Open-access fees creating ‘a crisis’ for African research – Research Professional News

“The fees that some open access journals charge scientists to publish—known as article processing charges, or APCs—are keeping African researchers out of top publications, an editorial in BMJ Global Health has warned. 

“The stifling effect of APCs on publications [by African researchers] must now be considered a crisis,” it says. 

The editorial was written by four African health researchers who are based in Congo, South Africa and Australia. It appeared in the journal’s September issue.

On average, APCs are in the US$1,250-US$2,225 range, they write, but for top journals the fee can rise to US$5,000.

Partial and full fee waivers exist for researchers in Africa. But there are caveats, the authors write. Researchers may be based in a country with a per capita income above the waiver threshold, but where government support for science is paltry. Or they can be ineligible for waivers because they have partners in high-income countries….”

Converting to Open Access. The Austrian Journal of Political Science (OZP) as a case study | König | Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft

Abstract:  Open Access is a simple idea that has resulted in a confusing landscape of business models, competing policy prescriptions, and vested interests. Academic debates about the pros and cons of Open Access publishing often lack insights into the operational needs for setting up an Open Access publication. This is true particularly for the social sciences, where experiences with Open Access from the production side still seem sparse. Covering the period between 2010 and 2015, this article recapitulates one of the few cases where an existing academic journal in political science has been converted to an Open Access publication. The Austrian Journal of Political Science (OZP) is an Open Access journal since 2015; and it was the academic community that conducted the conversion process. Remaking the OZP may thus entail some broader lessons for the social sciences communities about what is important in Open Access publishing.

 

Meta-Research: Evaluating the impact of open access policies on research institutions | eLife

Abstract:The proportion of research outputs published in open access journals or made available on other freely-accessible platforms has increased over the past two decades, driven largely by funder mandates, institutional policies, grass-roots advocacy, and changing attitudes in the research community. However, the relative effectiveness of these different interventions has remained largely unexplored. Here we present a robust, transparent and updateable method for analysing how these interventions affect the open access performance of individual institutes. We studied 1,207 institutions from across the world, and found that, in 2017, the top-performing universities published around 80-90% of their research open access. The analysis also showed that publisher-mediated (gold) open access was popular in Latin American and African universities, whereas the growth of open access in Europe and North America has mostly been driven by repositories.

 

Publishing Open Access with Cambridge University Press

“75% of research articles published Open Access in Cambridge University Press journals receive 30-50% more citations than their non-OA equivalents. Join our upcoming webinar to find out how your research can benefit from the increased exposure of Open Access, and how you can submit and publish Open Access at no cost to you thanks to a publishing agreement between the University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Press….”

 

Tear down the walls: Disseminating open access research for a global impact – PubMed

Abstract:  Objective: Publications are the cornerstone of the dissemination of scientific innovation and scholarly work, but published works are mostly behind paywalls. Therefore, many researchers and institutions are searching for alternative models for disseminating scholarly work that bypasses the current structure of paywalls. This study aimed to determine whether a self-published open access (OA) journal, the International Journal of Health Sciences (IJHS), has been able to reach a global audience in terms of authorship, readership, and impact using the OA model.

Methods: All IJHS articles were retrieved and analyzed using scientometric methods. Using the keywords from abstracts and titles, unsupervised clustering was performed to map research trends. Network analysis was used to chart the network of collaboration. The analysis of articles’ metadata and the visualizations was performed using R programming language.

Results: Using Google Scholar as a source, the general statistics of IJHS from inception to 2019 showed that the average citation per article was 11.29, and the impact factor of the journal was 2.28. The results demonstrate the obvious local and global impact of a locally published journal that allows unrestricted OA and uses an open source publishing platform. The journal’s success at attracting diverse topics, authors, and readers is a testament to the power of the OA model.

Conclusions: Open source is feasible and rewarding and enables a global reach for research from under-represented regions. Local journals can help the Global South disseminate their scholarly work, which is frequently ignored by commercial and established publications.

Author choices on Journal of Cell Science: how ‘open’ are we to Open Access? | Journal of Cell Science

“The Company of Biologists believes that OA is the direction of travel and that the proportion of authors selecting (and funders mandating) OA publication will grow over the coming years. We also recognise the value of OA for our readers. For these reasons, this year has seen an increased focus on OA for the Company and its journals. In addition, a coalition of 20+ (largely European) funders will be implementing new OA mandates from January 2021 under an initiative called Plan S (https://www.coalition-s.org/). Briefly, the aim of Plan S is to make all research funded by ‘cOAlition S’ members publicly available in a high-quality journal or platform under an open (CC-BY) license. We know that this will apply to a proportion of our authors so it’s important that we provide Plan S-compliant publishing options while ensuring that any changes we make do not adversely affect non-Plan S authors….”  

Author choices on Development: how ‘open’ are we to Open Access? | Development

“The Company of Biologists believes that OA is the direction of travel and that the proportion of authors selecting (and funders mandating) OA publication will grow over the coming years. We also recognise the value of OA for our readers. For these reasons, this year has seen an increased focus on OA for the Company and its journals. In addition, a coalition of 20+ (largely European) funders will be implementing new OA mandates from January 2021 under an initiative called Plan S (https://www.coalition-s.org/). Briefly, the aim of Plan S is to make all research funded by ‘cOAlition S’ members publicly available in a high-quality journal or platform under an open (CC-BY) license. We know that this will apply to a proportion of our authors so it’s important that we provide Plan S-compliant publishing options while ensuring that any changes we make do not adversely affect non-Plan S authors….”  

Author choices on JEB: how ‘open’ are we to Open Access? | Journal of Experimental Biology

“The Company of Biologists believes that OA is the direction of travel and that the proportion of authors selecting (and funders mandating) OA publication will grow over the coming years. We also recognise the value of OA for our readers. For these reasons, this year has seen an increased focus on OA for the Company and its journals. In addition, a coalition of 20+ (largely European) funders will be implementing new OA mandates from January 2021 under an initiative called Plan S (https://www.coalition-s.org/). Briefly, the aim of Plan S is to make all research funded by ‘cOAlition S’ members publicly available in a high-quality journal or platform under an open (CC-BY) license. We know that this will apply to a proportion of our authors so it’s important that we provide Plan S-compliant publishing options while ensuring that any changes we make do not adversely affect non-Plan S authors….”

Opscidia – Free and open access scholarly publishing

“Opscidia is a novel platform for free and Open Access scholarly communication. 

The principle of our platform is to host scientific journals led by an academic editorial committee. Hence, the journal is run by its editorial board while Opscidia provides the software infrastructure, host the journal and assist the communication of the journal free of charge….”

Gold and Diamond open access journals landscape – Research Consulting

“The dashboard uses the dataset produced by Walt Crawford on OA journals (GOAJ), which is based on DOAJ data but with added information, for instance on the number of articles published and the types of publishers. Recently, the dataset has been updated with 2019 data and its results are extensively described in the book Gold Open Access 2014-2019.

The purpose of this dashboard is to stimulate usage of this dataset, as this is a resource which is, in our view, currently underused by the Scholarly Communication community. The dashboard is fully interactive and clickable, and, with the Ctrl key, it is possible to click several items simultaneously. With the symbol in the bottom right corner, it is possible to enlarge the dashboard for greater visibility (as circled in red below)….

The majority of OA titles are Diamond, but the number of articles published by Diamond journals is levelling off…

Diamond more titles, Gold more articles: Of the 13939 OA journal titles, over 70% of them are Diamond. However, most articles (>60%) are published by Gold journals.
Gold grows, Diamond levels off: The number of articles published by Gold journals is growing rapidly, while the number of articles published by Diamond journals is levelling off. The number of newly started Diamond journals has also been declining since 2013.

Prominence of Diamond differs dependent on subject…

SSH: In the Social Sciences and Humanities, Diamond journals are predominant, publishing more than three quarters of articles.
Biomedicine: The number of Gold and Diamond journals in Biomedicine is about the same but Gold journals publish many more articles.
Science: In Science, there are more Diamond than Gold journals but Gold journals publish many more articles….”