“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: Author attitudes towards Open Access (OA) remains an important area of investigation in academic publishing. The successful implementation of new OA infrastructure and business models depend on their reception within scholarly communities. This paper proposes “Open Access Culture” — the set of beliefs, practices, and attitudes towards OA publishing shared by members of an academic field — as a framework to understand how OA innovations are and will be received by different scholarly communities. The investigation of OA culture helps identify the needs of individual academic fields (e.g., the importance of print publishing for a particular field), thus foregrounding author preferences in the publishing process. The University of Michigan Press (UMP) is drawing upon the OA Culture framework to aid the implementation of its OA monograph initiative. UMP has undertaken research (author survey as well as editor, author, and librarian interviews) to understand how the monograph initiative will integrate different fields. This paper presents results of this research demonstrating the application of the OA Culture framework to several fields, as well the Humanities, Arts, and Humanistic Social Sciences (HSS) more broadly. This is one way that University Presses may take an author-centered approach to OA publishing programs, one that foregrounds the needs of individual authors and considers their unique disciplinary context. Moreover, the paper offers a recent view of sentiments towards OA in the HSS and thus helps to contextualize the current OA landscape.
“This issue of the Nordic Journal of Criminology marks an important shift in the journal’s publication policy. In this issue, and in those to come, all articles will be published under Diamond Open Access, which means that they are distributed and preserved online with no fees to either reader or author. The hope is that this will broaden the journal’s readership and facilitate knowledge exchange on criminological issues across the Nordics and beyond. As described in previous editorials, the Nordic Journal of Criminology is a cross-disciplinary forum with a long history, which prioritizes research of Nordic relevance, and which cultivates diversity and international collaboration (Aromaa 2000; Tutenges 2022). With Diamond Open Access, we have a powerful tool to further solidify this forum.
This issue marks another important shift for the journal. We have a new publisher, Scandinavian University Press, along with a new website that you can visit here: https://www.idunn.no/journal/njc. We hope you will like it! On the website, new articles will be published on a rolling basis, meaning that they are made accessible as soon as the review and editing process is completed. We will continue the tradition of assembling articles in two annual volumes, but these will only appear online. Like so many other journals, we are switching to online only publishing and will no longer print and snail mail journal issues to subscribers, authors, and other key stakeholders….”
“The Association views Open Access (OA) to scholarship as an ideal fully in line with our mission, and a practice that must align with our values. The majority of member presses continue to explore OA publishing projects, and the Association works to support active learning and productive advocacy around OA modes of publishing. The Open Access Committee is charged with developing resources, recommendations, and knowledge for our global community. To this end, the committee has published a draft resource list, curated to help university presses navigate the many different models, developing infrastructures, and growing expectations in OA publishing. The Committee has also continued inviting representatives from OA initiatives, such as OASPA, the Books Analytic Dashboard, and OpenStax, to present on their work to the committee. In 2022, on the heels of a new US Office of Science and Technology Policy memo outlining expansive OA expectations for federally funded research, the Committee coordinated a community hangout to share information, ideas, and concerns….”
“Open-access models of scholarly publishing finally became mainstream, benefiting society during a time of crisis during the Covid-19 pandemic. This forced many presses to reenvision what success means in a model that is not predicated on revenue generation, harkening back to university presses’ roots in supplying scholarly books and journals that would not otherwise generate revenue in the mainstream publishing world.
Jason Gosnell, Marine Corps University Press, Deputy Director/Senior Managing Editor
Angela Anderson, Marine Corps University Press, Director
Megan Hall, Athabasca University Press, Associate Vice President, Learner Experience (interim)
Anthony Cond, Liverpool University Press, Chief Executive
Natalia Grygierczyk, Radboud University Press, Director
Lara Speicher, University College London, Head Of Publishing…”
“This came to a boil on April 17, when more than 40 scientists resigned from their editorial positions at a journal called NeuroImage — one of the world’s leading publications concerning brain imaging. Founded in 1992, the journal publishes around 1,000 articles per year with an impact factor of 7.4, which is a metric for how often the journal’s research is cited by others. NeuroImage has been open access since 2020, a mode of scientific publishing that eschews paywalls, allowing anyone to read the research, share it and build upon it….”
“All 42 editors at the Elsevier journal NeuroImage and its companion journal NeuroImage: Reports have resigned from their posts to collaborate on a new non-profit open access journal called Imaging Neuroscience, aiming “to replace NeuroImage as the top journal in our field,” they said in a joint statement.1
The editors decided to stop working with Elsevier after the publisher refused their request to reduce article processing charges for authors publishing open access articles in NeuroImage and NeuroImage: Reports. These were set at $3450, roughly average for a medical journal of NeuroImage’s circulation and impact factor. But the departed editors estimate the actual cost of publication at $1000 or less….”
“The MIT Press today announced that it has received a $10 million gift from Arcadia—a charitable foundation that works to protect nature, preserve cultural heritage, and promote open access to knowledge—to establish the Arcadia Open Access Fund. The new fund will support the MIT Press’s ground-breaking efforts to publish open access books and journals in fields ranging from science and technology to the social sciences, arts, and humanities. It will also help the MIT Press continue to develop tools, models, and resources that make scholarship more accessible to researchers and other readers around the world. “We are incredibly grateful to Arcadia for this generous gift,” said Amy Brand, Director and Publisher of the MIT Press. “The new endowment makes it possible for the MIT Press to build on and sustain its influential publishing programs. With this enduring support for open books and journals, we can use our power as an academic publisher to expand public understanding of scholarship and science and to democratize participation in research.” Arcadia is providing an outright endowment gift of $5 million, as well as a $5 million “challenge” gift to incentivize other funders by matching their support of MIT’s open publishing activities….”
“More than 40 leading scientists have resigned en masse from the editorial board of a top science journal in protest at what they describe as the “greed” of publishing giant Elsevier.
The entire academic board of the journal Neuroimage, including professors from Oxford University, King’s College London and Cardiff University resigned after Elsevier refused to reduce publication charges.
Academics around the world have applauded what many hope is the start of a rebellion against the huge profit margins in academic publishing, which outstrip those made by Apple, Google and Amazon.
Neuroimage, the leading publication globally for brain-imaging research, is one of many journals that are now “open access” rather than sitting behind a subscription paywall. But its charges to authors reflect its prestige, and academics now pay over £2,700 for a research paper to be published. The former editors say this is “unethical” and bears no relation to the costs involved….”
“Academics in 5,000 institutions in 107 low- and medium-income countries in Africa, Asia, Oceania, North and South America and Europe, will benefit from the Cambridge Open Equity Initiative, a pilot project that will allow them to publish their research in about 400 open-access journals that are owned by the Cambridge University Press (CUP) – at no cost to them.
According to Mandy Hill, the managing director of academic publishing at CUP, the initiative will operate from 1 July 2023 to the end of 2024 with the aim of eradicating barriers that affect academic authors in developing countries who want their research to be visible globally….”
“More than 40 editors have resigned from two leading neuroscience journals in protest against what the editors say are excessively high article-processing charges (APCs) set by the publisher. They say that the fees, which publishers use to cover publishing services and in some cases make money, are unethical. The publisher, Dutch company Elsevier, says that its fees provide researchers with publishing services that are above average quality for below average price. The editors plan to start a new journal hosted by the non-profit publisher MIT Press.
The decision to resign came about after many discussions among the editors, says Stephen Smith, a neuroscientist at the University of Oxford, UK, and editor-in-chief of one of the journals, NeuroImage. “Everyone agreed that the APC was unethical and unsustainable,” says Smith, who will lead the editorial team of the new journal, Imaging Neuroscience, when it launches….”
“The editors of a prominent neuroscience journal are sending a clear message to their publisher — and, they hope, to the broader academic-publishing community — by resigning en masse to begin a new journal in protest of what they say are “unethical and unsustainable” publishing fees.
More than 40 handling editors, associate editors, senior editors, and editors in chief for NeuroImage and its companion journal NeuroImage: Reports, which are published by Elsevier, on Monday announced they were leaving their positions to assume similar roles at the newly formed Imaging Neuroscience, which will be published by the nonprofit MIT Press. They plan for the new journal to eclipse NeuroImage in standing, saying the fact that the entire editorial staff is making the shift will ensure the new journal’s quality.
The high-profile move is the latest chapter in the long-unfolding battle over who pays and who benefits in the academic-publishing world. The departure from a well-regarded journal, and the plan to mount direct competition to it, also highlight the complex ecosystem that surrounds journals’ prestige and impact — and the interplay of a publisher’s reach and scale with the academic bona fides of the scholars who run a title….”
From Google’s English: “In a letter dated April 18, 2023, the 40 members of the editorial board of the open access journal NeuroImage , which is considered a leader in the field of neuroscience , announced that they – including the four chief editors – had resigned jointly. With this step, they are protesting what they consider to be excessive publication fees ( Article Processing Charges – APC ) of $3,450 that the scientific publisher Elsevier charges for publications in the journal. According to its own statements, the editorial board had previously tried in vain to persuade the publisher to reduce the fees. The entire former team is now founding theOpen access journal Imaging Neuroscience with the aim of becoming the leading journal in the field of neuroscience….”