Do street-level scene perceptions affect housing prices in Chinese megacities? An analysis using open access datasets and deep learning

Abstract:  Many studies have explored the relationship between housing prices and environmental characteristics using the hedonic price model (HPM). However, few studies have deeply examined the impact of scene perception near residential units on housing prices. This article used house purchasing records from FANG.com and open access geolocation data (including massive street view pictures, point of interest (POI) data and road network data) and proposed a framework named “open-access-dataset-based hedonic price modeling (OADB-HPM)” for comprehensive analysis in Beijing and Shanghai, China. A state-of-the-art deep learning framework and massive Baidu street view panoramas were employed to visualize and quantify three major scene perception characteristics (greenery, sky and building view indexes, abbreviated GVI, SVI and BVI, respectively) at the street level. Then, the newly introduced scene perception characteristics were combined with other traditional characteristics in the HPM to calculate marginal prices, and the results for Beijing and Shanghai were explored and compared. The empirical results showed that the greenery and sky perceptual elements at the property level can significantly increase the housing price in Beijing (RMB 39,377 and 6011, respectively) and Shanghai (RMB 21,689 and 2763, respectively), indicating an objectively higher willingness by buyers to pay for houses that provide the ability to perceive natural elements in the surrounding environment. This study developed quantification tools to help decision makers and planners understand and analyze the interaction between residents and urban scene components.

ScienceOpen and Tsinghua University Press partner to increase impact of Chinese research – ScienceOpen Blog

The discovery platform ScienceOpen is partnering with Tsinghua University Press (TUP) to contextualize and promote Chinese research within an interactive research environment. This partnership integrates six TUP journals as featured collections in the ScienceOpen Super Collection ‘Tsinghua University Press’.

 

Tsinghua University Press started its international outreach in the 1990s and has ever since been actively involved in the international exchange of scientific research. Thanks to the resources of Tsinghua University, TUP has been one of the key players in the Chinese academic and higher education publishing landscape. With its freely accessible, interactive discovery environment of over 55 million article records, ScienceOpen places TUP’s journal content within a broad international research framework….”

Geographic trends in attitudes to open access | Research Information

In the OA report, when asked whether authors had ever published in an OA journal, the majority of researchers from each country responded affirmatively (B, 68% of 1,133 respondents; I, 57% of 213; J, 59% of 708; UK 60% of 111; US, 51% of 419), except for China (34% of 2,085) and South Korea (44% of 409; roughly equal, yes verses no). Overall, across all survey respondents, with Yes at 45% and No at 35%, OA advocates may feel comfortable that the pendulum is swinging in the right direction. However, there are some striking differences in the geographic profiles of whether or not an author chooses to publish in an OA journal, with an overall 9% of responding authors indicating that they don’t know what OA publishing is.

For example, in response to why respondents chose to publish in an OA journal, more than 60% of authors in almost all geographic areas responded “I wanted my paper to be read by a larger audience” (B, 60% of 766; C, 69% of 710; I, 64% of 121; J, 64% of 415; UK, 63% of 67; US, 60% of 215), however in South Korea, only 37% of 181 authors responded in such a manner, and instead, 71% of 181 authors indicated that “I chose the journal that was the best fit for my paper and it happened to be OA”. This was in striking contrast to authors in the UK, for which the “best fit being OA” response was only indicated by 31% of 67 authors. Notably, when authors in the UK who had “never” published in an OA journal were asked why, 65% (of 34) said “I chose the journal that was the best fit for my paper and it happened to be a subscription journal”. …”

OA education ‘needed for Chinese researchers’ | Research Information

Chinese researchers need a lot more education on the potential benefits of open access publishing, according to a new industry report.

Geographical Trends in Open Access, published recently by Editage, specifically looks at what researchers from different regions around the world think about open access publishing.

Donald Samulack, the company’s president of US operations, wrote in Research Information that the low level of awareness of open access in China is surprising, given that China is now the leading producer of research papers globally and that Chinese agencies have been promoting various forms of open access publishing for several years now….”

[GOAL] OA2020 Mainland China Signatory Libraries responded to Plan S Guidance on Implementation

“The followings are the discussed response to Plan S Guidance on Implementation.

01 We are in broad support of Plan S and its goals to ensure immediate and complete open access to journal articles resulting from publicly funded research to the world. We applaud the effort of Plan S to provide strong incentives to make research open access. We support an international effort to achieve this goal worldwide as soon as possible.

02 We fully recognize that the need for forceful and accountable policies by public funders in research, education, and libraries, to facilitate open access against various entrenched interests or the inertia of the status quo. We urge all in research, education, publishing, platforms, repositories, and libraries to engage diligently in transformative efforts abreast with time to meet the challenges.

03 We support the Final Conference Statement of the 14th Berlin Conference on Open Access with its commitments. We urge all the publishers to work with the global research community to effect complete and immediate open access according to the Statement.

04 We support the principles and roadmaps of OA2020 Initiative which aims to transform a majority of today’s scholarly journals from subscription to OA publishing, while continues to support new forms of OA publishing. We believe the transition process can be realized within the framework of currently available resources. We see no legitimate reasons for, and will object to, any attempts to increase spending from the original subscribing institutions in the transformation.

05 We support that authors retain copyrights of their publications in open access publishing through journals or open access platforms.

06 We support that open access publications are made under open licenses. We support the use of the CC_BY license as the preferred one but recommend that other CC licenses also be allowed as compliant to Plan S.

07 We recognize the strong need for compliant requirements, agreed by the research communities, for open access journals and platforms. We agree that infrastructural instruments like DOAJ and OpenDOAR can be utilized to help identifying and signaling compliance, but we urge that cOAlition S and other funders recognize and support other appropriate mechanisms for the purpose and require any such instruments are put under international oversight by the global research community to ensure their no-for-profit nature, inclusiveness, objectiveness, integrity, and efficiency.

08 We commend the recognition by Plan S that there exist different models of financing and paying for Open Access publication. We support an inclusive range of immediate open access publishing approaches. We support the transparency and monitoring of open access publication costs and fees.

09 We urge that cOAlition S and other funders, through Plan S or other means, provide financial support for no-fee OA journals. The wide range of support approaches to no-fee OA journals should be encouraged to enhance the diversity of open access publishing and competiveness of publishing market, and to avoid the perverse effect of giving no-fee journals an incentive to start charging fees. While the support can start with general term statements, measures can be timely designed and tested to encourage quality, integrity, transparency and openness, and increasing host investment and other diverse and appropriate income.

10 We support that where article processing charges (APCs) apply, efforts are made to establish a fair and reasonable APC level, including equitable waiver policies, that reflects the costs involved in the quality assurance, editing, and publishing process and how that adds value to the publication. We hold it very important that any such effort should take into consideration of the diversity in the world to ensure applicability and affordability of any such measures across countries and disciplines.

11 We commend the support and requirements of Plan S for financing APCs for open access publication in subscription journals (‘hybrid Open Access’) only under transformative agreements. These agreements should be temporary and transitional, with a shift to full open access within a very few years.

12 We understand the purposes and the benefits of using ORCIDs in journal publications. Considering different paces of adopting ORCID in different regions and disciplines, we recommend that it is implemented as a preferred condition, at least in the short beginning years. We recommend the same treatment for using DOI.

13 We support the Plan S recommendation that “all publications and also other research outputs deposited in open repositories.” We recommend that Plan S make full acknowledge and use of the full range of capabilities of open repositories to support open access, long-term preservation, research management, and re-use.

14 We encourage that Plan S takes the transformative green OA mechanism as one of venues to implement open access, as long as the embargo period of com

Plan S end game

“Now that the Plan S comment period is over and the comments made public, we can see that there is a raging debate over whether journals ought to comply or not. So it is time to consider the possible end games, which range from a lot of journals complying, to just a bunch, to almost none. The differences are pretty stark….

Everything depends on how many journals choose to comply, which in turn may well depend on how many articles fall under Plan S. At this point China and India look like the wild cards in the game….

The abstract question for a journal is this: What fraction of submissions has to be precluded by Plan S to make it a good decision to comply? I pointed out early on that if you have an 80% rejection rate that fraction can be large before damage occurs. On the other hand, journals do not want to write off large numbers of authors as unpublishable. It is a hard choice….

The abstract question for a journal is this: What fraction of submissions has to be precluded by Plan S to make it a good decision to comply? I pointed out early on that if you have an 80% rejection rate that fraction can be large before damage occurs. On the other hand, journals do not want to write off large numbers of authors as unpublishable. It is a hard choice.

Assuming that something more than a few journals do make the leap, but many do not, we get a rather strange world in which Plan S authors can only publish in a specific subset of journals. This may be the most likely outcome, but it seems to be little discussed. The impact on the Plan S authors is probably adverse, especially if the top journals choose not to comply….”

Plan S end game

“Now that the Plan S comment period is over and the comments made public, we can see that there is a raging debate over whether journals ought to comply or not. So it is time to consider the possible end games, which range from a lot of journals complying, to just a bunch, to almost none. The differences are pretty stark….

Everything depends on how many journals choose to comply, which in turn may well depend on how many articles fall under Plan S. At this point China and India look like the wild cards in the game….

The abstract question for a journal is this: What fraction of submissions has to be precluded by Plan S to make it a good decision to comply? I pointed out early on that if you have an 80% rejection rate that fraction can be large before damage occurs. On the other hand, journals do not want to write off large numbers of authors as unpublishable. It is a hard choice….

The abstract question for a journal is this: What fraction of submissions has to be precluded by Plan S to make it a good decision to comply? I pointed out early on that if you have an 80% rejection rate that fraction can be large before damage occurs. On the other hand, journals do not want to write off large numbers of authors as unpublishable. It is a hard choice.

Assuming that something more than a few journals do make the leap, but many do not, we get a rather strange world in which Plan S authors can only publish in a specific subset of journals. This may be the most likely outcome, but it seems to be little discussed. The impact on the Plan S authors is probably adverse, especially if the top journals choose not to comply….”

The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub: How does a new generation of researchers perceive Sci-Hub? | Impact of Social Sciences

“How do early career researchers (ECRs) use Sci-Hub and why? In this post David Nicholas assesses early career researcher attitudes towards the journal pirating site, finding a strong preference for Sci-Hub amongst French ECRs. He raises the question, will Sci-Hub prove the ultimate disruptor and bring down the existing status quo in scholarly communications?…”

What Plan S Means for You – Delta Think

Our previous post looked at how additional funders joining Plan S might affect the overall market. Modelling the big picture is vital to producing benchmarks against which an organization can judge its own position relative to others.

However, your organization’s experience may be different to the average. It will have its own mix of products and dependencies. So, how might we tailor a model to reflect an organization’s specific experience and see how it might differ to the market average?

Our models combine a large number of criteria, including overall growth, the balance between different business models, regional effects, and pricing changes for both volume and value. We also project these criteria over time using regression (or “best fit”) analysis. In doing so, we can choose whether to take conservative or aggressive approaches for projections.

With so many possibilities, developing a model for a specific organization requires choosing which parameters to vary. We must also decide which scenarios to model….

[W]e decided to model two scenarios:

  1. The effects of a ban on hybrid, as Plan S funders will not fund APCs in hybrid journals (the green line). We assumed a “worst case” in which hybrid revenue will disappear – authors will either submit to other publishers’ journals, or follow a green option. As a point of comparison, we show a market-average scenario of the EU banning hybrid in the dotted grey line. Note how our fictitious organization suffers LESS reduction in its income even though its hybrid income is GREATER than average. This is because its growth dynamics are influenced by its faster than average revenue and publication growth, and higher-than average proportion of non-EU submissions.
  2. China moves forward on its plans to increase OA adoption, making an aggressive move to raise OA uptake to levels similar to that in Plan S countries (i.e. those with strong OA policies). In this scenario, we also assume that subscription revenues per article are replaced by lower open access revenues (playing to the principles of cost-neutrality discussed at the OA conference, and assuming aggressive pricing negotiations took hold). Here we see the organization seeing a much more profound decrease in projected revenues compared with an EU-only Plan S adoption. The dynamic here is one of core, higher-value subscription revenues being eroded by the widespread adoption of open access. …”

 

Ekklesia | China censors British academic publisher

“Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the Chinese government’s censorship of academic journals that the British publishing house Taylor & Francis provides to Chinese libraries.

Taylor & Francis, whose publications include the Asian Studies Review, confirmed on 20 December 2018 that its Chinese importer, a government offshoot, decided in September 2018 to block 83 of the 1,466 academic journals to which Taylor & Francis provides access in China…. 

The German publishing house Springer Nature, which owns the science magazines Nature and Scientific American, as well as the Journal of Chinese Political Science and the publishing house Palgrave Macmillan, confirmed in November 2017 that the Chinese authorities had forced it to block online access to around one per cent of its articles within China. 

Three months before that, the Cambridge University Press (CUP), another respected academic publishing house, reported that, at the Chinese authorities’ request, it was blocking access within China to 300 articles in the online archives of its China Quarterly journal. In response to the ensuing outcry, the CUP restored access….”