Abstract: The literature about academic libraries takes a strong interest in the future, yet little of it reflects on academic libraries’ underlying stance toward the years ahead: is there a sense of change or continuity? Is there optimism or pessimism? Consensus or divergence? This article explores these questions using data from interviews with a broad range of practitioners, commentators, and experts. Some see libraries as fundamentally unchanging, while others perceive innovation as a given. There is little consensus about upcoming trends. Some interviewees doubt libraries’ ability to deal with change, but others feel considerable optimism.
“But probably the most urgent question for many people who read and publish in journals is where do these journals, especially journals that operate under the subscription model, fit into this future? Crucially, any ideal future system will need to encompass a diverse range of possible solutions, technically and financially. Journals of all types will have their place, as will pre?print servers, data repositories, registries of trials and other studies, and repository systems maintained by libraries and other organisations. Essentially, the entire set of current components can be fitted into a remodelled system, provided they are able to support specific principles — maybe the FAIR principles, but perhaps other community?agreed principles will arise. The onus at this time is for publishers to look carefully at each of their journals and to develop plans that will support open scholarship now and into the future. However, at the same time as journals and publishers respond to the changing world, there needs to be a concerted program of education and support for everyone involved in publishing, especially readers and authors, on the wholesale changes now occurring….”
Abstract: Scholarly communication in science, technology and medicine has been organized around journal-based scientific publishing for the past 350?years. Scientific publishing has unique business models and includes stakeholders with conflicting interests – publishers, funders, libraries, and scholars who create, curate, and consume the literature. Massive growth and change in scholarly communication, coinciding with digitalization, have amplified stresses inherent in traditional scientific publishing as evidenced by overwhelmed editors and reviewers, increased retraction rates, emergence of pseudo-journals, strained library budgets, and debates about the metrics of academic recognition for scholarly achievements. Simultaneously, several open access models are gaining traction and online technologies offer opportunities to augment traditional tasks of scientific publishing, develop integrated discovery services, and establish global and equitable scholarly communication through crowdsourcing, software development, big data management and machine learning. These rapidly evolving developments raise financial, legal and ethical dilemmas that require solutions while successful strategies are difficult to predict. Key challenges and trends are reviewed from the authors’ perspective about how to engage the scholarly community in this multifaceted process.
“Ivonne Lujano, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) Ambassador in Latin America, will discuss the history of open access in Latin America, best practice publishing and standards, and how DOAJ helps to improve scholarly research journals globally.
Solange Santos, Publishing Coordinator for Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), will address why Latin America is advanced in the use of the open access publishing model as a strategy to increase the visibility of the scientific output in the region. SciELO promoted and developed a network of 16 national collections of open access journals, focusing on each country’s conditions and priorities. She will also explain SciELO’s advocacy for a global and inclusive scholarly communication. …”
OBJECTIVE. The impact of open access (OA) journals is still understudied in the field of radiology. In this study, we compared the measures of impact (e.g., CiteScore, citation count, SCImago Journal Rank) between OA and subscription radiology journals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. We collected data on journals included in the Scopus Source List on November 1, 2018. We filtered the list for radiology journals for the years from 2011 to 2017. OA journals covered by Scopus (Elsevier) are indicated as OA if the journal is listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources, or both. We also compared citation metrics between OA and subscription radiology journals.
RESULTS. The 2017 Scopus report included 265 radiology journals. The percentage of OA journals increased from 14.7% in 2011 to 21.9% in 2017 (49% increase). The median scholarly output and the citation count were both significantly lower in OA radiology journals compared with subscription journals (p < 0.001 and p = 0.016, respectively). The proportion of documents that received at least one citation was higher in OA (50.2%) compared with subscription journals (44.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION. This study found that the trend toward OA publishing in the fields of radiology and nuclear medicine has slowed in recent years, although the percent cited (i.e., the proportion of documents that receive at least one citation) is higher for OA journals. We believe the radiology field should be more supportive of OA publishing.
“At Figshare we are always developing new features and initiatives to meet the needs of the repository and data community. We work with institutions, publishers, funders, government agencies, and researchers which gives us a unique insight into how the space is rapidly evolving.
In this webinar we would like to share some of these insights with you including how we develop the platform to meet these changing needs and some of our exciting plans for the future. Some topics will include: – FAIR data – US OPEN data mandates – Figshare as an ‘all in one’ repository – Figshare, whitelabelled on your own custom domain – The Figshare ambassador program – Researcher case studies…”
“The Second EUA Big Deals Survey Report is an updated mapping of major scholarly publishing contracts in Europe.
Conducted in 2017-2018, the report gathers data from 31 consortia covering an unprecedented 167 contracts with five major publishers: Elsevier, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, Wiley and American Chemical Society. Readers will discover that the total costs reported by the participating consortia exceed one billion euros for periodicals, databases, e-books and other resources – mainly to the benefit of large, commercial scholarly publishers.
The report provides an overview of Big Deal negotiations across Europe, focusing on topics such as the organisation of negotiations, provisions on Open Access and transparency of contracts and costs. It also offers information on the consortia and focuses specifically on periodical Big Deal contracts with the five large publishers selected for this survey. Finally, the report addresses the costs of Big Deal contracts, offering conclusions and policy recommendations on the negotiation of contracts….”
“Now an analysis shows that researchers in the UK are indeed posting their papers online earlier, as are their colleagues all over the world. The time researchers are taking to post papers online shrunk by an average of 472 days per country between 2013 and 2017, finds a study published on 17 April and to be presented at the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries in June. Though the authors can’t definitively say what’s behind the trend, they suggest that the Research England policy and other funding eligibility requirements recently announced worldwide are pushing academics to rapidly make their work freely available….”
Abstract: The aim of this study is to compare the changes in impact factors and citation numbers of Open Access (OA) vs subscription-based (SB) journals between 1999 and 2016 and to explore the changing trends in ORL publishing. All data extracted from SCImago Journal and Country ranking (SJR) website have been used as input for statistical analysis. The chi-square test of independency was applied in order to understand whether the ratio of number of OA journals of ORL category have dramatically changed between years 1999 and 2016. Also, the years and impact factors of journals belonging to the OA and SB journals have been graphed separately and the changes of annual SJR ranks of both journal types have been compared using one-way Z-test. There was a statistical difference as the proportion of OA Journals were not equal to the proportion of SB Journals throughout the years 1999 and 2016, and it showed the tendency to increase greater compared to SB Journals (p < 0.01). Although the overall level of impact factors of SB journals was generally high, by comparing two regression models, it was obvious that the level of increase of the impact factors of OA journals were significantly higher (p < 0.01). When choosing where to publish, it is important to consider the journal’s visibility, cost of publication, IF or SJR of the journal and speed of publication as well as changing trends in medical publishing nourished by the Web of Science.
“Over the last few years changes in numbers of journals have been less pronounced. Our samples suggest that for the major publishers, on average:
The number of hybrid journals has continued to increase, typically by a low single-digit percent.
Amongst the largest publishers, the number of fully OA journals has decreased (again by a low single-digit percent), while mid-sized publishers increased their numbers of fully OA journals.
This appears to be due to changes in line up of publishers’ portfolios (e.g., transfers) rather than fully OA “flipping” to hybrid.
Prices Show No Dramatic Changes
Maximum APCs this year have fallen slightly to $5,200 from $5,300 for non-discounted, CC BY charges. With one exception last year, this maximum has not changed over the last four years, so the top end of the market appears to be holding steady.
Business model is no predictor the highest prices, with both hybrid and fully OA journals asking the highest prices in different market segments.
At the lower end of the market, fully OA journal APCs are less expensive than hybrid, and falling. In this segment, hybrid journal APCs have increased.
Overall average hybrid APCs are largely holding steady and saw only the smallest of increases (less than 1%) over the last few years.
Contrast this with fully OA average APCs, which have been rising slowly but surely: up around 10% over the last four years and up by around 4% in the last year or so….”