At Taylor & Francis, we extend our support to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) for its aims to make all federally funded research and subsequent data publicly available as soon as it has been published.
Butler, Leigh-Ann, Matthias, Lisa, Simard, Marc-André, Mongeon, Philippe, & Haustein, Stefanie. (2022). The Oligopoly’s Shift to Open Access. How For-Profit Publishers Benefit from Article Processing Charges (Version v1). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7057144 Abstract: This study aims to estimate the total amount of article processing charges (APCs) paid to publish open access (OA) in journals controlled by the large commercial publishers Elsevier, Sage, Springer-Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley, the so-called oligopoly of academic publishing. Since the early 2010s, these five academic publishers control more than half of peer-reviewed journal articles indexed in the Web of Science (WoS), expanding their market power through acquisitions and mergers. While traditionally their business model focused on charging subscriptions to read articles, they have now shifted to OA, charging authors fees for publishing. These APCs often amount to several thousand dollars, excluding many from publishing on economic grounds. This study computes an estimate of the total amounts of APCs paid to oligopoly publishers between 2015 and 2018, using publication data from WoS, OA status from Unpaywall and annual APC prices from open datasets and historical fees retrieved via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. We estimate that globally authors paid the oligopoly of academic publishers $1.06 billion in publication fees in the 4-year period analyzed. Of the 505,903 OA articles analyzed, 60.9% were published in gold OA journals, 8.6% in diamond (gold with APC=$0) and 30.5% in hybrid journals. Revenue from gold OA amounted to $612.5 million, while $448.3 million was obtained for publishing OA in hybrid journals, for which publishers already charge subscription fees. Among the five publishers, Springer-Nature made the largest revenue from OA ($589.7 million), followed by Elsevier ($221.4 million), Wiley ($114.3 million), Taylor & Francis ($76.8 million) and Sage ($31.6 million). With Elsevier and Wiley making the majority of APC revenue from hybrid fees and others focusing on gold, different OA strategies could be observed between publishers.
Gardner, Victoria, Mark Robinson, and Elisabetta O’Connell. 2022. “Implementing the Declaration on Research Assessment: A Publisher Case Study”. Insights 35: 7. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.573
There has been much debate around the role of metrics in scholarly communication, with particular focus on the misapplication of journal metrics, such as the impact factor in the assessment of research and researchers. Various initiatives have advocated for a change in this culture, including the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which invites stakeholders throughout the scholarly communication ecosystem to sign up and show their support for practices designed to address the misuse of metrics. This case study provides an overview of the process undertaken by a large academic publisher (Taylor & Francis Group) in signing up to DORA and implementing some of its key practices in the hope that it will provide some guidance to others considering becoming a signatory. Our experience suggests that research, consultation and flexibility are crucial components of the process. Additionally, approaching signing with a project mindset versus a ‘sign and forget’ mentality can help organizations to understand the practical implications of signing, to anticipate and mitigate potential obstacles and to support cultural change.
“Open Science Badges (OSB) were designed by the Center for Open Science to acknowledge and encourage open science practices. They are offered as incentives for researchers to share data, materials, or to preregister their research. The badges are a visual signal for readers, indicating that the content of the study is available in perpetuity….”
“For these reasons, we can now confirm that the decision has been made to transform Platelets into a fully open access journal. This will be implemented during a period of transition over the rest of 2022, with the switch completed by the beginning of 2023. It will mean that, going forward, all articles accepted for publication in Platelets will attract an Article Processing Charge (APC) and will be fully and freely accessible to all readers. We are pleased that the proposed APC is lower than it has been previously for our journal and is overall a rate competitive with journals of similar scope and stature….”
14th April 2022 Introducing Routledge Open Research
Abstract: There has been much debate around the role of metrics in scholarly communication, with particular focus on the misapplication of journal metrics, such as the impact factor in the assessment of research and researchers. Various initiatives have advocated for a change in this culture, including the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which invites stakeholders throughout the scholarly communication ecosystem to sign up and show their support for practices designed to address the misuse of metrics. This case study provides an overview of the process undertaken by a large academic publisher (Taylor & Francis Group) in signing up to DORA and implementing some of its key practices in the hope that it will provide some guidance to others considering becoming a signatory. Our experience suggests that research, consultation and flexibility are crucial components of the process. Additionally, approaching signing with a project mindset versus a ‘sign and forget’ mentality can help organizations to understand the practical implications of signing, to anticipate and mitigate potential obstacles and to support cultural change.
“This is an open letter to Taylor & Francis, publishers of academic journals. We are writing to ask T&F to discontinue the policy of fast-tracking submissions for a fee. We refer to the policy here. A recent clarification of this policy was published by T&F but it does not adequately address our concerns.
We have two objections to the policy. First is that we are against any form of preferential treatment for those who can pay. Fast-tracking for a fee creates a two-tier system, wherein the well-funded have an unfair advantage over the less well-to-do; in particular, it exacerbates the differences between scientists in different economic circumstances and at different points in their career. The fast-track policy at the least allows faster publication by those with funds, improving the chance for the funded to win subsequent grants and to publish before other labs working on the same topic.
Our second objection to the policy stems from our concern that fast-tracked manuscripts may receive an advantage above and beyond just faster publication. …”
“Over the last week, there has been much debate about the Accelerated Publication service offered by Taylor & Francis. This statement is to clarify some of the comments that have been made about this service, and correct any misunderstandings.
Taylor & Francis has offered Accelerated Publication for a small list of Biomedical Journals for over 15 years.
There are no current plans to introduce this service to any other journals.
The service is used primarily for research funded by pharma companies to manage the communication pipeline for drug and therapy development. Often the work that is being conducted by these researchers needs to be delivered in a set timeframe. Sometimes this is also commercially sensitive in relation to patent applications and product development. This means that other options of rapid dissemination (including pre-prints and open peer-review) are not suitable for the publication needs of these researchers….”
“If time is critical in your publishing strategy, our Accelerated Publication options are available on a select number of biomedical journals and can help you get your research into a high-quality, peer-reviewed journal, fast.
With Accelerated Publication, you can:
coordinate your publishing schedule with conferences, drug approvals, and drug launches
keep competitive advantage by getting your discoveries to market quickly
speed up the peer review process without sacrificing quality or rigor….”
Abstract: This paper outlines the impact of the introduction of an Open & FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) data sharing policy on six earth and environmental science journals published by Taylor & Francis, beginning in November 2019. Notably, 18 months after implementing this new policy, we observed minimal impacts on submission, acceptance rates, or peer-review times for the participating journals. This paper describes the changes that were required to internal systems and processes in order to implement the new policy, and compares our findings with recent literature reports on the impact of journals introducing data-sharing policies.
“Now, the American Chemical Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry, Taylor & Francis and Wiley will collaborate with ScienceDirect on a six-month pilot project to better understand how we can address these challenges.
During the pilot, researchers will be able to search and browse more than 70,000 articles in 35 journals from these participating publishers, alongside Elsevier’s content on ScienceDirect. The journals are all Organic Chemistry and Transportation titles, including most of the top journals in these fields. …”
“Earlier today Elsevier announced a pilot project in which the American Chemical Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley will syndicate selected content to the ScienceDirect platform. The articles will appear in search and browse listings….
For purposes of the pilot, the display and access to full text will vary from the Elsevier content. Abstracts of the pilot content will be viewable on ScienceDirect. When the pilot content is open access, the text will be available on ScienceDirect; however, the user will be linked to the original publisher’s website for the formatted PDF. If the content is only available by subscription, users will be linked to the original publisher’s website with no display of full text on ScienceDirect. Users who are entitled to the subscription content, as determined on ScienceDirect through GetFTR functionality, will be linked directly to the full text on the original publisher’s website. …
In essence, this pilot reminds us that ScienceDirect is already a freely available discovery tool and a user of ScienceDirect gets all of the benefits of a subscription database, whether they are only able to access the open access publications on the platform or if their entitlements enable access to subscription Elsevier – and now other publisher – content as well. …”
“The most common platform provider has been F1000 Research, which started in 2012 and was acquired by Taylor & Francis in 2020. F1000 Research has been promulgating a debatable form of open peer review for nearly a decade now, with PubMed a willing participant in its confusing scheme.
F1000 Research began “powering” various platforms for societies, funding bodies, universities, and coalitions not long after it debuted.
As a reminder, a paper posted within the F1000 Research scheme has to receive two positive reviews recommending it (in general — there are other ways to get approved) before it can be indexed in PubMed.
For authors posting to the platform, attracting peer reviewers is an uncertain proposition, causing many papers to linger without review. Conflicts of interest aren’t scrupulously managed, so the percentage of friendly reviews is unknown. And reviews generally are shorter and less rigorous than those generated via traditional methods….
There are four institutional collections — as F1000 Research refers to them — and they appear to be fairly moribund. For example, the Max Planck Society collection (launced in 2018) has 24 papers posted, with 15 (63%) indexed in PubMed. Across the four collections, there are currently 104 articles, with 77 (74%) having passed the F1000/PubMed bar….
Facing competition from branded preprint servers and mega-journals, it remains an open question whether the decade-long practice of community peer review at F1000 Research is valid or is actually a factor causing people to shy away. Will the powers that be ever reconsider it, and make it more rigorous and process-oriented? Will PubMed ever extricate itself from what may be a detrimental situation? Or has the cronyism that started the F1000/PubMed relationship been forgotten and forgiven? …”
Leading Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) publisher Routledge- part of Taylor & Francis Group- will launch the world’s first open research publishing platform specifically for the HSS community that combines books, articles, and other research outputs in one interdisciplinary venue.
The publishing platform known as Routledge Open Research, will utilize the publishing model, technology and knowledge pioneered by their open research publishing partner F1000 (which Taylor & Francis Group acquired in 2020) to provide HSS scholars with a rapid, accessible and collaborative venue to publish their work.