“Welcome to Primary Research Group’s survey of how academic librarians identify and monitor the cost per download for journal articles used by their library patrons, and how librarians then use this data. The survey should take less than 10 minutes and all participants receive a free PDF copy of the survey results….”
Increasing interest in open access (OA) monographs is reflected by the publication of four reports in 2019.
The cost of transitioning monographs to OA is a constant source of concern among all stakeholders.
Print remains an important medium for monographs – but for how long?
The fully OA licences used for journals are considerably less popular within the monograph ecosystem.
The technical interoperability taken for granted among journals is not yet evident in digital monograph publishing….”
Adhering to Plan’s S key principle of transparent pricing, cOAlition S publishes today its guidance on implementing price transparency when Open Access (OA) publication fees are applied. Specifically, cOAlition S announces that from July 1st, 2022 only publishers who provide data in line with one of the two endorsed price and service transparency frameworks will be eligible to receive OA publications funds from cOAlition S members. This covers funder contributions to any model of financing open access publications including, but not limited to, non-APC journals or platforms, article processing charges (APCs), transformative agreements, and transformative journals.
Science journals will have to disclose the costs of publishing articles in order for them to be paid for by a coalition of research funders pushing for open access. The price transparency rules, which will take effect in July 2022, were announced today by cOAlition S, a group of 22 international organizations, European national research agencies, and foundations. In 2018, cOAlition S launched a scheme called Plan S that will require grantees’ work, beginning in January 2021, to be open access, meaning it can be read immediately upon publication, free of charge. One route to accomplish this is for authors to pay journals a fee for each article published this way.
“A draft pricing and service framework, developed by Information Power, was published in January 2020 and to help validate this – and ensure that the information sought could be provided – ten publishers (Annual Reviews, Brill, The Company of Biologists, EMBO, European Respiratory Society, F1000 Research, Hindawi, Institute of Physics Publishing, PLOS, and Springer Nature) participated in a pilot. Based on the outcomes of this – and informed by workshops and discussions – the framework has been updated and endorsed by the cOAlition S leadership. It consists of a data collection spreadsheet, an implementation guide, and recommendations.
Independent of this work, the Fair Open Access Alliance (FOAA) developed a Publication Services and Fees framework which, to date, has been implemented by Frontiers, MIT Press, Copernicus and MPDI.
Both frameworks have been endorsed by cOAlition S….”
“This dataset contains payments made by UK higher education institutions for access to academic journals from ten publishers from 2010-2019. The data was obtained by sending Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to institutions through the website What Do They Know. The requests, and all original source data, can be found at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/stuart_lawson/requests.
The total expenditure with these ten publishers from 2010-2019 was over £982 million. This includes some gaps in the data, so the true figure is almost certainly greater than £1 billion.
The data was originally produced in three stages:
– Data for 2010-14 was published at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1186832
– Data for 2015-16 was published at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4542433
– Data for 2017-19 was published at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3828461
These three datasets contain direct links to the original FOI requests. The present dataset is a combination of these three datasets and contains no additional data….”
“First, deductive disclosure—discerning an individual’s identity and associated information in a dataset—is a major concern that needs to be taken very seriously. In human biology, we often ask participants to volunteer potentially sensitive or embarrassing information…
Second, we have to be careful about imposing expectations for data sharing that become overly expensive or burdensome. In particular, I worry about the potential impacts on students and junior scholars who are often short on time and money. Of the data repositories recommended in the article, many impose user fees. Furthermore, we should not underestimate the amount of effort it takes to prepare and upload datasets, codebooks, summary statistics, and analysis files for each publication….”
Hewlett’s 2020 strategy for OER. I’d cut/paste an excerpt, but the Hewlett PDF doesn’t support cutting/pasting. (Why?)
Changes in annual expenses and publishing volume at eLife show it is possible to run a selective journal with a mid-range publication fee.
“Copernicus Publications is committed to the open-access model of publishing. This ensures free web access to the results of research and maximum visibility for published papers. Authors retain copyright and works are distributed under the CC BY License. However, it requires the author or a supporting institution to pay the publisher’s costs of the administration of the review process, typesetting, image processing, language copy-editing, web publication, dissemination, and long-term archiving (via Portico and CLOCKSS) in the form of article processing charges (APCs). Copernicus Publications provides all its services in-house. The current page prices for the individual journals can be found at our APC overview page….
Most of the journals we publish are owned by learned societies and other scientific institutions. These journal owners can decide whether they want to subsidize their journal(s) by covering the costs of our services entirely or partly (no APCs for authors or APCs smaller than the costs of our services); they can forward the costs of our services to the authors and thereby break even (APCs = costs of our service); or they can decide to generate some income for their own community activities by adding an amount x to the amount of our service fee (APCs for authors higher than the costs of our services)….
The following APC breakdown represents an average of all journals we publish: …”
A chart of kinds of OA books, by Jeroen Sondervan.
“In 2013, I was part of a group of Dutch experts from many disciplines that called on our national science funder to support data stewardship. Seven years later, policies that I helped to draft are starting to be put into practice. These require data created by machines and humans to meet the FAIR principles (that is, they are findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable). I now direct an international Global Open FAIR office tasked with helping communities to implement the guidelines, and I am convinced that doing so will require a large cadre of professionals, about one for every 20 researchers.
Even when data are shared, the metadata, expertise, technologies and infrastructure necessary for reuse are lacking. Most published data sets are scattered into ‘supplemental files’ that are often impossible for machines or even humans to find. These and other sloppy data practices keep researchers from building on each other’s work. In cases of disease outbreaks, for instance, this might even cost lives….
I tell research institutions that, on average, 5% of overall research costs should go towards data stewardship. With €300 billion (US$325 billion) of public money spent on research in the European Union, we should expect to spend €15 billion on data stewardship. Scientists, especially more experienced ones, are often upset when I say this. They see it as 5% less funding for research.
Bunk. First, taking care of data is an ethical duty, and should be part of good research practice. Second, if data are treated properly, researchers will have significantly more time to do research. Consider the losses incurred under the current system….”
Open science has become a catch all term to describe the many different ways in which digital networked communication technologies have opened and begun to transform research and scholarship across different disciplines, even those outside of the sciences. Whilst this term has been useful, Marcel Knöchelmann argues that for the humanities to successfully adopt digital technologies, rather than have them imposed upon them, they need to develop an independent open humanities discourse.
“Research data represent a new currency. Traditionally, publishers did not publish or curate research data, they were interested only in publications. Now, research data and publications are at least equally important.”
“Imagine a university invoicing all graduating students for both the costs of their study program and the tuition fees of their peers who dropped out along the way. While this situation would strike most as unfair, something analogous happens in the world of scholarly publishing through the charging of open access fees. In this post we will explore how restructuring APC (Article Processing Charge) pricing can lead to fairer cost allocation in scholarly communication….
Journals that have experimented with submission fees before found that submission numbers went down significantly (33.5% in the case studied here) when introducing a submission fee. A decreased number of submissions offers the benefit of decreased costs – less time and effort spent on review as well as lower usage of the often costly technologies involved. Prices charged for various fees would need to be reduced to reflect these reduced costs.
It is not clear whether such a decrease would happen in a situation where the submission fee is introduced by an OA journal that is currently using a traditional OA payment system with an APC charge. In that situation the introduction of the submission fee would lead to a substantial reduction in charges paid for a published article, which may attract more authors, offsetting any decrease caused by the submission fee. The lower costs can strengthen a journal’s competitive position as compared to other journals in the field. If a reduction in the number of submissions is still observed, however, the finding of Nwachukwu and colleagues that there was no change in the characteristics of submitted papers is important to take into account. If that is the case, the assumption that 1000 submissions are needed for 100 publications would remain unchanged….
In an earlier post on The Scholarly Kitchen, Tim Vines suggested to let authors choose between the new APC model (including a submission fee), or not paying a submission fee but paying a (higher) APC at acceptance of the paper. This suggested approach is not only a good solution for the transitional phase to the new APC model, but can also provide valuable insights into the effects of introducing a submission fee for an OA journal.
To us, changing the APC model now seems a much better idea than to wait until that ship has sailed while we end up in an OA world with undesirably high publication (as opposed to processing) charges. If you agree, join us in getting this message across to funders so they can publicly voice their support, and to publishers to help persuade them of the enormous benefits of transparency and fair pricing.”