“- IGI Global, an independent international academic publishing house, recently challenged the validity of the presumption in the publishing industry that the basic concepts and principles of open access (OA) are commonly understood by all researchers in academic communities around the globe. Recent discoveries suggest the reality is that researchers worldwide appear to not be as well-versed in the dynamics of OA as previously thought, and at the same time, hold strong opinions on OA publishing support. In their first “IGI Global OA Annual Academic Publishing Trends and Open Access Survey” they measured the issues, challenges, and opportunities related to scholarly OA publishing in modern days, which includes an assessment of OA trends. The survey was sent to over 200,000 worldwide researchers of all ages, experiences, fields, ethnicities, etc. The survey results revealed some unexpected discoveries regarding OA publishing, especially surrounding the knowledge and support, or lack thereof, currently available to prospective authors….”
Category Archives: oa.obstacles
Maximizing Access and Minimizing Barriers to Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Open Access and Health Equity | Calcified Tissue International
Abstract: Access to published research has always been difficult for researchers and clinicians in low- and middle-income countries, because of the cost of and lack of access to the relevant publications. The dramatic recent increase in electronic research publications has resulted in a marked improvement in reader access to these publications through their mainly Open Access policies, however the costs of processing of submissions and publication have now become the burden of the researchers wishing to publish, rather than the readers. For many researchers working in LMIC, the Article Processing Charges (APC) are prohibitive, hampering the publication of research being conducted in and relevant to these countries. A number of grant funding agencies and international not-for-profit organizations are trying to address these issues by including funding for article publications in their grants, or by supporting publishing entities by subsiding the cost of publication, but more needs to be done by major journal publishers through markedly reducing the APC being charged to researchers in LMIC for open access facilities.
Open access movement in the scholarly world: Pathways for libraries in developing countries – Arslan Sheikh, Joanna Richardson, 2023
Abstract: Open access is a scholarly publishing model that has emerged as an alternative to traditional subscription-based journal publishing. This study explores the adoption of the open access movement worldwide and the role that libraries can play in addressing those factors which are slowing its progress within developing countries. The study has drawn upon both qualitative data from a focused literature review and quantitative data from major open access platforms. The results indicate that while the open access movement is steadily gaining acceptance worldwide, the progress in developing countries within geographical areas such as Africa, Asia and Oceania is quite a bit slower. Two significant factors are the cost of publishing fees and the lack of institutional open access mandates and policies to encourage uptake. The study provides suggested strategies for academic libraries to help overcome current challenges.
Exploring how members of the public access and use health research and information: a scoping review | BMC Public Health | Full Text
Abstract: Background
Making high-quality health and care information available to members of the general public is crucial to support populations with self-care and improve health outcomes. While attention has been paid to how the public accesses and uses health information generally (including personal records, commercial product information or reviews on healthcare practitioners and organisations) and how practitioners and policy-makers access health research evidence, no overview exists of the way that the public accesses and uses high quality health and care information.
Purpose
This scoping review aimed to map research evidence on how the public accesses and uses a specific type of health information, namely health research and information that does not include personal, product and organisational information.
Methods
Electronic database searches [CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Social Sciences Full Text, Web of Science and SCOPUS] for English language studies of any research design published between 2010–2022 on the public’s access and use of health research or information (as defined above). Data extraction and analysis was informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute protocol for scoping reviews, and reported in accordance with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews.
Results
The search identified 4410 records. Following screening of 234 full text studies, 130 studies were included. One-hundred-and-twenty-nine studies reported on the public’s sources of health-research or information; 56 reported the reasons for accessing health research or information and 14 reported on the use of this research and information. The scoping exercise identified a substantial literature on the broader concept of ‘health information’ but a lack of reporting of the general public’s access to and use of health research. It found that ‘traditional’ sources of information are still relevant alongside newer sources; knowledge of barriers to accessing information focused on personal barriers and on independent searching, while less attention had been paid to barriers to access through other people and settings, people’s lived experiences, and the cultural knowledge required.
Conclusions
The review identified areas where future primary and secondary research would enhance current understanding of how the public accesses and utilises health research or information, and contribute to emerging areas of research.
When Can We Expect Full Open Science? – Open and Universal Science (OPUS) Project
“Challenges on the Path to Full Open Science
Resistance to Change: Many researchers and institutions are accustomed to traditional publishing models and may resist the shift toward open science.
Data Privacy and Security: Concerns about data privacy and security are challenging, especially when sensitive information is involved.
Funding and Resources: Open science requires additional resources for data management, curation, and open access publishing, which may be a barrier for some researchers and institutions.
Cultural Shift: A cultural shift is needed to encourage scientists to share their work openly and embrace collaboration.
Incentives and Rewards: The current system of academic incentives often values publishing in prestigious journals over open sharing, which needs to change….
Full open science is a lofty goal, and it’s challenging to predict when it will be fully realized. However, many steps are being taken to move closer to this ideal.
Growing Awareness: The awareness of open science benefits is increasing among researchers and institutions. As more people understand the advantages of open science, they are likely to adopt these practices.
Policy Changes: Governments and funding agencies are beginning to promote open science through policies and mandates. This could push the research community towards more openness.
Technological Advancements: Advances in technology are making it easier to share data, collaborate, and communicate openly. Tools and platforms designed for open science are on the rise.
Grassroots Movements: Grassroots efforts within the scientific community are pushing for change. Scientists are forming open science communities, sharing their work openly, and advocating for a more transparent system.
Public Demand: As more people recognize the importance of science in their lives, they may demand greater transparency and accessibility in research….”
Platform-controlled social media APIs threaten open science | Nature Human Behaviour
“Social media data enable insights into human behaviour. Researchers can access these data via platform-provided application programming interfaces (APIs), but these come with restrictive usage terms that mean studies cannot be reproduced or replicated. Platform-owned APIs hinder access, transparency and scientific knowledge….”
Open access movement in the scholarly world: Pathways for libraries in developing countries – Arslan Sheikh, Joanna Richardson, 2023
Abstract: Open access is a scholarly publishing model that has emerged as an alternative to traditional subscription-based journal publishing. This study explores the adoption of the open access movement worldwide and the role that libraries can play in addressing those factors which are slowing its progress within developing countries. The study has drawn upon both qualitative data from a focused literature review and quantitative data from major open access platforms. The results indicate that while the open access movement is steadily gaining acceptance worldwide, the progress in developing countries within geographical areas such as Africa, Asia and Oceania is quite a bit slower. Two significant factors are the cost of publishing fees and the lack of institutional open access mandates and policies to encourage uptake. The study provides suggested strategies for academic libraries to help overcome current challenges.
Open Access publishing: benefits and challenges | European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing | Oxford Academic
“In our time, more and more knowledge disseminated openly and free. At present, there are over 20 000 journals in the world that publish with Open Access. The Open Access movement and ultimately Plan S are a natural and timely evolution for academic publishing and dissemination of research findings. It clearly has many noble intentions. However, it has also opened up for more uncontrolled publishing, and there have and will be challenges down the road before full and fair implementation. In this editorial, we have highlighted different perspectives on the matter from the views of publishers, universities, funders, authors, and readers/users.”
Advantages and challenges to open science practices (in Russian)
In Russian with this English-language abstract: The article examines open science practices in relation with the Open Science framework. The core values of open science, emerged as a response to the long-standing challenges to scientific knowledge production, include: transparency, scrutiny, critique and reproducibility; equality of opportunities; responsibility, respect and accountability; collaboration, participation and inclusion; flexibility; sustainability. These are the guiding principles for open science practices. The spread of open science practices is uneven, in terms of regional, disciplinary, gender, and institutional differences. The overview of international studies shows that open science practices are beginning to affect the whole research cycle, from idea emergence throughout the dissemination and exploitation of research results. We analyzed four most widespread practices – open data, open peer review, preregistration and registered reports, and open access. Our findings suggest that all these practices, while solving particular problems, simultaneously create new ones. To overcome new challenges, shift in the principles themselves, scheme of funding and workload sharing, evaluation and reward processes are necessary. The most challenging is the need to change research culture in accordance with Open Science values. In Russia, open access is a commonly spread practice, whereas the rest three practices yet to be discussed.
Research Data Management and the Open Science Movement: Positions and Challenges – Research Data Management in the Canadian Context
“By the end of this chapter you should be able to:
Understand the schools of thought influencing open science practices.
Categorize the main areas of activity of open science.
Characterize the presence of research data management practices in open science.
Challenge the predominant discourse concerning open science….”
Publisher Wants $2,500 To Allow Academics To Post Their Own Manuscript To Their Own Repository
As a Walled Culture explained back in 2021, open access (OA) to published academic research comes in two main varieties. “Gold” open access papers are freely available to the public because the researchers’ institutions pay “article-processing charges” to a publisher. “Green” OA papers are available because the authors self-archive their work on a personal Web site or institutional repository that is publicly accessible.
The self-archived copies are generally the accepted manuscripts, rather than the final published version, largely because academics foolishly assign copyright to the publishers. This gives the latter the power to refuse to allow members of the public to read published research they have paid for with their taxes, unless they pay again with a subscription to the journal, or on a per article basis.
You might think that is unfair and inconvenient, but easy to circumvent, because the public will be able to download copies of the peer-reviewed manuscripts that the researchers self-archive as green OA. But many publishers have a problem with the idea that people can access for free the papers in any form, and demand that public access to the green OA versions should be embargoed, typically for 12 months. There is no reason for academics to agree to this other than habit and a certain deference on their part. It’s also partly the fault of the funding agencies. The open access expert and campaigner, Peter Suber, explained in 2005 why they are to blame:
Researchers sign funding contracts with the research councils long before they sign copyright transfer agreements with publishers. Funders have a right to dictate terms, such as mandated open access, precisely because they are upstream from publishers. If one condition of the funding contract is that the grantee will deposit the peer-reviewed version of any resulting publication in an open-access repository [immediately], then publishers have no right to intervene.
Accepting embargoes on green OA at all was perhaps the biggest blunder made by the open access movement and their funders. Even today, nearly 20 years after Suber pointed out the folly of letting publishers tell academics what they can do with their own manuscripts, many publishers still demand – and get – embargoes. Against this background, ACS Publications, the publishing wing of the American Chemical Society, has come up with what it calls “Zero-Embargo Green Open Access” (pointed out by Richard Poynder):
A number of funders and institutions require authors to retain the right to post their accepted manuscripts immediately upon acceptance for publication in a journal, sometimes referred to as zero-embargo green open access (OA). More than 90% of ACS authors under these mandates have a simple and funded pathway to publish gold OA in ACS journals.
For those not covered by an institutional read and publish agreement or through other types of funding, ACS offers the option to post their accepted manuscripts with a CC BY license in open access repositories immediately upon acceptance. This option expands this small subset of authors’ choices beyond the existing option to wait 12 months to post at no cost.
Great news? Well, no, because a hefty new fee must be paid:
The article development charge (ADC) is a flat fee of $2,500 USD and is payable once the manuscript is sent for peer review. The ADC covers the cost of ACS’ pre-acceptance publishing services, from initial submission through to the final editorial decision.
That is, if academics publish a paper with the ACS, their institution must pay $2,500 for the privilege of being allowed to post immediately the accepted manuscript version on their own institutional server – something that should have been a matter of course, but was weakly given up in the early days of open access, as Suber pointed out. There is a feeble attempt to justify the cost, on the basis that the $2,500 is for “pre-acceptance publishing service”. But this apparently refers to things like peer review, which is generally conducted by fellow academics for free, and decisions by journal editors, who are often unpaid too. In general, the costs involved in “pre-acceptance publishing” are negligible.
“Zero-Embargo Green Open Access” sounds so promising. But it turns out to be yet another example of the copyright industry’s limitless sense of entitlement. Publishing is constantly finding new ways to extract money from hard-pressed academic institutions – money that could be used for more research or simply paying underfunded researchers better.
This is a personal issue for me. In 2013, I spoke at a conference celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Berlin declaration on open access. More formally, the “Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities” is one of three seminal formulations of the open access idea: the other two are the Bethesda Statement (2003) and the original Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) (all discussed in Walled Culture the book, free digital versions available). I entitled my speech “Half a Revolution”, and the slides I used can be freely downloaded from SlideShare, along with many more of my presentations.
My Berlin talk concluded with a call to action under the slogan “Zero Embargo Now” (ZEN). Back then, I looked forward to a world where all academic papers would routinely be available under green OA immediately, without any embargo. I’m still waiting.
Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon. This post originally appeared on Walled Culture.
Stop Congress from blocking public access to science – STAT
“In August 2022, almost a decade later, the Biden administration’s OSTP released the Nelson memo. This transformative memo is a game changer in open-access scholarly publishing. The memo directs federal agencies to ensure that all American taxpayers have immediate and free access to U.S. research funded by the federal government, effective 2027. Since a single scholarly article costs an average of $30-50 to read for those not affiliated with an institution that has purchased a subscription, the Nelson memo places equity at its core. The Nelson memo leads with open science and sets a precedent for accelerated data sharing by arguing its powerful impact during the Covid-19 pandemic.
In implementing the Nelson memo, for example, the National Institutes of Health has issued changes it will make to its Public Access Policy. NIH will make the research findings freely accessible through PMC, the National Library of Medicine publication archive, at the time of manuscript acceptance by the journal without embargo and will ensure retention rights with authors. Updated NIH Public Access Policy will allow NIH-funded investigators to charge publication fees, or article processing charges (APCs), to NIH grants. NIH will also monitor journal publication fees and policies to ensure they stay reasonable for equitable publication opportunities and empower taxpayers rather than publishers. This is important: multiple reports show that mean publication charges for open access articles have increased by 50% between 2010 and 2019 and continue to rise for major publishers. Without efforts to control costs like those mentioned by NIH, studies indicate and project that APC-based business models outperform profits from subscription-based models, ultimately costing taxpayers more.
But it’s not clear that Congress will fully support and implement the Nelson memo in making research freely accessible to all Americans. In July 2023, the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science released a bill containing Section 552, which prohibits federal resources from implementing the Nelson memo. The Republican majority House is already pushing for steep budget cuts across most appropriations spending bills, thus colliding with the democratic Senate. With no agreed funding for the new fiscal year starting Oct. 1, the U.S. government is heading toward a shutdown. If and when Congress passes a stopgap funding measure to keep the government running until an agreement is reached, it must remove Section 552 from the bill….”
Persistent Identifiers: Addressing the challenges of global adoption – COAR
“The aim of this blog post is to raise awareness about certain issues related to the adoption of persistent identifiers (PIDs), which especially impact developing countries and to propose an alternative approach that will enable greater global inclusiveness and more widespread adoption of PIDs across the world….
While the original aim of PIDs services was to offer persistence, some DOI Registration Agencies or “RAs” (2) have been developing value-added services with the metadata they collect, which is then repurposed as part of a value-added service offering, turning it into a kind of managed research ecosystem. At least two DOI-based aggregations (Crossref and Datacite) have been created for the purpose of discovery, tracking, and analysis of research production….
Firstly, there are substantial cost barriers to the adoption of DOIs for organizations in developing countries. The costs of minting DOIs (or joining DataCite or Crossref – even as a consortium) makes them unaffordable in many parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where there are often little or no budgets for these types of services….
Possibly more problematic than the cost issue is the risk of monopolization. A global requirement for a DOI (and therefore to be represented in the metadata aggregation) by funders and governments in order for a resource to be “counted” or considered “legitimate” has the potential to create a quasi-monopolistic system, which gives a few players undue influence and introduces the risk of profiteering….
Instead of focusing our efforts on the centralization and use of a few selective DOI services – which will end up excluding many due to financial barriers – the best way forward is for institutions, countries, and regions to choose the PID service that is most suitable in their own local context and conditions. Only in this way can we ensure the broadest possible adoption of PIDs across the scholarly landscape. And, while there is a value proposition for focusing on just one or two global PID services, the risks of creating a “haves” and “have nots” universe must be avoided….”
Open funding metadata through Crossref; a workshop to discuss challenges and improving workflows | Crossref
by Hans de Jonge, Bianca Kramer, Fabienne Michaud, Ginny Hendricks
Ten years on from the launch of the Open Funder Registry (OFR, formerly FundRef), there is renewed interest in the potential of openly available funding metadata through Crossref. And with that: calls to improve the quality and completeness of that data. Currently, about 25% of Crossref records contain some kind of funding information. Over the years, this figure has grown steadily. A number of recent publications have shown, however, that there is considerable variation in the extent to which publishers deposit these data to Crossref. Technical but also business issues seem to lie at the root of this. Crossref – in close collaboration with the Dutch Research Council NWO and Sesame Open Science – brought together a group of 26 organizations from across the ecosystem to discuss the barriers and possible solutions. This blog presents some anonymized lessons learned.
Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of UKRI’s open access policy: Principles, opportunities and challenges | Policy Commons
Abstract: This report sets out principles, opportunities and challenges for the development of a monitoring and evaluation framework for UK Research and Innovation’s open access (OA) policy. The recommended evaluation questions were identified through interviews and workshops with a range of external stakeholders and in-depth desk research investigating existing monitoring and evaluation activities. The report also provides an overview of stakeholder views about key considerations for monitoring and evaluating the policy including principles of best practice. The report annex sets out recommended approaches to answering the questions, including data sources, aggregation and analysis methodologies. UKRI will consider the outcomes and recommendations of this project in developing its final monitoring and evaluation framework.