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.”

ScienceOpen launches new Open Access journal hosting services – ScienceOpen Blog

Recently, we announced a new Open Access hosting partnership with UCL Press. But just what does this mean, exactly?

Our customised hosting services are designed to help publishers showcase and distribute the Open Access journals that they publish to maximum effect. These are the natural extension of our marketing and indexing services, developed on the basis of our years of experience in content management architecture layered with advanced discovery technologies. By working with a range of publishers and content types, we have built a flexible platform to inter-connect scholarly articles at the level of their metadata, and establish a forum for user interaction around them. For Open Access journals, however, we are able to offer further advantages by embedding the full text articles within our discovery environment.

Most of the no-fee OA journals listed in the DOAJ are published in languages other than English

“Leo Waaijers has dug some interest facts out of the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and allowed me to post the results.

From Leo: The 7240 journals in the no-fee category in DOAJ has 1911 journals with Spanish full text, 1366 with Portuguese, 753 with French, and 692 with Indonesian. In percentages: 26, 19, 10, and 10. In the 2998 journal of the fee-based category these figures were respectively: 81, 76, 23, and 212; and in percentages: 3, 3, 1, and 7….”

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.”