“An “author pays” publishing model is the only fair way to make biomedical research findings accessible to all, say Matthew Kurien and David S Sanders, but James J Ashton and R Mark Beattie worry that it can lead to bias in the evidence base towards commercially driven results….”
“Unlike institutions Swedish and Norwegian or at universities such as California , academic institutions and research French have agreed in principle by the voice of their consortium Couperin, for the renewal of a national license with Elsevier.
In a letter sent April 11 to the scientific publisher that Sound Of Science has procured, Lise Dumasy, president of the consortium, details the terms of the agreement whose duration is 4 years, effective from January 1 2019.
With this agreement, French research institutions will have access to the publisher’s “Freeedom complete edition” magazine package, Lancet included, French Medical Library and Cell Press. However, the consortium does not guarantee the publisher that all its members will adhere to the national license….
This agreement provides for a gradual decrease in license costs of 13.3% spread over 4 years….
The agreement provides for Elsevier to make a 25% rebate on its Article processing charge ( APC ), which can be translated as an Item Processing Fee, which is the price paid by a researcher’s laboratory when it publishes in some journals in Open Access…
A highlight of the agreement is what is known as “green open access”. This term originally refers to how to force open publication of scientific articles by publishing “author” versions of scientific articles. Indeed, the law Republic digital provides that the researchers have the right to publish their article without the modifications that the editor has added (that it is corrections of form or form) after 6 months in STEM (science, technology , engineering and mathematics) and after 12 months in SHS (human and social sciences).
Here, the agreement provides for setting up automatic can access after 12 months’ author manuscript accepted “( MAA ) or postprint streaming directly Sciencedirect, the platform from Elsevier and a manual HAL ( the CNRS open archive ) which points to this streaming. Then, in a second time and after 24 months, the pdf file of this manuscript would be found directly on the HAL platform.
This agreement allows Elsevier to urge French researchers not to worry about the deposit of their articles in “green openaccess” by providing a service that does so but with a broader embargo than allowed by law and in streaming and no with the pdf file accessible directly….”
“The rise of open access publishing should be applauded. Scientific research and literature should be made available to everyone, with no cost to the reader.
But there’s a catch: nothing is actually free and someone has to pay. The open access model merely changes who pays….The bottom line is that payment has been transferred from institutions and individuals paying to have access to researchers having to pay to have their work published….”
“Plan S raises challenging questions for the Global South. Even if Plan S fails to achieve its objectives the growing determination in Europe to trigger a “global flip” to open access suggests developing countries will have to develop an alternative strategy. In this post Richard Poynder asks: what might that strategy be?…”
Abstract: In this study of access models, we compared citation performance in journals that do and do not levy article processing charges (APCs) as part of their business model. We used a sample of journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) science class and its 13 subclasses and recorded four citation metrics: JIF, H-index, citations per publication (CPP) and quartile rank. We examined 1881 science journals indexed in DOAJ. Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports and Web of Science were used to extract JIF, H-index, CPP and quartile category. Overall, the JIF, H-index and CPP indicated that APC and non-APC open access (OA) journals had equal impact. Quartile category ranking indicated a difference in favour of APC journals. In each science subclass, we found significant differences between APC and non-APC journals in all citation metrics except for quartile rank. Discipline-related variations were observed in non-APC journals. Differences in the rank positions of scores in different groups identified citation advantages for non-APC journals in physiology, zoology, microbiology and geology, followed by botany, astronomy and general biology. Impact ranged from moderate to low in physics, chemistry, human anatomy, mathematics, general science and natural history. The results suggest that authors should consider field- and discipline-related differences in the OA citation advantage, especially when they are considering non-APC OA journals categorised in two or more subjects. This may encourage OA publishing at least in the science class.
“Figure 1, below, analyzes average discount percentages off list prices, so we can see to what degree publishers are discounting. A few nuances come out of the chart.
- There’s very little relationship between discount percentage and price (statistical analysis bears this out). Counterintuitively, this suggests a consistency: on average, more expensive journals are not discounted any more or less than less expensive ones.
- In converting the OpenAPC data’s paid prices in Euros to equivalent list prices in USD, we see that around half the data points suggest payments that are higher than list, i.e. a “negative discount.” These data points appear to the left of the chart’s dotted line (0% discount). There are a few extreme outliers in the data (not shown) due to erroneous reporting, but it is likely that much of this is due to timings of payments, different methods of currency conversions, or inconsistent inclusion of sales tax. This highlights the challenges of gathering data consistently across our very fragmented ecosystem.
- Controlling out these “negative discounts” makes very little difference to the statistics – so despite the challenges with the data, the patterns remain the same. We also know that list prices change slowly, so relative phasing between payment and list dates are not an issue….
Figure 2 below examines popular discount levels over time. The more orange the line, the more recent the year of payment, and the chart excludes the “negative discounts.”
- The discounting bands appear to be staying consistent over time, with variations due to differences in sample sizes. (There are very few 2014 data points, and the volume of 2018 data is still catching up with the rest.)
- Our OA Data & Analytics Tool allows deeper analysis, to tease out differences between fully OA and hybrid journals. Although not shown here, fully OA journals have seen their discount levels dip in 2016-2017 but start to rise again since, averaging around 20%. Hybrid sees the opposite pattern, with discount levels averaging 20-30%….”
“The publishing model that most politicians and funders now seem to embrace, is called ‘Open Access’. Access to the manuscript is free, but the researchers (yes, you) foot the bill; in which case, it could be argued that the cost of open access publication should be included in the research budget….
If an individual researcher pays then, maybe, the quality of a study or manuscript is no longer necessarily the concern of the publisher. So-called ‘predatory’ journals discovered this hole in the market, and accept whatever paper of whatever quality as long as it is being paid for. Alternatively, articles are now being deposited in open access repositories, without any peer review or formatting requirements….”
“Pressure increases on publishers to move more quickly to open access, but this leaves many questions unanswered
For the past decade, libraries have battled declining university budgets and increasing serials expenditures. With each Big Deal package renewal or cancellation, librarians and publishers have asked themselves: Did I make the best deal? Did I make the right deal? Recent developments in open access (OA) promise to bring major reform to academic publishing and, with that, new challenges and opportunities to the way that librarians and publishers choose to deal….”
“The publication of the results of the fourth EUA Open Access Survey coincides with the emergence of two important approaches in the construction of an Open Science environment. The first is „Plan S“, signed by an increasing number of research funding organisations. The second is the development of „Publish and Read“ models in negotiations with publishers by scholar negotiating consortia. These can be considered as complementary in the sense that the first aims to rapidly expand Open Access to research publications, and the second to control the total amount of funds spent by research performing organisations, that is, universities and research institutes, to publish in and to have access to scientific journals. The need to address these two major aims concurrently is the main goal of the work of the EUA Expert Group on Science 2.0/Open Science, and more generally EUA’s central objective for the future of scientific publications….
Key results regarding Open Access to research publications
• 62% of the institutions surveyed have an Open Access policy on research publications in place and 26% are in the process of drafting one.
• At institutions with an OA policy in place: – Almost 50% require publications to be self-archived in the repository – 60% recommend that researchers publish in OA – 74% do not include any provisions linking Open Access to research evaluation. Only 12% have mandatory guidelines linking OA to internal research assessment.
• Despite the fact that most surveyed institutions have implemented an Open Access policy for research publications, 73% had not defined specific Open Access targets or timelines.
• 70% of these institutions monitor deposits in the repository. However, only 40% monitor Open Access publishing and only 30% monitor related costs (gold OA).
• Librarians are most knowledgeable about and most committed to (~80%) Open Access (publishers’ policies, H2020 rules) followed by institutional leadership (~50%). For researchers, including early-stage researchers, the figure drops to ~20%.
• Raising awareness and developing additional incentives for researchers to make their work available via Open Access are top priorities….”
“Less than a third of European universities are monitoring how much they spend on open access publishing, a new survey has found.
The costs of article processing charges fees paid to publish in open access journals have come under scrutiny as universities switch away from subscribing to closed publications.
But just 31 per cent of universities surveyed by the European University Association said that they were keeping track of costs. Sixty-one per cent said that they were not, while the rest did not know….
In the UK, a report from 2017 found that the average APC had risen by 16 per cent in three years, well above inflation. As open access takes off, the amount that a sample of British universities were spending on APCs had increased more than fourfold, it discovered….
Only 43 per cent of institutions were actually monitoring how many research papers end up in open access journals….”