Category Archives: oa.mit_press

Open Access: MIT Press to Expand its ‘Direct to Open’ Model

Posted on by
Reply

“Continuing our news of research writings being made freely available through open-access initiatives today (August 17), we look at the MIT Press’ “Direct to Open” program’s announcement that it will make 82 monographs and edited collections available this year.

Having been inaugurated in 2022, the results this year mean that the program has 322 participating libraries and new consortium agreements, leading to more than 160 works being made available in those two years’ time. These numbers represent an increase of 33 percent, and an international expansion is very much a part of the growing levels of outcome.

MIT Press has entered into agreements with the Big Ten Academic Alliance—we covered its newly opened collection of works on gender and sexuality on Monday (August 14)—as well as the Konsortium der sächsischen Hochschulbibliotheken; the Council of Australian University Librarians; the Center for Research Libraries; the Greater Western Library Alliance; MOBIUS; Northeast Research Libraries; Jisc; the Partnership for Academic Library Collaboration and Innovation; SCELC; and Lyrasis….”

MIT Press’s Direct to Open (D2O) achieves second year goal, opens access to eighty-two new books in 2023 – MIT Press

Posted on by
Reply

“Thanks to the support of libraries participating in Direct to Open (D2O), the MIT Press will publish its full list (see below) of 2023 scholarly monographs and edited collections open access on the MIT Press Direct platform. 

Launched in 2021, D2O is a sustainable framework that harnesses the collective power of libraries to support open and equitable access to vital, leading scholarship. D2O moves scholarly books from a solely market-based, purchase model, where individuals and libraries buy single eBooks, to a collaborative, library-supported open access model. Instead of purchasing a title once for a single collection, libraries now have the opportunity to fund them one time for the world through participant fees….”

How Scientific Publishers’ Extreme Fees Put Profit Over Progress | The Nation

Posted on by
Reply

“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….”

40 editors at a scientific journal just resigned in protest of their publisher’s “greed”

Posted on by
Reply

“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….”

Editors of neurology imaging journal resign to start new publication in protest at author fees | The BMJ

Posted on by
Reply

“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 receives $10 million endowment gift for open access to knowledge | May 8, 2023

Posted on by
Reply

“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….”

‘Too greedy’: mass walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees | Peer review and scientific publishing | The Guardian

Posted on by
Reply

“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….”

Editors quit top neuroscience journal to protest against open-access charges

Posted on by
Reply

“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….”

‘It Feels Like Things Are Breaking Open’: High Publishing Charges Spur Neuroscientists to Start Their Own Journal

Posted on by
Reply

“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….”

open-access.network: Elsevier: Protest gegen zu hohe Publikationsgebühren

Posted on by
Reply

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….”

open-access.network: Elsevier: Protest gegen zu hohe Publikationsgebühren

Posted on by
Reply

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….”

Imaging journal editors resign over ‘extreme’ open-access fees | Spectrum | Autism Research News

Posted on by
Reply

“The entire editorial boards of two leading neuroscience journals, NeuroImage and NeuroImage:Reports, resigned en masse on Monday over what they say are exorbitant article fees from their publisher, Elsevier.

The group intends to launch a new nonprofit open-access journal called Imaging Neuroscience, “to replace NeuroImage as the top journal in our field,” according to a statement posted 17 April to Twitter by an account called Imaging Neuroscience EiC. The statement was signed by all 42 editorial board members of both journals….”

Imaging journal editors resign over ‘extreme’ open-access fees | Spectrum | Autism Research News

Posted on by
Reply

“The entire editorial boards of two leading neuroscience journals, NeuroImage and NeuroImage:Reports, resigned en masse on Monday over what they say are exorbitant article fees from their publisher, Elsevier.

The group intends to launch a new nonprofit open-access journal called Imaging Neuroscience, “to replace NeuroImage as the top journal in our field,” according to a statement posted 17 April to Twitter by an account called Imaging Neuroscience EiC. The statement was signed by all 42 editorial board members of both journals….”