Taylor & Francis input to UKRI Open Access Review – Taylor & Francis Newsroom

“We urge UKRI to focus on requiring immediate access only to the final published research output or version of record, with the certainty this OA route provides of research being trusted, validated, discoverable, curated and preserved in perpetuity. We believe that a permissive policy approach is the best way to achieve UKRI’s aims. Encouraging a diverse ecology will help support the development of innovative models and diversification of existing models, will accelerate the growth in OA and will allow new entrants to join the research communication ecosystem, encouraging competition. As we have outlined in our response, the zero embargo Green OA route is an unsustainable mechanism that implies creation of content that is not paid for. This actually runs counter to UKRI’s long term aspirations around opening up research outputs….

We encourage future OA policy in the UK to support a variety of publication venues, including those most preferred by their communities, irrespective of their open access model, as they are the vehicles that drive research, being used and trusted by their communities. We are exploring options for hybrid journals other than the APC-OA model that will allow them to make their publications more widely available. We are keen to explore with UKRI, other funders, and researchers how we can best support these journals as they move to OA, and how we can offer sustainable publication venues across disciplines….”

Taylor & Francis input to UKRI Open Access Review – Taylor & Francis Newsroom

“We urge UKRI to focus on requiring immediate access only to the final published research output or version of record, with the certainty this OA route provides of research being trusted, validated, discoverable, curated and preserved in perpetuity. We believe that a permissive policy approach is the best way to achieve UKRI’s aims. Encouraging a diverse ecology will help support the development of innovative models and diversification of existing models, will accelerate the growth in OA and will allow new entrants to join the research communication ecosystem, encouraging competition. As we have outlined in our response, the zero embargo Green OA route is an unsustainable mechanism that implies creation of content that is not paid for. This actually runs counter to UKRI’s long term aspirations around opening up research outputs….

We encourage future OA policy in the UK to support a variety of publication venues, including those most preferred by their communities, irrespective of their open access model, as they are the vehicles that drive research, being used and trusted by their communities. We are exploring options for hybrid journals other than the APC-OA model that will allow them to make their publications more widely available. We are keen to explore with UKRI, other funders, and researchers how we can best support these journals as they move to OA, and how we can offer sustainable publication venues across disciplines….”

Open access, open data and peer review | Genome Biology | Full Text

“Thus, the article processing charges (APCs) of the top tier journals would increase if they were to switch to full open access, which could shift from inequity in access to published work to inequity in access to publishing, as scientists and their funders in emerging economies may be less capable of shouldering such APC costs [3, 4]. Moreover, society journals and certain fields such as chemistry and humanities are particularly reliant on income from subscriptions to complement their relatively low APC revenues, and if they were less able to adapt, the full open access model could increase the monopoly of large publishing houses who can more easily change their business models [5, 6]….”

Open access, open data and peer review | Genome Biology | Full Text

“Thus, the article processing charges (APCs) of the top tier journals would increase if they were to switch to full open access, which could shift from inequity in access to published work to inequity in access to publishing, as scientists and their funders in emerging economies may be less capable of shouldering such APC costs [3, 4]. Moreover, society journals and certain fields such as chemistry and humanities are particularly reliant on income from subscriptions to complement their relatively low APC revenues, and if they were less able to adapt, the full open access model could increase the monopoly of large publishing houses who can more easily change their business models [5, 6]….”

Interview with Graeme Nicol, Chief Executive of Cambridge Scholars Publishing – No Shelf Required

“Now, I know there is a whole complex debate running about Open Access (OA), mostly journals, but it’s coming to academic books. So, it’s not as simple as saying if a publisher asks you for money as an author, they are to be avoided. So let me say instead: if a publisher asks you for money to publish your book, take a careful look.

At the moment, ‘Gold’ OA – authors pay to make their books OA online – is not on our radar. If OA continues to gather strength in the academic market, it may be something we will look at. But if we do, it will be an option – publish conventionally, or publish OA, and find a way to cover our costs. And I think if you have an option as an author – I can choose to pay for one service, or I can publish for free with a different service – that should reassure people about predatory behavior.

If you are a small or new-entrant publisher operating a compulsory Publishing Charge, you are going to have your motives questioned. My advice would be: don’t do it! Find a way to make it pay, as we do, without publishing charges, or go do something else. If you are an author, look very carefully at any compulsory Publishing Charge….”

Introducing new open access data in Journal Citation Reports – Web of Science Group

“The research?publishing?landscape is undergoing rapid change,?disrupting the longstanding dominance of the subscription model and replacing it with open access models.?Funders, librarians and publishers are looking to?improve?transparency?of?open access, with?publishers under increasing pressure to eliminate or shorten embargoes, improve open access options and to ‘flip’ traditional subscription or hybrid journals to?make?all research?articles?freely accessible and reusable upon publication via a Creative Commons license – usually referred to as gold OA.

To help the research community navigate through this complex transition, we have added open access data to Journal Citation Reports (JCR) profile pages?to?increase transparency around?how much of the scholarly literature is published using the gold OA model, and how much of this content is being cited. This will help the research community better understand the contribution of gold OA content to the literature and its influence on scholarly discourse….

The new descriptive feature uses Our Research (formerly ImpactStory) data to identify content published under a Creative Commons license (gold OA) and allows it to be easily differentiated from subscription or free to read content (which may not be free to re-use.) This?provides?funders,?publishers, librarians,?and?researchers?with transparent, publisher-neutral information about the relative contribution of gold OA articles to a journal’s overall volume of content and citations.?The feature is in beta until the release?of?the 2020 Journal Citation Reports?in June….”

Introducing new open access data in Journal Citation Reports – Web of Science Group

“The research?publishing?landscape is undergoing rapid change,?disrupting the longstanding dominance of the subscription model and replacing it with open access models.?Funders, librarians and publishers are looking to?improve?transparency?of?open access, with?publishers under increasing pressure to eliminate or shorten embargoes, improve open access options and to ‘flip’ traditional subscription or hybrid journals to?make?all research?articles?freely accessible and reusable upon publication via a Creative Commons license – usually referred to as gold OA.

To help the research community navigate through this complex transition, we have added open access data to Journal Citation Reports (JCR) profile pages?to?increase transparency around?how much of the scholarly literature is published using the gold OA model, and how much of this content is being cited. This will help the research community better understand the contribution of gold OA content to the literature and its influence on scholarly discourse….

The new descriptive feature uses Our Research (formerly ImpactStory) data to identify content published under a Creative Commons license (gold OA) and allows it to be easily differentiated from subscription or free to read content (which may not be free to re-use.) This?provides?funders,?publishers, librarians,?and?researchers?with transparent, publisher-neutral information about the relative contribution of gold OA articles to a journal’s overall volume of content and citations.?The feature is in beta until the release?of?the 2020 Journal Citation Reports?in June….”

cOAlition S publishes updated criteria for Transformative Journals | Plan S

“Following a review of the responses to a public consultation, and cognisant of the ambition to provide researchers funded by a member of cOAlition S with the opportunity to continue publishing results in a wide variety of journals, whilst ensuring that the version of record is fully Open Access, we have made several changes and simplifications to the way we define a Transformative Journal. Specifically, we have:

changed the threshold when a journal must flip to full Open Access from 50% of to 75% and removed the commitment to flip by December 2024. In making these changes, however, we have stressed that publishers must explicitly state their commitment to transition to full Open Access and that our support for this model (in terms of paying for publishing services in subscription journals) will cease at the end of 2024;
reduced the annual growth target for the proportion of content which must be published in Open Access from 8% to at least 5% in absolute terms and at least 15% in relative terms, year-on-year;
simplified the guidance and removed all the “recommended additional criteria”. As such, the guidance is now expressed in just six paragraphs….”

cOAlition S publishes updated criteria for Transformative Journals | Plan S

“Following a review of the responses to a public consultation, and cognisant of the ambition to provide researchers funded by a member of cOAlition S with the opportunity to continue publishing results in a wide variety of journals, whilst ensuring that the version of record is fully Open Access, we have made several changes and simplifications to the way we define a Transformative Journal. Specifically, we have:

changed the threshold when a journal must flip to full Open Access from 50% of to 75% and removed the commitment to flip by December 2024. In making these changes, however, we have stressed that publishers must explicitly state their commitment to transition to full Open Access and that our support for this model (in terms of paying for publishing services in subscription journals) will cease at the end of 2024;
reduced the annual growth target for the proportion of content which must be published in Open Access from 8% to at least 5% in absolute terms and at least 15% in relative terms, year-on-year;
simplified the guidance and removed all the “recommended additional criteria”. As such, the guidance is now expressed in just six paragraphs….”