“There’s a lot of different terminology around open access, particularly around various levels of open access. I thought it might be helpful to aggregate some of the disparate information into one source on the TOPS Github, which is below! This is sourced from Open Book Publishers, Researcher.Life, and Taylor & Francis.There are many kinds of open access, but they broadly fit into three categories: libre, which is open access that allows content to be free to read and generally, there are no barriers for reuse, gratis, which is open access that allows content to be free to read, but has barriers for reuse, and then there’s one level (black) that fits into neither libre nor gratis….”
Abstract: Recently, the discussion of OA publishing has been dominated by the consideration of potential effects of Plan-S on scholarly publishing. Part of the debate centred on the academic freedom and autonomy of researchers to self-select in which journals they publish their findings, as journals labelled as Hybrid under Plan-S are no longer eligible for publishing (except in cases where publishers agree to transformative agreements on their portfolios). The publisher’s own choices on opening publications, through Bronze OA, is also in need of further debate. With that in mind, this study made a first attempt to understand motivations behind Hybrid and Bronze choices, especially in face of Plan-S restrictions….
Files are currently under embargo but will be publicly accessible after September 7, 2022.
The COVID-19 outbreak showed the importance of rapid access to research.
This paper investigates research communication about this disease, the level of openness of papers, and the main topics of research into this disease.
Thus, it analyses Open Access (OA) uptake (typologies, licence use) and the topic evolution of publications, from the start of the pandemic (1 January 2020) until the end of a year of widespread lockdown (1 March 2021).
The sample includes 95,605 publications; 94.1% were published for open access, 44% of them in Bronze OA. 42% do not have a licence, which can limit the number of citations, and thus impact. We also illustrated an approach that uses a topic modelling method and found that publications in Hybrid and Green OA publications are more focused on patients and their effects whereas the strategy adopted by countries is studied more in papers that have chosen the Gold OA route.
The study concludes that although OA scientific production has increased, some weaknesses in Open Access practise, such as lack of licensing or under-researched topics, still hold back its effective use to further research.
JUSTICE conducted a survey on the number of published articles written by researchers who belong to institutions in Japan, Open Access availability, and total estimated APC costs. For this survey, we used the Web of Science article level metadata file provided by Clarivate Analytics to the National Institute of Informatics (NII). The survey results were published with permission from Clarivate Analytics. This report is an updated version of the FY2019 Survey.
“When work does not reach OA publication, readership from the wider medical community may be restricted, limiting the scope for critical appraisal to either conference attendees (von Elm et al., 2003) or those able to mitigate the financial cost of paper access (Velterop, 2003). The gold standard for anatomical research accessibility maytherefore be OA peer-reviewed publication following presentation at a national meeting….
The primary objective of this study was to quantify the proportion of anatomy research papers that are available as gold and bronze OA. The secondary objective comprised quantitative analysis of citation rates between gold and bronze OA and non-OA papers….
The combined proportion of open access publications was 20.0% (125 of 625). The open access publication rate from research presented was 18.75% (69 of 368) at BACA and 21.79% (56 of 257) at AACA [American Association of Clinical Anatomists]. The total number of publications published by year and the average OA publication rate per year can be seen in Figure 2 for AACA and Figure 3 for BACA [British Association of Clinical Anatomists]….
This study is the first to assess the longitudinal citation rates of OA and non-OA Anatomy publications and one of the largest individual studies comparing OA and non-OA citation rates in medical research. These data have shown that citation rates are significantly higher (n on-OA 15.14 vs OA 18.95 p=0.047) amongst OA anatomy papers presented at these two conferences. On average, conference papers were cited 16.4 times (BACA 16.56, AACA 16.19) ranging from 0-236. In view of this, it is encouraging that BACA OA publication rates have improved in recent years….”