Morrison et al. (2021) Open access article processing charges 2011 – 2021 | uOttawa Research

by: Heather Morrison, Luan Borges, Xuan Zhao, Tanoh Laurent Kakou & Amit Nataraj Shanbhoug

Abstract

This study examines trends in open access article processing charges (APCs) from 2011 – 2021, building on a 2011 study by Solomon & Björk (2012). Two methods are employed, a modified replica and a status update of the 2011 journals. Data is drawn from multiple sources and datasets are available as open data (Morrison et al, 2021). Most journals do not charge APCs; this has not changed. The global average per-journal APC increased slightly, from 906 USD to 958 USD, while the per-article average increased from 904 USD to 1,626 USD, indicating that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals. Publisher size, type, impact metrics and subject affect charging tendencies, average APC and pricing trends. About half the journals from the 2011 sample are no longer listed in DOAJ in 2021, due to ceased publication or publisher de-listing. Conclusions include a caution about the potential of the APC model to increase costs beyond inflation, and a suggestion that support for the university sector, responsible for the majority of journals, nearly half the articles, with a tendency not to charge and very low average APCs, may be the most promising approach to achieve economically sustainable no-fee OA journal publishing.

A preprint of the full article is available here: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/42327

The two base datasets and their documentation are available as open data: Morrison, Heather et al., 2021, “2011 – 2021 OA APCs”, https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/84PNSG, Scholars Portal Dataverse, V1

 

via https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2021/06/24/open-access-article-processing-charges-2011-2021/

Open access article processing charges 2011 – 2021 | Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir les savoirs communs

by: Heather Morrison, Luan Borges, Xuan Zhao, Tanoh Laurent Kakou & Amit Nataraj Shanbhoug

Abstract

This study examines trends in open access article processing charges (APCs) from 2011 – 2021, building on a 2011 study by Solomon & Björk (2012). Two methods are employed, a modified replica and a status update of the 2011 journals. Data is drawn from multiple sources and datasets are available as open data (Morrison et al, 2021). Most journals do not charge APCs; this has not changed. The global average per-journal APC increased slightly, from 906 USD to 958 USD, while the per-article average increased from 904 USD to 1,626 USD, indicating that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals. Publisher size, type, impact metrics and subject affect charging tendencies, average APC and pricing trends. About half the journals from the 2011 sample are no longer listed in DOAJ in 2021, due to ceased publication or publisher de-listing. Conclusions include a caution about the potential of the APC model to increase costs beyond inflation, and a suggestion that support for the university sector, responsible for the majority of journals, nearly half the articles, with a tendency not to charge and very low average APCs, may be the most promising approach to achieve economically sustainable no-fee OA journal publishing.

Covid-19 and Open Access in the Humanities: Impacts and Emerging Trends

Abstract:  Discussions of open-access publishing tend to center the scientific disciplines, and this trend has continued during the Covid-19 pandemic. But while the pandemic has certainly shed new light on the importance of openly accessible medical research, its effects—from economic impacts to attitudinal shifts—have been felt and speculated about across disciplines. This paper presents an investigation into present and future impacts of the pandemic on open-access publishing in the humanities, which have historically been slower to adopt open-access models than other disciplines. A survey distributed to scholarly publishing professionals, academic librarians, and others working in open-access humanities publishing sought to determine what changes these professionals had observed in their field since the start of the pandemic, as well as what impacts they projected for the long term. While the lasting effects of this still-evolving global health and economic crisis remain uncertain, the survey results indicate that open-access humanities professionals have already observed changes in areas including market demand, institutional interest, and funding, while many of them predict that the pandemic will have a long-term impact on the field. These findings contribute to an ongoing conversation about the place of the humanities in the openaccess publishing landscape and the need for sustainable institutional investment.

Global Trends in Open Access: Themes from Africa, Asia and Latin America – The Scholarly Kitchen %

“The opportunity for researchers to share their findings and draw on the research findings of others is vital for researchers, policymakers and wider society. But all too often, the way that this process works is decided by relatively small numbers of countries and people –- often those based in the global North, in “elite” institutions or in large, commercial publishers.

Important voices can be missed and, as a result, important learning about what people have found already works around the world is not reflected in academia, policy decisions, and practice. 

In a recent Scholarly Kitchen webinar, I was delighted to be joined by great speakers from three continents, who are all experts in open access with different perspectives. This post summarizes some of the key themes discussed by Arianna Becerril García, who is based in Mexico, Thomas Hervé Mboa Nkoudou, who is based in Cameroon, and Vrushali Dandawate, who is in India….”

Survey on Cross-Cultural Open Science

“In recent years, there has been growing interest in a new type of open and transparent research worldwide. More and more practices are emerging that not only change the research process, but have already become an integral part of research in some disciplines. Thereby, the spectrum of practices is broad. It ranges from the preliminary disclosure of all hypotheses and analytical steps to the detailed publication of conducted analyses and collected data. These practices are often summarized under the term “Open Science”. The use of these practices and attitudes towards them vary from person to person, subject to subject, and country to country. However, a global picture of use and attitudes has not yet been determined.

Therefore, essential questions about the integration of Open Science cannot be answered yet:

 

Which Open Science practices are used?
What are the obstacles to the use of certain practices?
Are some practices perceived as particularly positive or particularly difficult?
Are there any national trends and differences across countries?

Your answers to these questions should provide possible impulses for the future goals of scientific work and, thus, make a decisive contribution to the further development of scientific practice.

 

We appreciate your participation in this project! Whether you use Open Science practices frequently or you have never heard of them, whether you are an advocate or opponent of the Open Science movement, your opinion is important to us!…”

Survey on Cross-Cultural Open Science

“In recent years, there has been growing interest in a new type of open and transparent research worldwide. More and more practices are emerging that not only change the research process, but have already become an integral part of research in some disciplines. Thereby, the spectrum of practices is broad. It ranges from the preliminary disclosure of all hypotheses and analytical steps to the detailed publication of conducted analyses and collected data. These practices are often summarized under the term “Open Science”. The use of these practices and attitudes towards them vary from person to person, subject to subject, and country to country. However, a global picture of use and attitudes has not yet been determined.

Therefore, essential questions about the integration of Open Science cannot be answered yet:

 

Which Open Science practices are used?
What are the obstacles to the use of certain practices?
Are some practices perceived as particularly positive or particularly difficult?
Are there any national trends and differences across countries?

Your answers to these questions should provide possible impulses for the future goals of scientific work and, thus, make a decisive contribution to the further development of scientific practice.

 

We appreciate your participation in this project! Whether you use Open Science practices frequently or you have never heard of them, whether you are an advocate or opponent of the Open Science movement, your opinion is important to us!…”

MARKET WATCH – ESAC Initiative

“The scholarly journal publishing market is in transition. While a great portion of publishers still operate their journals under the subscription paywall business model, open access publishing is keenly on the rise, as fully OA publishers and platforms are launched and come into maturity, scholarly publishers experiment a variety of new open access business models, and, not least, the number of research institutions and library consortia negotiating transformative agreements proliferates.

The visualizations below aim to inform the broader community of a number of key trends in the demographics and distribution of scholarly journal publishing in transition:

the relevance of publishers for scholars and scientists, as expressed in their share of scholarly articles published,
the growth of open access via transformative agreements and the impact these agreements have in enabling universal open access to the research articles produced on a local (country) and global (publisher) level, and
the costs and price points of article processing charges….”

Big Read-and-Publish Push Arrives

“More than 140 U.S. institutions have now signed open-access deals with Cambridge University Press, marking a significant shift in strategy for the nonprofit publisher.

At the end of 2020, just 13 U.S. institutions had so-called read-and-publish deals with the Cambridge University Press. The University of California system, which was the first U.S. institution to sign a read-and-publish deal with Cambridge University Press, accounted for nine of those 13 deals.

The publisher announced today that it struck read-and-publish deals with another 129 U.S. institutions in the first few months of 2021 — signaling a rapid adoption of the model. The institutions include state university systems, liberal arts colleges and major research institutions….

While the MIT framework supports immediate open access publication, it does not necessarily align with the read-and-publish model. Chris Bourg, director of MIT Libraries, and Roger Levy, an associate professor and chair of the Faculty Committee on the Library System, recently wrote that they had concerns about agreements such as the University of California’s read-and-publish deal with Springer Nature becoming the norm. 

One of the primary concerns about read-and-publish deals is that in the long term, the “barriers currently imposed on readers will be erected for authors instead,” said Jefferson Pooley, professor of media and communication at Muhlenberg College….”

 

Opening the record of science: making scholarly publishing work for science in the digital era: ISC Report February 2021

“As a basis for analysing the extent to which contemporary scientific and scholarly publishing serves the above purposes, a number of fundamental principles are advocated in the belief that they are likely to be durable in the long term. They follow, in abbreviated form: I. There should be universal open access to the record of science, both for authors and readers. II. Scientific publications should carry open licences that allow reuse and text and data mining. III. Rigorous and ongoing peer review is essential to the integrity of the record of science. IV. The data/observations underlying a published truth claim should be concurrently published. V. The record of science should be maintained to ensure open access by future generations. VI. Publication traditions of different disciplines should be respected. VII. Systems should adapt to new opportunities rather than embedding inflexible infrastructures. These principles have received strong support from the international scientific community as represented by the membership of the International Science Council (ISC)….”

Opening the record of science: making scholarly publishing work for science in the digital era: ISC Report February 2021

“As a basis for analysing the extent to which contemporary scientific and scholarly publishing serves the above purposes, a number of fundamental principles are advocated in the belief that they are likely to be durable in the long term. They follow, in abbreviated form: I. There should be universal open access to the record of science, both for authors and readers. II. Scientific publications should carry open licences that allow reuse and text and data mining. III. Rigorous and ongoing peer review is essential to the integrity of the record of science. IV. The data/observations underlying a published truth claim should be concurrently published. V. The record of science should be maintained to ensure open access by future generations. VI. Publication traditions of different disciplines should be respected. VII. Systems should adapt to new opportunities rather than embedding inflexible infrastructures. These principles have received strong support from the international scientific community as represented by the membership of the International Science Council (ISC)….”

Opening the record of science: making scholarly publishing work for science in the digital era – International Science Council

“Efficient access to the record of science – for authors and for readers – is essential for science and society. This ISC Report examines the current landscape of scholarly publishing, explores future trends and proposes seven principles for scientific and scholarly publishing….”

Opening the record of science: making scholarly publishing work for science in the digital era – International Science Council

“Efficient access to the record of science – for authors and for readers – is essential for science and society. This ISC Report examines the current landscape of scholarly publishing, explores future trends and proposes seven principles for scientific and scholarly publishing….”

A Review of Open Research Data Policies and Practices in China

Abstract:  This paper initially conducts a literature review and content analysis of the open research data policies in China. Next, a series of exemplars describe data practices to promote and enable the use of open research data, including open data practices in research programs, data repositories, data journals, and citizen science. Moreover, the top four driving forces are identified and analyzed along with their responsible guiding work. In addition, the “landscape of open research data ecology in China” is derived from the literature review and from observations of actual cases, where the interaction and mutual development of data policies, data programs, and data practices are recognized. Finally, future trends of research data practices within China and internationally are discussed. We hope the analysis provides perspective on current open data practices in China along with insight into the need for additional research on scientific data sharing and management.

 

Global trends in open access publication and open data – Mills – 2020 – Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics – Wiley Online Library

“This Editorial will summarize some of the recent tendencies of publication explored in a recent Wiley Society Newsletter on the open access movement: http://s1133198723.t.en25.com/e/es?s=1133198723&e=6599750&elqTrackId=be52ad97a9d24b6c8db9974cd2051faf&elq=fef810d97dae4c9c9b098792bf9de575&elqaid=48002&elqat=1 . As it turns out, in a recent survey about Society Publications, Wiley determined that no?cost or open access to Society content is the top desire for most researchers. They also found that making journal articles more accessible to nonacademic audiences, greater transparency around peer review, and improving how we measure the impact of research are also highly important. https://www.wiley.com/network/societyleaders/member?engagement/members?say?open?data?is?more?important?now?than?it?was?12?months?ago?elq_mid=48002&elq_cid=12309687&utm_campaign=30355&utm_source=eloquaEmail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Email%206?RC?SOCM?MS?XX?Global?W26M4?October%20Newsletter.

While three?quarters of members are mostly satisfied with the access to society content that they personally receive as members, only a little more than half are happy with their society’s engagement with open access publishing….”