The Art of Publishing Reproducible Research Outputs: Supporting emerging practices through cultural and technological innovation. | Zenodo

Abstract:  Reproducibility and transparency can be regarded (at least in experimental research) as a hallmark of research. The ability to reproduce research results in order to check their reliability is an important cornerstone of research that helps to guarantee the quality of research and to build on existing knowledge. The digital turn has brought more opportunities to document, share and verify research processes and outcomes. Consequently, there is an increasing demand for more transparency with regard to research processes and outcomes. This fits well with the open science agenda requiring, amongst others, open software, open data, and open access to publications even if openness alone does not guarantee reproducibility.

 

The purpose of this activity of Knowledge Exchange was to explore current practices and barriers in the area of research reproducibility, with a focus on the publication and dissemination stage. We wanted to determine how technical and social infrastructures can support future developments in this area. In this work, we defined research reproducibility as cases where data and procedures shared by the authors of a study are used to obtain the same results as in their original work.

 

We captured the views of research funding organisations, research performing organisations, learned societies, researchers, academic publishers and infrastructure and service providers. We did a comprehensive literature review and a series of interviews and focus groups with a total of 51 contributors. The results of our activity give answers to the following questions:

 

·       What are the main benefits and barriers of publishing reproducible research outputs?

·       What are the roles of the different stakeholders involved?

·       How expensive are reproducibility checks?

·       What kind of digital tools and infrastructure are needed to publish reproducible research output?

The Art of Publishing Reproducible Research Outputs: Supporting emerging practices through cultural and technological innovation. | Zenodo

Abstract:  Reproducibility and transparency can be regarded (at least in experimental research) as a hallmark of research. The ability to reproduce research results in order to check their reliability is an important cornerstone of research that helps to guarantee the quality of research and to build on existing knowledge. The digital turn has brought more opportunities to document, share and verify research processes and outcomes. Consequently, there is an increasing demand for more transparency with regard to research processes and outcomes. This fits well with the open science agenda requiring, amongst others, open software, open data, and open access to publications even if openness alone does not guarantee reproducibility.

 

The purpose of this activity of Knowledge Exchange was to explore current practices and barriers in the area of research reproducibility, with a focus on the publication and dissemination stage. We wanted to determine how technical and social infrastructures can support future developments in this area. In this work, we defined research reproducibility as cases where data and procedures shared by the authors of a study are used to obtain the same results as in their original work.

 

We captured the views of research funding organisations, research performing organisations, learned societies, researchers, academic publishers and infrastructure and service providers. We did a comprehensive literature review and a series of interviews and focus groups with a total of 51 contributors. The results of our activity give answers to the following questions:

 

·       What are the main benefits and barriers of publishing reproducible research outputs?

·       What are the roles of the different stakeholders involved?

·       How expensive are reproducibility checks?

·       What kind of digital tools and infrastructure are needed to publish reproducible research output?

University Libraries a part of national group to investigate true institutional cost of research data sharing | VTx | Virginia Tech

“Virginia Tech and five other members of the Data Curation Network and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) were awarded a National Science Foundation EAGER grant (#2135874) to conduct research, develop models, and collect information related to cost for public access to research data. The group, led by ARL, is composed of data specialists from Virginia Tech, University of Michigan, Duke University, University of Minnesota, Cornell University, and Washington University in St. Louis.

Public access to research data increases transparency of research results, heightens the visibility of institutional scholarship, and can accelerate the pace of discovery through scholarship. However, common questions around public access to research data remain. Where are funded researchers making their data publicly accessible, and what is the quality of the corresponding metadata? How do researchers make the decision on how and why to share data? What is the cost to institutions to implement the federally mandated public access to research data policy?…”

Updates on our latest research on the costs of open infrastructure

“It’s been a busy few months at IOI, and I wanted to provide some updates on our current research to map funding and costs of open infrastructure.

We also have (2) open positions on the team:  a Director of Research & Strategy and an Engagement Lead. These positions play central roles in operationalizing IOI’s core aim to provide funding recommendations and investment guidance for research infrastructure and working with core stakeholder groups to put that work into action. …

Over the past few months, our team has been working to map the underlying costs and flows of capital for open infrastructure projects in the sector. 

This work builds on our research from the past year to investigate available funding data and project attributes. Our approach includes building a knowledge base of existing funding, project and grants data from a variety of public data sources, as well as qualitative research to verify those findings and further expand our understanding of project costs.

 

The aim of this work is to model a system of reporting key data and findings to support those looking to invest and choose open infrastructure solutions….”

In Practice: An Interview with Francesco Maggi & Enrico Valdinoci (Ars Inveniendi Analytica) · In Practice: Interviews with Practitioners of Open

“In this interview, Francesco Maggi (Professor of Mathematics, UT Austin) and Enrico Valdinoci (Professor of Mathematics, University of Western Australia) talk with Colleen Cressman about their new fee-free, open-access journal in Mathematics, Ars Inveniendi Analytica, for which they are the founding Editors-in-Chief. Established in 2020, Ars Inveniendi Analytica leverages the open-access repository arXiv as infrastructure: An author posts a manuscript to arXiv and then links to it in the submission form to the journal. Upon undergoing peer review, and if accepted for publication, the final version of the article is made available on arXiv. Francesco and Enrico discuss the merits and challenges of this model of publishing.”

Austrian Transition to Open Access: a collaborative approach

This article presents a collaborative project, the ‘Austrian Transition to Open Access’ (AT2OA), initially running from 2017 to 2020, which had the overarching goal of enabling the large-scale transformation of publishing outputs from closed to open access (OA) in Austria. The initiative, which has recently secured funding for a second four-year cycle from the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research, brings together all key players: universities, research institutes, the national library consortium and a cOAlition S funding member, the Austrian Science Fund. The project outcomes include a transition feasibility study that builds on the methodology of the 2015 Schimmer et al. article, the seeds of a national OA monitoring data hub and transformative agreements with major publishers. In addition, the project helped launch institutional OA Publishing Funds across the country and explored alternative publishing models. Furthermore, it saw the emergence of a nationwide network of OA experts. The authors also share their thoughts on lessons learned.

Why the price of scholarly publishing is so much higher than the cost | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

“In an efficient market, competing providers of a good will each try to undercut each other until the prices they charge approach the cost. If, for example, Elsevier and Springer-Nature were competing in a healthy free market, they would each be charging prices around one third of what they are charging now, for fear of being outcompeted by their lower-priced competitor. (Half of those price-cuts would be absorbed just by decreasing the huge profit margins; the rest would have to come from streamlining business processes, in particular things like the costs of maintaining paywalls and the means of passing through them.)

So why doesn’t the Invisible Hand operate on scholarly publishers? Because they are not really in competition. Subscriptions are not substitutable goods because each published article is unique. If I need to read an article in an Elsevier journal then it’s no good my buying a lower-priced Springer-Nature subscription instead: it won’t give me access to the article I need.

(This is one of the reasons why the APC-based model — despite its very real drawbacks — is better than the subscription model: because the editorial-and-publication services offered by Elsevier and Springer-Nature are substitutable. If one offers the service for $3000 and the other for $2000, I can go to the better-value provider. And if some other publisher offers it for $1000 or $500, I can go there instead.)…

Björn Brembs has been writing for years about the fact that every market has a luxury segment: you can buy a perfectly functional wristwatch for $10, yet people spend thousands on high-end watches. He’s long been concerned that if scholarly publishing goes APC-only, then people will be queuing up to pay the €9,500 APC for Nature in what would become a straightforward pay-for-prestige deal. And he’s right: given the outstandingly stupid way we evaluate reseachers for jobs, promotion and tenure, lots of people will pay a 10x markup for the “I was published in Nature” badge even though Nature papers are an objectively bad way to communicate research.

But it feels like something stranger is happening here. It’s almost as though the whole darned market is a luxury segment….

How can funders fix this, and get APCs down to levels that approximate publishing cost? I see at least three possibilities.

First, they could stop paying APCs for their grantees. Instead, they could add a fixed sum onto all grants they make — $1,500, say — and leave it up to the researchers whether to spend more on a legacy publisher (supplementing the $1,500 from other sources of their own) or to spend less on a cheaper born-OA publisher and redistribute the excess elsewhere.

Second, funders could simply publish the papes themselves. To be fair several big funders are doing this now, so we have Wellcome Open Research, Gates Open Research, etc. But doesn’t it seem a bit silly to silo research according to what body awarded the grant that funded it? And what about authors who don’t have a grant from one of these bodies, or indeed any grant at all?

That’s why I think the third solution is best. I would like to see funders stop paying APCs and stop building their own publishing solutions, and instead collaborate to build and maintain a global publishing solution that all researchers could use irrespective of grant-recipient status. I have much to say on what such a solution should look like, but that is for another time.”

The cost, value and price of scientific publication | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

“There is a growing consensus that the cost of converting a scientific manuscript into a published paper — peer-reviewed, typeset, made machine-readable, references extracted, archived, indexed, sustainably hosted — is on the order of $500-$1000.

The value of a published paper to the world is incredibly hard to estimate, but let’s for now just say that it’s high. (We’ll see evidence of this in a moment.)

The price of a published paper is easier to calculate. According to the 2018 edition of the STM Report (which seems to be the most recent one available), “The annual revenues generated from English-language STM journal publishing are estimated at about $10 billion in 2017 […] collectively publishing over 3 million articles a year” (p5). So, bundling together subscription revenues, APCs, offsets deals and what have you, the average revenue accruing from a paper is $10,000,000,000/3,000,000 = $10,000/3 = $3,333.

(Given that these prices are paid, we can be confident that the value is at least as much, i.e. somewhere north of $3,333 — which is why I was happy earlier to characterise the value as “high”.)

Why is it possible for the price of a paper to be 3–7 times as high as its cost? One part of the answer is that the value is higher still. Were it not so, no-one would be paying. But that can’t be the whole reason.

Tune in next time to find out the exciting reason why the price of scholarly publishing is so much higher than the cost!”

Open Access Publishing: Costs, Benefits and Myths | CSUN University Library

“Open Access Week is a time for both celebration of the open sharing of knowledge and general reflection on the state of academic publishing. In March 2020 the California State University system announced a groundbreaking “transformative” subscription agreement with Elsevier, one of the world’s largest academic publishers of scholarly journals across all disciplines.

The agreement allows CSU campuses fee-free access to CSU faculty’s works published in participating Elsevier Science Direct journals, regardless of subscription status, as well as providing for fee-per-article open-access publishing to our faculty.

As this pilot agreement is up for review in 2021, now may be a good time to reflect upon its impact. Our presenters and panelists will take a deep dive into the outcomes and sustainability of this transformative “Read and Publish-Plus” arrangement….”

Higher Author Fees in Gastroenterology Journals Are Not Associated with Faster Processing Times or Higher Impact | SpringerLink

Abstract:  Background

Publications are an important component of academic careers.

Aims

We investigated the financial costs to authors for submitting and publishing manuscripts in gastroenterology (GI) journals in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and elsewhere.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study carried out from 11/1/2020 to 12/31/2020. We used the SCImago Journal and Country Rankings site to compile a list of gastroenterology and hepatology journals to analyze. We gathered information on the journals’ Hirsch indices (h indices), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Impact Factor (IF), and base countries as of 2019, processing and publication fees, open access fees, time to first decision, and time from acceptance to publication. We used t-testing and linear regression modeling to evaluate the effect of geography and journal quality metrics on processing fees and times.

Results

We analyzed 97 GI journals, of which 51/97 (52.6%) were based in the US/UK while the other 46/97 (47.4%) were based elsewhere. The mean IF (5.67 vs 3.53, p?=?0.08), h index (90.5 vs 41.8, p?<?0.001), and SJR (1.82 vs 0.83, p?<?0.001) for the US/UK journals were higher than those for non-US/UK journals. We also found that 11/51 (21.6%) of US/UK journals and 15/46 (32.6%) of non-US/UK journals had mandatory processing and publication fees. These tended to be significantly larger in the US/UK group than in the non-US/UK group (USD 2380 vs USD 1470, p?=?0.04).

Conclusions

Publication-related fees may preclude authors from smaller or socioeconomically disadvantaged institutions and countries from publishing and disseminating their work.

Our Commitment to Price Transparency – The Official PLOS Blog

“PLOS is committed to transparency in all its forms—from our Open Science practices that we urge our authors to adopt, to providing our community clear insight into our journals and activities. Last year, Plan S provided a pilot opportunity for the latter through their Price & Service Transparency Framework which becomes a requirement for Plan S compliance in July 2022. We have committed to participate in and share our reporting from that framework each year and we are once again sharing our price transparency data in the spreadsheet and chart below. Read on for more details of how the framework has changed and what that means for PLOS. …”

Current market rates for scholarly publishing… | F1000Research

Abstract:  For decades, the supra-inflation increase of subscription prices for scholarly journals has concerned scholarly institutions. After years of fruitless efforts to solve this “serials crisis”, open access has been proposed as the latest potential solution. However, also the prices for open access publishing are high and are rising well beyond inflation. What has been missing from the public discussion so far is a quantitative approach to determine the actual costs of efficiently publishing a scholarly article using state-of-the-art technologies, such that informed decisions can be made as to appropriate price levels. Here we provide a granular, step-by-step calculation of the costs associated with publishing primary research articles, from submission, through peer-review, to publication, indexing and archiving. We find that these costs range from less than US$200 per article in modern, large scale publishing platforms using post-publication peer-review, to about US$1,000 per article in prestigious journals with rejection rates exceeding 90%. The publication costs for a representative scholarly article today come to lie at around US$400. These results appear uncontroversial as they not only match previous data using different methodologies, but also conform to the costs that many publishers have openly or privately shared. We discuss the numerous additional non-publication items that make up the difference between these publication costs and final price at the more expensive, legacy publishers.

 

Current market rates for scholarly publishing services

Abstract:  For decades, the supra-inflation increase of subscription prices for scholarly journals has concerned scholarly institutions. After years of fruitless efforts to solve this “serials crisis”, open access has been proposed as the latest potential solution. However, also the prices for open access publishing are high and are rising well beyond inflation. What has been missing from the public discussion so far is a quantitative approach to determine the actual costs of efficiently publishing a scholarly article using state-of-the-art technologies, such that informed decisions can be made as to appropriate price levels. Here we provide a granular, step-by-step calculation of the costs associated with publishing primary research articles, from submission, through peer-review, to publication, indexing and archiving. We find that these costs range from less than US$200 per article in modern, large scale publishing platforms using post-publication peer-review, to about US$1,000 per article in prestigious journals with rejection rates exceeding 90%. The publication costs for a representative scholarly article today come to lie at around US$400. These results appear uncontroversial as they not only match previous data using different methodologies, but also conform to the costs that many publishers have openly or privately shared. We discuss the numerous additional non-publication items that make up the difference between these publication costs and final price at the more expensive, legacy publishers.

 

Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines | Scientific Data

Abstract:  Data sharing is one of the cornerstones of modern science that enables large-scale analyses and reproducibility. We evaluated data availability in research articles across nine disciplines in Nature and Science magazines and recorded corresponding authors’ concerns, requests and reasons for declining data sharing. Although data sharing has improved in the last decade and particularly in recent years, data availability and willingness to share data still differ greatly among disciplines. We observed that statements of data availability upon (reasonable) request are inefficient and should not be allowed by journals. To improve data sharing at the time of manuscript acceptance, researchers should be better motivated to release their data with real benefits such as recognition, or bonus points in grant and job applications. We recommend that data management costs should be covered by funding agencies; publicly available research data ought to be included in the evaluation of applications; and surveillance of data sharing should be enforced by both academic publishers and funders. These cross-discipline survey data are available from the plutoF repository.