our full dataset, we found that publishing open access in hybrid journals that offer the option confers an average citation advantage to authors of 17.8 citations compared to closed access articles in similar journals. After taking into account the number of authors, journal impact, year of publication, and subject area, we still found that open access generated significantly more citations than closed access (p < 0.0001). However, results were complex, with exact differences in citation rates among access types impacted by these other variables. This citation advantage based on access type was even similar when comparing open and closed access articles published in the same issue of a journal (p < 0.0001). However, by examining articles where the authors paid an article processing charge, we found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates (p = 0.14). Based on our findings of access type and other model parameters, we suggest that, in most cases, paying for access does confer a citation advantage. For authors with limited budgets, we recommend pursuing open access alternatives that do not require paying a fee as they still yielded more citations than closed access. For authors who are considering where to submit their next article, we offer additional suggestions on how to balance exposure via citations with publishing costs.