# The cost of publishing in an indexed ophthalmology journal in 2019 – Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract:  Objective

To determine the proportion of indexed ophthalmology journals with article processing charges (APCs) and potential factors associated with APCs.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Participants

Web of Science–indexed Ophthalmology journals in 2019.

Methods

Indexed ophthalmology journal web sites were reviewed to obtain information on APCs, impact factor (IF), publication mode, publisher type, journal affiliation, waiver discount, and continent of origin. For data unavailable on the web site, the journal was contacted. Journal publication mode was categorized into subscription, fully open access, and hybrid (open access and subscription combined). Linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between APCs and the above variables.

Main Outcome Measure

Proportion of ophthalmology journals with APCs.

Results

59 indexed ophthalmology journals were identified; 3 (5.1%) subscription only, 10 (16.9%) open access, and 46 (78.0%) hybrid. Overall 52/59 (88.1%) journals had APCs; 10 of 59 journals (16.9%) required APCs for publication (7 fully open access and 3 hybrid journals), whereas 42/59 (71.2%, all hybrid journals) had optional APCs for open access. The 7/59 journals (11.9%) without APCs included 100% (3/3) of the subscription-only journals, 30% (3/10) of the open access, and 2% (1/46) of the hybrid journals. The mean cost for journals with APCs was US$2854 ± 708.9 (range US$490–5000). Higher IF, publication mode, and commercial publishers were associated with higher APCs.

Conclusions

16.9% of indexed ophthalmology journals in 2019 required APCs, and additional 71.2% hybrid journals had APCs for the option of open access. Independent predictors of APCs were IF and publication mode.

# News & Views: Sustainable Open Access – What’s Next? – Delta Think

“Several factors appear to be converging to accelerate the move toward Open Access. To start, as many publishers made their COVID-related content freely available, participants in the scholarly publishing ecosystem began to question why this content was not open from its inception, adding perceived pressure to move to open access publishing.

Then there is the perception of Plan S. While the reach of Plan S may be debated, it is difficult to deny the impact it has had on publishers, many of whom have considered funder mandates to foreshadow the industry “direction of travel.” When Plan S refined its criteria for Transformative Agreements, for example, there was an immediate response by Springer Nature to not only commit “the majority of our non-OA journals” to a transformative path, but to also include its flagship journal, Nature.

Additionally, earlier this year the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) held several discussions with publishers about how changes in their policies could impact U.S. academic publishing. One potential element of the OSTP policy was promoting zero-day embargo Green OA as a path to compliance with a policy requiring immediate OA. While OSTP has not taken any official positions, their consultation process triggered many publishers (several of our consulting clients included) to rethink (or move to establish) their OA strategy….

These issues and others have led some publishers to explore collective action models, most notably the “Subscribe to Open” model pioneered in academic publishing by Annual Reviews. Subscribe to Open was structured to retain subscribers while flipping Annual Reviews’ publications to a fully open model. It is based on collective action principles, but it is a specific instantiation of those principles for journals that have an existing subscription base….

An interview with Raym Crow …”

# News & Views: Sustainable Open Access – What’s Next? – Delta Think

“Several factors appear to be converging to accelerate the move toward Open Access. To start, as many publishers made their COVID-related content freely available, participants in the scholarly publishing ecosystem began to question why this content was not open from its inception, adding perceived pressure to move to open access publishing.

Then there is the perception of Plan S. While the reach of Plan S may be debated, it is difficult to deny the impact it has had on publishers, many of whom have considered funder mandates to foreshadow the industry “direction of travel.” When Plan S refined its criteria for Transformative Agreements, for example, there was an immediate response by Springer Nature to not only commit “the majority of our non-OA journals” to a transformative path, but to also include its flagship journal, Nature.

Additionally, earlier this year the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) held several discussions with publishers about how changes in their policies could impact U.S. academic publishing. One potential element of the OSTP policy was promoting zero-day embargo Green OA as a path to compliance with a policy requiring immediate OA. While OSTP has not taken any official positions, their consultation process triggered many publishers (several of our consulting clients included) to rethink (or move to establish) their OA strategy….

These issues and others have led some publishers to explore collective action models, most notably the “Subscribe to Open” model pioneered in academic publishing by Annual Reviews. Subscribe to Open was structured to retain subscribers while flipping Annual Reviews’ publications to a fully open model. It is based on collective action principles, but it is a specific instantiation of those principles for journals that have an existing subscription base….

An interview with Raym Crow …”

# Pengene bak vitenskapelig publisering | Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening

From Google’s English:  “Most doctors relate to the pharmaceutical industry with a healthy skepticism. Scientific publications are also something all doctors and researchers have to deal with every single day, but knowledge of and skepticism of the scientific publishing industry seems to be less. The topic has become more relevant, as everyday publication has changed radically in recent decades. The Research Council of Norway has also, like 14 other countries, approved Plan S. This means that research funded by funds from the Research Council announced after 2021 must be published in open scientific journals (open access) ( 1 – 3). How does this change scientific publishing, and what will the industry itself have to change? The purpose of this article is to draw attention to existing problems with scientific publication and new problems created with open access and Plan S….

The most important thing we as users of the system can do is to be aware of the actual conditions and meet the publishing houses, journals and scientific publications we read with a healthy skepticism. With increased attention, the professional communities can put pressure on the industry and the authorities. This has already led to changes in Plan S….”

# Pengene bak vitenskapelig publisering | Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening

From Google’s English:  “Most doctors relate to the pharmaceutical industry with a healthy skepticism. Scientific publications are also something all doctors and researchers have to deal with every single day, but knowledge of and skepticism of the scientific publishing industry seems to be less. The topic has become more relevant, as everyday publication has changed radically in recent decades. The Research Council of Norway has also, like 14 other countries, approved Plan S. This means that research funded by funds from the Research Council announced after 2021 must be published in open scientific journals (open access) ( 1 – 3). How does this change scientific publishing, and what will the industry itself have to change? The purpose of this article is to draw attention to existing problems with scientific publication and new problems created with open access and Plan S….

The most important thing we as users of the system can do is to be aware of the actual conditions and meet the publishing houses, journals and scientific publications we read with a healthy skepticism. With increased attention, the professional communities can put pressure on the industry and the authorities. This has already led to changes in Plan S….”

# Open and Equitable Scholarly Communications: Creating a More Inclusive Future – ACRL Insider

“ACRL is pleased to announce the release of “Open and Equitable Scholarly Communications: Creating a More Inclusive Future,” prepared for ACRL by Nancy Maron and Rebecca Kennison with Paul Bracke, Nathan Hall, Isaac Gilman, Kara Malenfant, Charlotte Roh, and Yasmeen Shorish. Developed over the course of a year with leadership from the Research and Scholarly Environment Committee (ReSEC) and with a high degree of community involvement, this powerful new action-oriented research agenda encourages the community to make the scholarly communications system more open, inclusive, and equitable by outlining trends, encouraging practical actions, and clearly identifying the most strategic research questions to pursue.

This report is an important contribution to ACRL’s core commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion which includes valuing different ways of knowing and identifying and working to eliminate barriers to equitable services, spaces, resources, and scholarship. The full research agenda is freely available on the ACRL website and will be available for purchase in print in the ALA store….”

# Open Access Transformation in Switzerland & Germany > ./scidecode

“Christian Gutknecht published an exciting posting on the Swiss EUR 57 million Elsevier deal in which he outlines the transformative Open Access agreement between Elsevier and swissuniversities. Since Germany has been trying for years to reach such a contract with Elsevier, it is worth comparing it with the two transformative contracts with Wiley and Springer Nature in Germany, which were reached and coordinated by Project DEAL. Both German agreements were discussed here before just as other transformative Open Access agreements. For those in a hurry: At the end of the posting there is a synopsis of the costs and Open Access components of the Open Access Transformation in Switzerland & Germany. At the very beginning I would like to thank Christian Gutknecht very much for sharing and discussing information that went into this posting….”

# Small Publisher Embraces Controlled Digital Lending to Connect with New Readers  – Internet Archive Blogs

“I think in the end, [Controlled Digital Lending] drives sales because you are finding readers you wouldn’t normally have. Those readers aren’t getting a copy that they keep forever — it’s a copy that’s going to lead them to want to own it.”

# Brazilian Publication Profiles: Where and How Brazilian authors publish

Abstract:  Publishing profiles can help institutions and financing agencies understand the different needs of knowledge areas and regions for development within a country. Incites ® (Web of Science) was used to see where Brazilian authors were publishing, the impact, and the cost of this publishing. The USA was the country of choice for publishing journals, along with Brazil, England, and the Netherlands. While Brazilian authors continue to publish in hybrid journals, they are more often opting for closed access, with 89% of the papers published in Brazil being open access, compared with 21% of papers published abroad. The correlation between the cost of publishing and the number of citations was positive and significant. Publishing patterns were different depending on the area of knowledge and the Brazilian region. Stagnation or reduction in publications with international collaboration, industry collaboration, or in high impact open access journals may be the cause of a reduction in citation impact. These data can help in elaborating public and institutional policies for financing publications in Brazil, especially when looking at unfavourable changes in currency exchange rates.

# Scholar-led Open Access Publishers Are Not “Author-Chutes” · punctum books

“Both Open Book Publishers (OBP) and punctum books recently shared publicly that their per-title cost for high-quality open access monographs hovers somewhere around the $6,000 mark. This number is markedly different from the findings of the the 2016 Ithaka report “The Costs of Publishing Monographs,” which found that open access monographs published by university presses cost between$30,000 and \$50,000.

As both institutional libraries and funding bodies invested in a transition to a fully open access scholarly communications landscape are naturally seeking how best to spend their money in the public interest, it comes as no surprise that the disclosure of our numbers, and accompanying financial transparency, has elicited diverse responses from the scholarly publishing world….

Rather, we invite university publishers to transparently disclose their financial records, so that we can level the playing field and have a discussion on what is really important: how we can help the entire scholarly communications landscape to transition to a sustainably open and cost-efficient access model, with the freedom to read, write, edit, and publish, and where public knowledge is truly accessible to the public.”