Stand der Dinge: Open Access in der Verwaltungsforschung – Open PuMa

From Google translate:

The state of affairs: Open Access in administrative research

What options are available for openly publishing articles and books, what this costs and how authors can refinance these fees.

Chen and Olijhoek 2016 have reviewed 1000 scientific journals worldwide and developed a measure of Open Access (OA) quality. Unfortunately, no specific results for individual research areas, such as administrative sciences, can be read from this study. Among other things, despite the subject of the study, no data is provided here, where you could have understood this yourself! However, Melero et al 2017 take up the instrument developed by Chen and Olijhoek and use it to examine the Spanish journal landscape. Here are the social science journals those with the highest OA rate and the strongest author rights, probably mainly because the journals are published according to this study, especially by educational and research institutions. These usually work in a nonprofit way and do not make a profit with the release.”

Adoption of Open Access Publishing by Academic Researchers in Kenya | Journal of Scholarly Publishing

“This study investigates Kenyan scholars’ adoption of open access (OA). The authors used a questionnaire to collect data from academic researchers at selected Kenyan public universities. The findings of this study indicate that while Kenyan researchers have embraced the concept of OA, challenges such as a lack of mechanisms to guide academic researchers on where to publish, a dearth of funding mechanisms to cover article processing charges, and a lack of accreditation mechanisms for regional and national journals are exposing Kenyan academic researchers to unscrupulous journal publishers and predatory publishing outlets. OA advocates in Kenyan universities need to devise innovative ways of raising awareness about OA, and these universities should provide the environment, infrastructure, and capacity building needed to support OA.”

The New Model for Scientific Publishing – ECS

“As one of the last independent, nonprofit scientific publishers completely governed by scientists, The Electrochemical Society has developed a business-model changing initiative called Free the Science that will make our research freely available to all readers, while remaining free for authors to publish….In its transition period, ECS remains committed to keeping APCs as low as possible….Free the Science seeks to remove all fees associated with publishing….”

If funders and libraries subscribed to open access: The case of eLife, PLOS, and BioOne [PeerJ Preprints]

“Following on recent initiatives in which funders and libraries directly fund open access publishing, this study works out the economics of systematically applying this approach to three biomedical and biology publishing entities by determining the publishing costs for the funders that sponsored the research, while assigning the costs for unsponsored articles to the libraries. The study draws its data from the non-profit biomedical publishers eLife and PLOS, and the nonprofit journal aggregator BioOne, with this sample representing a mix of publishing revenue models, including funder sponsorship, article processing charges (APC), and subscription fees. This funder-library open access subscription model is proposed as an alternative to both the closed-subscription model, which funders and libraries no longer favor, and the APC open access model, which has limited scalability across scholarly publishing domains. Utilizing PubMed filtering and manual-sampling strategies, as well as publicly available publisher revenue data, the study demonstrates that in 2015, 86 percent of the articles in eLife and PLOS acknowledged funder support, as did 76 percent of the articles in the largely subscription journals of BioOne. Twelve percent of the articles identified the NIH as a funder, 8 percent identifies other U.S. government agencies. Approximately half of the articles were funded by non-U.S. government agencies, including 1 percent by Wellcome Trust and 0.5 percent by Howard Hughes Medical Institute. For 17 percent of the articles, which lacked a funder, the study demonstrates how a collection of research libraries, similar to the one currently subscribing to BioOne, could cover publishing costs. The goal of the study is to inform stakeholder considerations of open access models that can work across the disciplines by (a) providing a cost breakdown for direct funder and library support for open access publishing; (b) positing the use of publishing data-management organizations (such as Crossref and ORCID) to facilitate per article open access support; and (c) proposing ways in which such a model offers a more efficient, equitable, and scalable approach to open access than the prevailing APC model, which originated with biomedical publishing.”

Be Bold, Go for Gold! | PLOS Biologue

“From the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) meeting in 2002 to the present day, Open Access has come a long way, and this week we celebrate the 10th annual Open Access Week! This year’s focus spearheaded by SPARC is around “Open in order to…“ with the goal of highlighting the benefits of Open Access. PLOS has published another post on our efforts for Open Access Week, and so here it seems a good time to consider the nuances of the various flavours (colours) of Open Access available to researchers today and what they are Open in order to achieve.”

Mastering Open Access for Universities | CCC’s Beyond the Book

“Last week at the Frankfurt Book, Copyright Clearance Center presented an Open Access Master Class in University APCs. In a discussion with CCC’s Chris Kenneally, publishing consultant Maurits van der Graaf and Ringgold President Laura Cox discussed why business-minded application and standards can serve to streamline the workflow for everyone.”

Luminos

“Luminos is University of California Press’ new Open Access publishing program for monographs. With the same high standards for selection, peer review, production and marketing as our traditional program, Luminos is a transformative model, built as a partnership where costs and benefits are shared….

Monographs are the cornerstone of scholarly research in the humanities and social sciences, but have long been under siege. Shrinking library budgets and rising costs result in higher prices. The upshot is that presses must reduce the number of titles they publish, regardless of the merits of the work.

In the current system, distribution is limited to a few hundred purchases of each monograph. Libraries can’t build comprehensive collections, and readers can’t find or access important scholarly work. And new forms of digital and multimedia scholarship can’t flourish in a print-first/only model. It’s time for a breakthrough….

Open Access offers the potential to exponentially increase the visibility and impact of scholarly work by making it globally accessible and freely available in digital formats. Costs are covered up front through subventions, breaking down barriers of access at the other end—for libraries and for individual readers anywhere in the world.

Open Access provides our framework for preserving and reinvigorating monograph publishing for the future….

We believe in sharing costs between all parties who benefit from publication—author or institution, publisher, and libraries. In our model no one entity carries the whole burden, making it sustainable for the long haul.

The selection and review processes remain the same as in our traditional program; the same exacting criteria and peer review standards apply.

Creative Commons licensing options allow authors to control how their work is used….”

India’s Education Ministry says ‘no marks’ for papers published in APC journals

Summary by Subbiah Arunachalam:

“Now the [Indian] Ministry of Human Resource Department has come up with a commendable move: From now on papers published by paying article processing charges will not be considered for faculty promotion in the National Institutes of Technology (Gazette of India, 24 July 2017).”