Open Access in Indonesia – Irawan – – Development and Change – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  Despite the absence of funding pressures that explicitly mandate a shift to open access (OA), Indonesia is a leader in OA publishing. Indonesia subscribes to a non?profit model of OA, which differs from that promoted by Plan S. The penetration of bibliometric systems of academic performance assessment is pushing Indonesian scholars away from a local non?profit model of OA to a model based on high publication charges. This article considers whether Plan S promotes or undermines the ability of Indonesian scholars to develop systems of OA adapted to local resource constraints and research needs.

 

Open Access in Indonesia – Irawan – – Development and Change – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  Despite the absence of funding pressures that explicitly mandate a shift to open access (OA), Indonesia is a leader in OA publishing. Indonesia subscribes to a non?profit model of OA, which differs from that promoted by Plan S. The penetration of bibliometric systems of academic performance assessment is pushing Indonesian scholars away from a local non?profit model of OA to a model based on high publication charges. This article considers whether Plan S promotes or undermines the ability of Indonesian scholars to develop systems of OA adapted to local resource constraints and research needs.

 

Open Access Publishing in PLOS Biology Free for NC State Authors | NC State University Libraries

“The NC State University Libraries and the Public Library of Science (PLOS) have entered into an agreement for NC State University researchers to participate in PLOS’ Community Action Publishing (CAP) program. The CAP program is led by PLOS and aims to sustain highly selective journal publishing without Article Processing Charges (APCs) for authors. “Community Action Publishing takes into account the contributions of every author — not just corresponding authors — to help distribute publishing costs equitably among the institutions who support them. This ensures institutional members are charged a fair fee based solely on their authors’ publishing history.” (PLOS website). …”

BSPS Open: All You Need To Know – YouTube

“BSPS Open is an Open Access book series for cutting edge philosophy of science monographs, which are published Open Access and freely downloadable online at no cost to readers or authors. Here, four philosophers of science discuss BSPS Open: What it is, why publish open access, what are Creative Commons licenses are, and how to submit.”

Why we should stop publishing in open-access journals with article processing charges | AESOP Young Academics

“Within this framework, a question emerges: should we publish in these journals? My opinion is that we should not do it at all (for a similar viewpoint, see Eric Verdeil’s opinion). It is not only an issue of individual ethics, but of public ethics, which concerns the whole academic system. As a matter of fact, feeding the APC journal system has three serious negative consequences.

It sets a barrier to access for those without research funds. This system creates a barrier for researchers who do not have access to substantial research funds (such as young or precarious researchers or scholars from not-so-affluent universities). This increases the hierarchical segmentation of the academic world even further.
It risks not adequately guaranteeing the quality control of the scientific publications. “Predatory journals” have repeatedly been suspected of lowering the review process standards. Can the same suspect apply also to many non-predatory APC journals? My answer is affirmative. All APC journals make money and survive thanks to the articles sent to them. The very mechanism of requiring a fee from authors for publishing their article could push every APC journal to lower qualitative standards in order to publish as much as possible. The fact that, in many cases, the publication time of APC journals is very short (three or four weeks maximum, from sending the paper to its publication) seem to support these suspicions.
It makes serious research work impossible. Many APC journals publish a significant number of articles. The case of Sustainability is blatant. During 2020, Sustainability published around 10,500 articles. For a researcher working on questions of sustainable cities, how is it possible to stay on top of everything that is published in this journal, so as to be aware of recent research developments in his/her field? Publishing a reasonable number of carefully selected articles is an essential task of scientific journals, which allows robust research work to be possible. In this regard, serious scientific journals are an essential component of the academic world: through their rigorous filter, they make the development of cumulative knowledge and robust research possible, as well as the flourishing of scientific debates. The publication of an exaggerated number of articles with almost no filter is, therefore, extremely detrimental to everybody’s research….”

Open Access and Global South: It is More Than a Matter of Inclusion – The Scholarly Kitchen

“My third point is on the OA model itself. The white paper assumes the Gold OA model as “the” model, and then explores avenues to bring the Global South in. In 2018, the LMICs constituted 5.5% of world’s publications indexed in Scopus. In the same year, 23% of articles published by these countries were in OA journals, while 75% were in subscription journals. While looking into how the South is doing with OA, we also need to convince OA journal publishers to engage with the South more — not only working with them as authors, but also as peer-reviewers and editors. We also need to look into the wide range of APCs available: from zero APC in subsidized Gold OA journals to US$ 9,900 to publish in Elsevier’s Cell. Transparency in determining APCs might clarify how much of it is actual expense, how much is profit, and how much the author is paying for the brand value.

My final point is that when we talk about OA, we essentially talk about journals published by big, commercial publishers from the Global North. We need to bring the OA journals of the South to the discussion. It could be argued that the editorial process and quality of these journals are not up to the mark, these journals are not indexed, they do not have “impact” as defined by Impact Factor or CiteScore. But, they do publish data and information important for a particular country or a region, and these data could be crucial in crisis moments, like pandemics, natural calamities, and climate change….”

Does the rise of immediate green Open Access undermine progress? A response from cOAlition S to the OASPA open post | Plan S

“The primary argument made by the signatories to the blog post is that authors, if they have a choice between making either the AAM or VoR OA, will invariably opt for the AAM on the grounds that they don’t have to pay a publishing cost.  No evidence is provided to substantiate this claim.

Moreover, this argument is far too simplistic. It ignores the fact that if an institution has participated in, say, a “Read and Publish” deal, it has already paid to make the VoR OA.  For example, Wiley, one of the signatories to the OASPA blog post, have such a deal in place in the UK which in 2020 has resulted in more than 6300 VoR articles being made OA. This equates to around 80% of UK-funded research published by Wiley in this year. In this example, both Wellcome and UKRI OA funds have been used to contribute to the “publish” pot.

The argument also assumes that researchers are paying publication fees directly, and thus would prefer to use those funds on other activities.  In practice however, publication costs are being met directly by the institution (via Read and Publish deals etc.) and/or by the funder….

However, even though Plan S was announced more than 2 years ago – and will be implemented within the next four weeks – many publishers have not developed any Plan S-aligned publishing policies.  As such, the RRS provides a means by which our funded researchers can continue to seek publication of their choice and remain compliant with their funders’ OA policy.

We also find the characterisation of repositories – a limbo where multiple, inferior versions of articles are said to languish, with no access to the underlying data etc. – to be painfully at odds with the reality of many repositories.  For example, Europe PMC – supported by several cOAlition S funders including the Dutch Research Council (NWO), the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), WHO, UKRI and Wellcome – accepts AAMs and provides a number of value-added services.  These include mining the text to provide links to chemical compounds, genetic sequences, etc; linking the submission to the relevant grant ID and any preprint associated with the submission; as well as an unambiguous link to the VoR on the publisher site….

To conclude, cOAlition S organisations are prepared to pay publishers a fair, reasonable, and transparent fee for the services they provide to make the VoR OA. And, though we believe there is added value in the VoR, to ensure this model is widely adopted, publishers need to demonstrate to the research community that the value provided by making this version OA is commensurate with the price charged.”

Prairial, plateforme de revues en accès ouvert

“The Prairial platform was created in April 2017 to initially meet the needs of the human and social sciences (SHS) journals at Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University. Since 2019, Prairial has broadened its field of action beyond initial scope, providing support for reviews of the Lyon – Saint-Étienne site but also on a larger scale. Prairial currently hosts 11 journals and several projects are underway for 2020.

Prairial has chosen to offer strong editorial support in order to enable the hosted journals to improve their editorial quality by relying on international standards ( DOAJ , Latindex ) and by meeting the quality criteria of the National Plan for Open Science and the S Plan ….”

From a Big Deal to Platinum Open Access: How the Population Association of America and Duke University Press Converted Demography

“In 2021, the Population Association of America will move its flagship journal, Demography, from a large collection sold by a commercial publisher to a platinum open-access model published by a university press. University presses provide high-quality publishing services ethically and mindfully, with a mission that aligns with university libraries. But creating a viable alternative to a commercial publisher presents challenges. In this roundtable discussion, players within the scholarly communications ecosystem—a publisher, a librarian, and an association leader—will discuss Demography’s financial model and how the community is working together to cover the journal’s publishing costs and offset previous revenue streams. At a time when openly available global access to population research is of critical importance, how can the scholarly community ensure that Demography’s future is sustainable? And how can university presses build on lessons learned from converting Demography to provide cost-effective publishing alternatives? …”

Scrutinising what Open Access Journals Mean for Global Inequalities | SpringerLink

Abstract:  In the current article, we tested our hypothesis by which high-impact journals tend to have higher Article Processing Charges (APCs) by comparing journal IF metrics with the OA publishing fees they charge. Our study engaged with both journals in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields and the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) and included Hybrid, Diamond and No OA journals. The overall findings demonstrate a positive relationship between APCs and journals with high IF for two of the subject areas we examined but not for the third, which could be mediated by the characteristics and market environment of the publishers. We also found significant differences between the analysed research fields in terms of APC policies, as well as differences in the relationship between APCs and the IF across periodicals. The study and analysis conducted reinforces our concerns that Hybrid OA models are likely to perpetuate inequalities in knowledge production.