The cost of publishing in an indexed ophthalmology journal in 2019 – Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract:  Objective

To determine the proportion of indexed ophthalmology journals with article processing charges (APCs) and potential factors associated with APCs.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Participants

Web of Science–indexed Ophthalmology journals in 2019.

Methods

Indexed ophthalmology journal web sites were reviewed to obtain information on APCs, impact factor (IF), publication mode, publisher type, journal affiliation, waiver discount, and continent of origin. For data unavailable on the web site, the journal was contacted. Journal publication mode was categorized into subscription, fully open access, and hybrid (open access and subscription combined). Linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between APCs and the above variables.

Main Outcome Measure

Proportion of ophthalmology journals with APCs.

Results

59 indexed ophthalmology journals were identified; 3 (5.1%) subscription only, 10 (16.9%) open access, and 46 (78.0%) hybrid. Overall 52/59 (88.1%) journals had APCs; 10 of 59 journals (16.9%) required APCs for publication (7 fully open access and 3 hybrid journals), whereas 42/59 (71.2%, all hybrid journals) had optional APCs for open access. The 7/59 journals (11.9%) without APCs included 100% (3/3) of the subscription-only journals, 30% (3/10) of the open access, and 2% (1/46) of the hybrid journals. The mean cost for journals with APCs was US$2854 ± 708.9 (range US$490–5000). Higher IF, publication mode, and commercial publishers were associated with higher APCs.

Conclusions

16.9% of indexed ophthalmology journals in 2019 required APCs, and additional 71.2% hybrid journals had APCs for the option of open access. Independent predictors of APCs were IF and publication mode.

Universities ‘will cancel deals with publishers’ | Research Information

“A price freeze on journal subscriptions will not be enough to avoid UK researchers losing access to key academic content, warn three major sector bodies representing academic library directors and higher education managers. 

Research Libraries UK (RLUK), SCONUL, the professional association for academic and research libraries and Jisc say that immediate reductions are necessary if institutions are to retain access to content. Universities are under heavy pressure to reduce all expenditure and divert financial resources to areas of immediate concern including online teaching and implementing measures to limit the spread of COVID-19. …”

Publishing during pandemic: Innovation, collaboration, and change – Smart – 2020 – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

“Following the call from the Wellcome Trust back in January, many (if not most) publishers responded positively by making relevant content available for researchers. Subscription publishers, such as Springer Nature, made all articles related to COVID?19 free to view. Others, like Emerald, made funds available to cover the APCs of topical articles which their open access journals chose to publish. EDP sciences and Berghahn Journals made all their content freely available – not just articles relating to the pandemic but their entire portfolios (where they had permission) in order to support researchers working from home without on?campus access to their institutional holdings. In China, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) provided free access to COVID?19 resources, including research papers that had English abstracts.

Cross?publisher initiatives were also a positive outcome in the recent months. For example, with the agreement of several publishers, ReadCube launched a programme to facilitate free access to research on COVID?19 for researchers, journalists, health workers, and others. Upon registration users can gain access to publications from various publishers, including Springer Nature, JAMA, and Wiley.

And many other organizations also provided support where they could, for example, Kudos provided free access to its premium service, Kudos Pro, which received over 5,000 sign?ups. Publishing platforms also had to deal with variable workloads, such as HighWire reporting a sevenfold surge in the use of its systems (largely driven by the hosting of MedRxiv and BioRxiv, with some articles receiving over 4 million page views). For many organizations, this meant meeting unprecedented demand alongside staff needing to work remotely while maintaining contact with colleagues and systems….”

Open Access Transformation in Switzerland & Germany > ./scidecode

“Christian Gutknecht published an exciting posting on the Swiss EUR 57 million Elsevier deal in which he outlines the transformative Open Access agreement between Elsevier and swissuniversities. Since Germany has been trying for years to reach such a contract with Elsevier, it is worth comparing it with the two transformative contracts with Wiley and Springer Nature in Germany, which were reached and coordinated by Project DEAL. Both German agreements were discussed here before just as other transformative Open Access agreements. For those in a hurry: At the end of the posting there is a synopsis of the costs and Open Access components of the Open Access Transformation in Switzerland & Germany. At the very beginning I would like to thank Christian Gutknecht very much for sharing and discussing information that went into this posting….”

RLUK issues Content Statement in support of libraries reviewing new and renewed content purchasing – Research Libraries UK

“If we do not see concrete action towards the requirements listed below, RLUK member libraries will be forced to cancel valuable resources. We want to work productively with our closest partners, publishers and content suppliers, to develop sustainable business models which work for all stakeholders….

We require:

Reductions in annual subscription costs, not increases or price freezes. This supports the Jisc and Universities UK joint call for publishers to reduce their fees to maintain access to essential teaching and learning materials.

The combined cost of the read and publish elements of transitional deals to result in a reduction on existing subscription expenditure. This supports Jisc’s requirements for transitional OA agreements. It is no longer acceptable to base transitional agreement costs on both uplifted historical subscriptions expenditure and historical APC expenditure, without constraining or reducing costs going forwards.

A permanent move away from historic print spend underpinning the pricing of large subscription packages. We expect fairer and more innovative pricing models which reflect the current scholarly communications and budgetary landscapes.

More flexibility in content selection and a permanent move away from the outdated ‘big deal’ model. Tying valuable content up in large packages has been incredibly damaging to library budgets and collections.

All multiyear deals to have clear, no-penalty opt-out clauses which can be invoked 30 days before the renewal date. Notice periods for resource cancellations should also always be 30 days, rather than 60 or 90 days….”

RLUK issues Content Statement in support of libraries reviewing new and renewed content purchasing – Research Libraries UK

“If we do not see concrete action towards the requirements listed below, RLUK member libraries will be forced to cancel valuable resources. We want to work productively with our closest partners, publishers and content suppliers, to develop sustainable business models which work for all stakeholders….

We require:

Reductions in annual subscription costs, not increases or price freezes. This supports the Jisc and Universities UK joint call for publishers to reduce their fees to maintain access to essential teaching and learning materials.

The combined cost of the read and publish elements of transitional deals to result in a reduction on existing subscription expenditure. This supports Jisc’s requirements for transitional OA agreements. It is no longer acceptable to base transitional agreement costs on both uplifted historical subscriptions expenditure and historical APC expenditure, without constraining or reducing costs going forwards.

A permanent move away from historic print spend underpinning the pricing of large subscription packages. We expect fairer and more innovative pricing models which reflect the current scholarly communications and budgetary landscapes.

More flexibility in content selection and a permanent move away from the outdated ‘big deal’ model. Tying valuable content up in large packages has been incredibly damaging to library budgets and collections.

All multiyear deals to have clear, no-penalty opt-out clauses which can be invoked 30 days before the renewal date. Notice periods for resource cancellations should also always be 30 days, rather than 60 or 90 days….”

Circuit Panel Rebuffs Judiciary on Excessive PACER Fees

“The federal judiciary cannot fund its pick of courtroom technologies with the fees drawn in by a system that makes court records publicly available, an appellate panel ruled Thursday. 

PACER, short for Public Access to Court Electronic Records, was created over 30 years ago to just what its name suggests, charging 10 cents per page, or $3 per item, since its last fee hike in 2012….”

Auf dem Weg zur Open Access Transformation | Informationspraxis

From Google’s English:  Since 2010, the DFG program “Open Access Publishing” has been a central instrument for the institutional funding of open access publications at German universities. In the course of a DFG program evaluation, the central library of the Research Center Jülich created a data analysis that shows the publication output of the sponsored universities illuminated in 2011-2017. The results of the study lead to the following findings:

The DFG program has proven to be structuring for the funded universities, which thus have a publication fund located at the university library.
Open access publishing is a trend at German universities, as the tenfold increase in the gold open access rate at the sponsored and non-sponsored universities between 2006 and 2017 shows.
The German university publication system is still a long way from a complete open access transformation, since the proportion of closed access publications has declined little and the absolute number of closed access publications has even increased.
With a few exceptions, the level of APCs among the publishers under review increases significantly and on average exceeds the price increase rates for subscription magazines.

Recommendations for action at the end of the article show what funded institutions and funding agencies should take into account in future monitoring procedures.

UMass Amherst Libraries Statement on Textbooks | UMass Amherst Libraries

“As fall semester 2020 approaches, library, faculty, and staff are working to provide alternative access to print course reserves. To support instructors and students over the next several months, we are utilizing different approaches to how we acquire course textbooks to ensure that students have access to needed resources in alternative learning environments.  

The cost of textbooks and other course materials are a barrier for students at every university. To avoid fees, some students don’t purchase textbooks, instead, they use a copy on reserve. A significant portion of print books on reserve are required textbooks, which students are unable to use without coming into the library building. Complicating this work are textbook publishers, who often do not make electronic formats available to libraries for purchase as they have built their business models around selling e-textbooks directly to students.  …

Due to these constraints, we are working with faculty and instructors to explore and identify viable textbook alternatives, including: …

Adopting open educational resources (OER). OERs are freely available educational materials that are openly licensed to allow for re-use and modification by instructors. …”

Monitoring the effects of Plan S on Research and Scholarly Communication: an update | Plan S

“To initiate the dialogue amongst stakeholders on the effects of Plan S, cOAlition S has developed a monitoring framework by which funding agencies who are signatories of Plan S can track or monitor the most significant of these effects, both positive and negative. This framework has been primarily informed by the type of data funding agencies can collect and other available data sets, such that collated data against indicators from a cross-section of Plan S signatories will inform which effects are being realised and guide how cOAlition S might mitigate these effects….”