“An ESHRE [European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology] expert meeting in November reviewed what we know so far about open access publishing for medical journals. The meeting in particular explored where we now are with Plan S and how its implementation might affect the Human Reproduction journals….”
“Suggesting sweeping reforms to promote the quality of research in India, a UGC panel has recommended that publication of research material in “predatory” journals or presentations in conferences organised by their publishers should not be considered for academic credit in any form.
They include selection, confirmation, promotion, appraisal, and award of scholarships and degrees, the panel has suggested. The committee, which submitted its 14-page report to the UGC recently, has also recommended changes in PhD and MPhil programmes, including a new board for social sciences research….
Last week, the UGC launched the Consortium of Academic and Research Ethics (CARE) to approve a new official list of academic publications….”
• Most early geography journals were established by learned societies as non-profit-making ventures.
• Most of these are now published by commercial organisations, alongside many others they have established.
• Journal publication is now a capitalist, profit-making venture to which academics donate their intellectual property.
• Moves to make all journal papers derived from publicly-funded research freely accessible and sustained by author charges will exacerbate this situation.
• Non-capitalist alternatives are desirable….”
Abstract: In this 20th anniversary theme issue, we are celebrating how JMIR Publications, an innovative publisher deeply rooted in academia and created by scientists for scientists, pioneered the open access model, is advancing digital health research, is disrupting the scholarly publishing world, and is helping to empower patients. All this has been made possible by the disintermediating power of the internet. And we are not done innovating: Our new series of “superjournals,” called JMIRx, will provide a glimpse into what we see as the future and end goal in scholarly publishing: open science. In this model, the vast majority of papers will be published on preprint servers first, with “overlay” journals then competing to peer review and publish peer-reviewed “versions of record” of the best papers.
Abstract: The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) was an early pioneer of open access online publishing, and two decades later, some readers and authors may have forgotten the challenges of previous scientific publishing models. This commentary summarizes the many advantages of open access publishing for each of the main stakeholders in scientific publishing and reminds us that, like every innovation, there are disadvantages that we need to guard against, such as the problem of fraudulent journals. This paper then reviews the potential impact of some current initiatives, such as Plan S and JMIRx, concluding with some suggestions to help new open-access publishers ensure that the advantages of open access publishing outweigh the challenges.
Abstract: Scientific journal publishers have over the past twenty-five years rapidly converted to predominantly electronic dissemination, but the reader-pays business model continues to dominate the market. Open Access (OA) publishing, where the articles are freely readable on the net, has slowly increased its market share to near 20%, but has failed to fulfill the visions of rapid proliferation predicted by many early proponents. The growth of OA has also been very uneven across fields of science. We report market shares of open access in eighteen Scopus-indexed disciplines ranging from 27% (agriculture) to 7% (business). The differences become far more pronounced for journals published in the four countries, which dominate commercial scholarly publishing (US, UK, Germany and the Netherlands). We present contrasting developments within six academic disciplines. Availability of funding to pay publication charges, pressure from research funding agencies, and the diversity of discipline-specific research communication cultures arise as potential explanations for the observed differences.
“Last Friday, I was made aware of an executive order being finalized by the White House that reportedly mandates immediate public access to journal articles describing federally funded research. If this policy were enacted as is, many scientific societies would have to severely cut their services to the scientific community, such as peer-reviewed journals, travel awards, career development, education, outreach, policy, scientific conferences, and advocacy for increased research funding.
On December 18, with the understanding that the Administration planned to issue the executive order within a week or two without public input, we joined many other societies in signing two letters to President Trump responding to this news. One was organized by more than 50 scientific societies and the other by the Association of American Publishers.
Rightly so, several GSA members have asked for more context, particularly since the text of the executive order has not yet been made public….”