“The purpose of the Global Summit on Diamond Open Access is to bring together the Diamond OA community of journal editors, organizations, experts, and stakeholders from the Global South and North, in a dialogue that seeks to implement collective action in the spirit of the Recommendations on Open Science from UNESCO and BOAI 20 years, where Equity, Sustainability, Quality and Usability are the pillars of our journey.
For the first time the global OA Diamond community will meet in Toluca, Mexico to exchange and coordinate actions to better support equity in scholarly communication practices. The summit, co-organised by Redalyc, the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico, AmeliCA, UNESCO, CLACSO and the Action Plan for Diamond Open Access, will combine two conferences during Open Access Week….”
“Ten years later, the scientific publishing landscape had changed. Online publishing of medical journals had expanded tremendously and become the norm. Many readers, especially “digital natives,” primarily or exclusively accessed journal content electronically. Thus, a journal that was published solely online had the potential to be read widely and to enjoy reduced production costs. Outside of orthopaedics, open access journals in medicine and other scientific fields had demonstrated that a journal could be successfully financed via article processing charges (APCs) paid by the research sponsors, foundation grants, the authors’ institutions, or the authors themselves. Prominent journals such as Nature had begun to establish open access affiliates. I thought that the time was right to introduce the open access publishing model to the orthopaedic sports medicine community.
Together with our publishing consultant Morna Conway, I developed a plan for an open access affiliate for AJSM. Our publisher, Sage, was just entering the world of open access publishing in other fields and was enthusiastic about the idea….
If there was any skepticism about the open access concept in the orthopaedic community when OJSM first appeared, it seems to have evaporated. OJSM has received over 8000 submissions in its first decade, and the number continues to increase annually. More than 200,000 OJSM full-text articles are now downloaded monthly, clear evidence of the popularity of its content and the benefit of free, immediate access….”
“Since its inception, AE&M aimed to establish itself as a leading source of high-quality scienti?c information in the areas of endocrinology and metabolism ( 1 ). In that sense, maintaining open access to our articles was paramount to amplify the reach of such information in a globalized, albeit inequitable, world ( 2 ). Aiming to continue to serve the community of readers, authors, and reviewers in the best possible way, two new implementations are underway: AE&M has joined PubMed Central (PMC), and from May 2023, AE&M will adopt the continuous publication model.
AE&M’s incorporation into PMC re?ects its growth and scienti?c relevance in the ?eld. PMC is a free full-text repository of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM), directly linked to its preeminent search engine. Created in 2000, it houses more than 7.6 million records and, like SciELO, PMC-indexed journals make their issues and articles available in full format. Its global reach will certainly bring even more visibility and prominence to the research ?ndings published in AE&M….”
“Gold Open Access 2017-2022: Articles in Journals (GOA8) is now available in print book, PDF ebook, and dataset forms. The print book–a 6×9 trade paperback with color graphs–is $11.50 (or the nearest equivalent in other currencies supported by Lulu), of which I receive a stunning $0.24. The PDF ebook and dataset are both free, and all versions are CC-BY.”
“On April 17, the premier journal NeuroImage’s entire editorial team, comprising more than 40 scientists, resigned over the “unethical fees” charged by the journal’s academic publisher, Elsevier. With more than $2 billion in annual revenue, the publisher’s profit margin approaches 40 percent—rivaling that of Apple and Google. “Elsevier has become kind of like the poster child for evil publishing companies,” said neuroscientist Kristen Kennedy, one of the recently resigned senior editors.
Kennedy relies on taxpayer money to study the aging brain. At the University of Texas at Dallas, federal grants help fund the staff, equipment, and experiments in her lab. But this public money, largely from the National Institutes of Health, is being drained by exorbitant publishing fees….”
Abstract: Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as a new editor to know where to start. For this reason, we have created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices at their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy/practice.
Abstract: Who benefits from open access (OA) publishing? For whom does it present additional hurdles? We seek to understand the impact of the move to OA publishing models on scholars as producers of articles for academic journals. Specifically, we examine whether research funding, author gender and number, (location of) institutional affiliation, and the European or US origin of the journal affect the likelihood that an article is published OA. Our empirical analysis focuses on twelve well-respected journals. We find that research funding is consistently and positively associated with OA publishing, but also that relatively few articles are published OA. In addition, articles authored by scholars with European institutional affiliations are more likely than those with US institutional affiliations to be published OA. We discuss the implications of our findings and point to avenues for further work to better understand how OA affects scholars’ ability to publish their research in academic journals.
Abstract: Objective To evaluate whether a citation advantage exists for open access (OA) publications in gynecologic oncology.
Method A cross-sectional study of research and review articles published in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer (IJGC) and in Gynecologic Oncology during 1980–2022. Bibliometric measures were compared between OA publications and non-OA publications. The role of authors in low/middle-income countries was assessed. We analyzed article characteristics associated with a high citations per year (CPY) score.
Results Overall, 18 515 articles were included, of which 2398 (13.0%) articles were published OA. The rate of OA has increased since 2007. During 2018–2022, the average proportion of articles published OA was 34.0% (range 28.5%–41.4%). OA articles had higher CPY (median (IQR), 3.0 (1.5–5.3) vs 1.3 (0.6–2.7), p<0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor; IJGC – r(23)=0.90, p<0.001, Gynecologic Oncology – r(23)=0.89, p<0.001. Articles by authors from low/middle-income countries were less common among OA articles than among non-OA articles (5.5% vs 10.7%, p<0.001). Articles by authors from low/middle-income countries were less common in the high CPY group than for articles without a high CPY score (8.0% vs 10.2%, p=0.003). The following article characteristics were found to be independently associated with a high CPY: publication after 2007, (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=4.9, 95% CI 4.3 to 5.7), research funding reported (aOR=1.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.8), and being published OA (aOR=1.5, 95% CI 1.3–1.7). Articles written by authors in Central/South America or Asia had lower odds of having high CPY (Central/South America, aOR=0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8; Asia, aOR=0.6, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.7).
Conclusion OA articles have a higher CPY, with a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor. OA publishing has increased since 2007, but articles written by authors in low/middle-income countries are under-represented among OA publications.
“Academic publishing is on the move. Dissatisfaction with the dominant publishing paradigm has given rise to a manifold of new ideas, projects and services. The time is ripe for consolidation of the most promising developments.
Imagine academic publishing that is fast, transparent, and free. Is that a pipe dream or something within reach? We already have preprint publishing (fast), open peer review (transparent), and diamond/overlay journals (free). If we could connect these disparate initiatives, would that make our dream come true? And how could this best be done? These are questions that are currently being discussed by us and others at Leiden University….”
Abstract: The article unpacks the publishing practices and focuses on the curating work carried out by the editors of chemistry journals. Based on a qualitative analysis of multiple sources in two publishing houses (the American Chemical Society, ACS and Nature Research), it first shows that the role of editor-in-chief covers a wide range of realities and is far from being limited to that of a gatekeeper (the most common metaphor in the literature). In journals that are part of the Nature Research portfolio, in-house editors, who are no longer active scientists, work full time for the journals. The article describes the professional trajectories and skills required to join the publishing house. Interviews highlight collective identity-based actions, attention to the growth and the flow of manuscripts, but also specific epistemic properties of outputs in chemistry. Besides tasks that editors outline “as really the same as they were 100 years ago,” as they spend most of their time handling manuscripts and providing quality assurance, they also travel to conferences to support journals and encourage submissions, visit labs where researchers pitch their work or ask questions about journals, and “educate the actors themselves” about new fields. In both cases studied, the publishing houses partner with institutions to offer events (ACS on Campus programme, Nature masterclass) that a university or department can freely host or buy, where editors organize workshops on all aspects of manuscript preparation. Second, publishing houses, whether non-for-profit or commercial, have embraced a catalog logic, where the journals are not necessarily in competition and have an assumed place and hierarchy. At Nature Research, editors-in-chief head business units inscribed in the company’s organization. Despite standardized processes imposed by the procedural chain, there is still room to maneuver in these relatively autonomous structures that are ultimately evaluated on their results (the annual production of a certain number of high-quality papers). On the other hand, ACS is seen as a vessel whose course cannot easily be deviated. The conclusion calls for extending this type of investigation to other contexts or types of journals.
Abstract: While guest or honorary authorship on academic papers is a broadly and widely discussed phenomenon in biomedical research, the issue of the use – or abuse – of article processing charges (APCs) as a form of potential authorship exchange currency, i.e., the “APC ring”, is not being discussed. The APC is central to the open access (OA) movement, specifically gold OA, including hybrid subscription models. It is conceivable that poorly-funded researchers aiming to publish in ranked (e.g., with a Clarivate journal impact factor or indexed in a major database such as Scopus) OA journals with expensive APCs (sometimes costing thousands of US dollars or Euros) might turn to richer researchers to foot the bill in exchange for authorship. Despite this, extensive web and database searches revealed no published cases on APC-for-authorship schemes as a form of guest authorship, which seems inconceivable. One possible explanation is that if such unethical behavior, and a form of fraud, were to be detected by APC-charging journals, that it might not be reported as such. Alternatively, if it has been detected as such, it might be reported (e.g., to the public) more broadly as “authorship issues” without detailing that an APC-based guest authorship scheme (i.e., “APC ring”) was involved. In such a situation, APC-dependent journals would be conflicted between receiving a financial lifeline, the APC, and exposing authors that abuse the APC in exchange for authorship. How would OA publishers justify receiving APCs derived from an “APC ring”? Although this form of guest authorship is currently hypothetical, it is also highly likely, so this issue needs greater debate. If actual case studies exist, these need to be openly and publicly debated to better appreciate how widely this phenomenon may be taking place.
“This is a permanent position with a weekly working time of 39.80 hours (full-time). The position is generally suitable for part-time work. The remuneration is based on pay scale group 9b TV-L, depending on the qualifications.
TIB operates the open access publisher TIB Open Publishing. This service offers professional publishing options for scholarly journals and conference proceedings and is part of the library’s strategic open access orientation.
You will work in the field of TIB Open Publishing, an Open Access publisher aimed at national and international target groups. You will support customers, in particular the editors of journals and conference proceedings as well as authors and reviewers, and contribute to the production of the publications….”
“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?”
Abstract: Evidence-based policy uses intervention research to inform consequential decisions about resource allocation. Research findings are often published in peer-reviewed journals. Because detrimental research practices associated with closed science are common, journal articles report more false-positives and exaggerated effect sizes than would be desirable. Journal implementation of standards that promote open science—such as the transparency and openness promotion (TOP) guidelines—could reduce detrimental research practices and improve the trustworthiness of research evidence on intervention effectiveness. We evaluated TOP implementation at 339 peer-reviewed journals that have been used to identify evidence-based interventions for policymaking and programmatic decisions. Each of ten open science standards in TOP was not implemented in most journals’ policies (instructions to authors), procedures (manuscript submission systems), or practices (published articles). Journals implementing at least one standard typically encouraged, but did not require, an open science practice. We discuss why and how journals could improve implementation of open science standards to safeguard evidence-based policy.
“Two trends in recent library-publisher relations have been the unbundling from big deals and the bundling of open access publishing onto read deals. Neither directly addresses how libraries undertake that fundamental role of brokering access to paywalled content from scholarly publishers on behalf of their communities.
Read-and-publish deals bundle a ‘publish’ component onto a preexisting ‘read’ component but, practically-speaking, little changes for the read component. And while unbundling from Big Deals does change the structure of read deals, this is not a proactive subscriptions strategy, it’s a retreat from a failed one. While neither trend offers a model for a new read deal, understanding how they shape the current terrain does help us navigate a future path.
Let’s consider the role of equity, which is gaining headway into library decision-making. Read-and-publish increases the overall number of articles published as open access through a publisher, which increases free access for readers; this increases equity. This also standardizes author-side OA publishing fees, decreasing opportunity for under-affiliated authors, which decreases equity. Some will argue that read-and-publish is good for equity, and others will argue it’s bad for equity, which is evidenced by the continued growth of read-and-publish deals as well as the continued criticism of them.
Setting that debate aside, where can energy be redirected productively? Easy. Consider less controversial frameworks that libraries operate under, such as the desire to maximize fulfillment of local users’ content needs within set budgets. Read-and-publish doesn’t necessarily do this in a ‘read’ subscription context and, unless we consider retreat from Big Deals as advancement in a different direction, the strategy vacuum left in that space is largely unfilled….
I propose that publishers make all of their paywalled content available to a partnered library’s users and, in turn, libraries pay invoices based on total usage of paywalled content at a single flat rate. (As opposed to a bespoke formula based on journal brand value and institutional classification.) Giving users the ability to read everything from a publisher is maximum coverage. Paying only for the paywalled articles that users use is maximum value….”