Plan S Journal Comparison Service: open for publishers to register and deposit price and service data | Plan S

cOAlition S is excited to release today the Journal Comparison Service (JCS), a secure, free and long-anticipated digital service, that aims to shed light on publishing fees and services.

Starting from today, publishers can register with the JCS publisher portal. After signing a service agreement, publishers can share information, at journal level, highlighting the services they provide and the prices they charge in line with one of the Plan S approved price and service transparency frameworks. These data are then made available to librarians via a secure online system.  Examples of data that will be made available through the service include information about the publication frequency, the peer review process, times from submission to acceptance, the range of list prices for APCs, subscription prices, and how the price is allocated over a defined set of services.

 

Agreement will allow UC articles to be published open access

An agreement with the UC system and the American Chemical Society, or ACS, will allow every UC-authored article in the ACS to be published open access.

Open access means that these researchers’ works will be available to more people and have a greater impact, particularly in lower-income countries, according to Jeff MacKie-Mason, UC Berkeley librarian.

MacKie-Mason noted that this has been a long-term goal of the UC Academic Senate and UC libraries. He added this will also include a lower cost of publication for the researchers.

“Transformative” Agreement Bingo | Brianne Selman

“Big Deal for APCs – Can’t unbundle/ researcher expectations

Fees are not transparent/ proportionate to work done

Convoluted models & management (especially w/ “pretansformative”)

Encourages and increases hybrid journals

Global rise in OA has been Green or Diamond

Can’t afford for every publisher

Adds publishing costs to Library budgets

Too expensive to do for smaller publishers

Where is the “Transformation”?

Even Sweden is out

Only an option for richer institutions/ countries

Shifts inequity to authors

PAY TO PUBLISH (FREE spot)

Contributes to APC hyperinflation

Makes OA the prestige option / incentives exclusion

May promote publishers w/ TAs over those without

Further locks in prestige for those who can pay

Locks in increasing profit margins

Encourages further market consolidation and increases dependency

Further redistribution of public money to private entities

Leads to an erosion of varied publishing methods

Pushes out diamond OA publishers

Publishing governed by shareholders, not scholars

Investing in unethical data companies

Seize the means of production”

 

How does the growth of a particular publisher’s open access content factor into the relative value of a Big Deal? Part 2: The Findings – Delta Think

“Some final thoughts: (1) Overall usage was a stronger influence on the change in value than the small changes in the proportion of hybrid OA article usage. (2) Despite the range of research activity levels across our institutions, there wasn’t much difference in the proportion of the open versus controlled usage across the site-licensed institutions for either publisher. (3) COVID likely affected these trends, but precisely how was unclear. Did lockdown increase the usage or limit it? Did it affect our two publishers differently? We have no ‘non-COVID’ control unfortunately. (4) If the impact of transformative agreements on the rate of hybrid OA article output influenced these trends, the impact was quite small. Still, with more libraries negotiating transformative agreements, growth in the proportion of OA articles should accelerate. As long as usage in publisher packages continues to grow, cost per controlled use will increase more quickly than cost per use. This new cost per controlled use metric should help libraries track the return on investment from their journal package subscription payments as a growing proportion of underlying articles are free to read.”

Factors Associated with Open Access Publishing Costs in Oncology Journals

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

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 (USD), 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. We generated a multiple regression model to identify journal characteristics independently associated with OA APC amount.

Results Of 367 oncology journals screened, 251 met final inclusion criteria. The median APC was 2957 USD (IQR 1958-3450). On univariable testing, journals with greater number of citable documents (p<0.001), higher IF (p < 0.001), higher H-index (p < 0.001), and those using the hybrid OA model (p < 0.001) or originating in Europe/North America (p < 0.001) tended to have higher APCs. In our multivariable model, number of citable documents, IF, OA publishing model, and region persisted as significant predictors of processing charges.

Conclusions OA publication costs are greater in oncology journals that publish more citable articles, utilize the hybrid OA model, have 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 and Shut?: The OA interviews: Richard Gallagher, President & Editor-in-Chief, Annual Reviews

“Annual Reviews (AR) recently announced that over the next 18 months it aims to make its entire portfolio of 51 academic journals freely available under a new journal publication model known as Subscribe to Open (S2O).

Annual Reviews is a pioneer of S2O, having first trialled it in 2017 with its journal Annual Review of Public Health. A number of AR’s other journals have subsequently been converted to S2O and the publisher is now hoping to migrate its entire journal portfolio to the new model….

In light of AR’s announcement, I emailed a number of questions to the President & Editor-in-Chief of AR, Richard Gallagher. Those questions, and Gallagher’s replies, are published below….”

Need for universal acceptance of preprinting by editors of journals of health professional education | SpringerLink

“While publishers in multiple fields are adopting preprints [2], we have discovered a great deal of confusion about the pros and cons of preprinting as well as disparity in publishers’ policies regarding preprinting in health professions education (HPE). In seeking to resolve this confusion, we documented preprint policies at 74 journals within HPE (e.g. nursing, medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, rehabilitation sciences, nutrition). We culled preprint policies for 43 (58%) journals using journal websites, JISC’s Sherpa Romeo tool, and Wikipedia’s list of academic publishers by preprint policy. We then obtained information from email solicitations for an additional 27 (36%), leaving us without information for 4 (5%). Of the 70 journals for which we have information, 53 (76%) will review/accept preprinted manuscripts; 11 (16%) do not, and 6 (9%) are unclear or make decisions on a case-by-case basis. (For a link to our list of HPE journals and our understanding of their policies regarding preprinted manuscripts, see https://jahse.med.utah.edu/submission/ and select “Where to Publish”.) No wonder there is confusion.

We encourage our colleagues across the health professions to join our call to eliminate this confusion by encouraging all HPE journals to support and promote preprinting. The value of preprinting has only become more important during the COVID-19 pandemic [3]. Being able to preprint scholarship prior to formal submission enhances formative review and revision, augments the benefits of peer coaching, and promotes higher quality publications. Preprinting also makes work available to others more quickly, which can enhance collaboration and uptake of new ideas without compromising the eventual copyright of the final published product.”

Changing dynamics of scholarly publication: a perspective towards open access publishing and the proposed one nation, one subscription policy of India | SpringerLink

In the midst of the most widely used subscription-based publishing model, open access publishing is gaining a foothold in the publishing world. India, as one of the world’s leading producers of scientific information, has seen a considerable escalation in the production of open access knowledge content, which has sparked a scholarly debate towards the availability and accessibility of scholarly knowledge to all. Despite the fact that two major science funding agencies of India, the Department of Science and Technology and Department of Biotechnology, adopted an open access policy in 2014 to promote green open access to articles produced from publicly financed research projects, academic content still remains out of reach for everyone due to inadequate planning and implementation. Recently the Government of India has proposed a “one nation, one subscription” (ONOS) policy to make scholarly knowledge more accessible to Indian citizens. The study’s primary goal is to look into the open-access situation across many subject groups in India and globally. The aim is to understand whether a blanket subscription policy is the best way to facilitate the accessibility of scholarly knowledge or if subject-specific needs implications of other global OA initiatives are worth considering when implementing the ONOS policy.

Changing dynamics of scholarly publication: a perspective towards open access publishing and the proposed one nation, one subscription policy of India

Abstract:  In the midst of the most widely used subscription-based publishing model, open access publishing is gaining a foothold in the publishing world. India, as one of the world’s leading producers of scientific information, has seen a considerable escalation in the production of open access knowledge content, which has sparked a scholarly debate towards the availability and accessibility of scholarly knowledge to all. Despite the fact that two major science funding agencies of India, the Department of Science and Technology and Department of Biotechnology, adopted an open access policy in 2014 to promote green open access to articles produced from publicly financed research projects, academic content still remains out of reach for everyone due to inadequate planning and implementation. Recently the Government of India has proposed a “one nation, one subscription” (ONOS) policy to make scholarly knowledge more accessible to Indian citizens. The study’s primary goal is to look into the open-access situation across many subject groups in India and globally. The aim is to understand whether a blanket subscription policy is the best way to facilitate the accessibility of scholarly knowledge or if subject-specific needs implications of other global OA initiatives are worth considering when implementing the ONOS policy.

I Don’t Peer-Review for Non-Open Journals, and Neither Should You

“Most will also agree that editorial work should also be done in the service of up-and-coming OA journals rather than to prop up the reputations of those that remain paywalled. But withholding peer-review from non-open journals is more controversial. Even OA campaigners sometimes raise objections. These I now propose to rebut….”

ACS Publications commits its entire hybrid journal portfolio to become transformative journals – American Chemical Society

The Publications Division of the American Chemical Society (ACS) has committed its full portfolio of more than 60 hybrid journals, which offers both open access and subscription-only content, to become Plan S-aligned transformative journals. This development represents a major step in ACS’ long-standing commitment to open science, signaling a future in which all publications are open access (OA), and ensures that more authors can continue to publish in their chosen journal.

The Rise of Platinum Open Access Journals with Both Impact Factors and Zero Article Processing Charges

It appears that open access (OA) academic publishing is better for science because it provides frictionless access to make significant advancements in knowledge. OA also benefits individual researchers by providing the widest possible audience and concomitant increased citation rates. OA publishing rates are growing fast as increasing numbers of funders demand it and is currently dominated by gold OA (authors pay article processing charges (APCs)). Academics with limited financial resources perceive they must choose between publishing behind pay walls or using research funds for OA publishing. Worse, many new OA journals with low APCs did not have impact factors, which reduces OA selection for tenure track professors. Such unpleasant choices may be dissolving. This article provides analysis with a free and open source python script to collate all journals with impact factors with the now more than 12,000 OA journals that are truly platinum OA (neither the author nor the readers pay for the peer-reviewed work). The results found platinum OA is growing faster than both academic publishing and OA publishing. There are now over 350 platinum OA journals with impact factors over a wide variety of academic disciplines, giving most academics options for OA with no APCs.