The Impact of Open Access Status on Journal Indexes of Radiology Journals : American Journal of Roentgenology : Ahead of Print (AJR)

ABSTRACT :

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.

Breaking down the walls of scientific secrecy | CBC News

Getting scooped by a competing researcher is one of a scientist’s biggest fears. And some of the most important discoveries in medical history have been tainted by competitive controversy.

Back in 1952, before he co-discovered the structure of DNA, James Watson got access to Rosalind Franklin’s revolutionary X-ray image of DNA without her knowledge.

That image, known as Photo 51, was a major clue that helped Watson and Francis Crick complete their Nobel Prize-winning discovery. The lack of credit given to Franklin remains a stain on the story of their breakthrough.

But what if Franklin had been informally publishing her research notes all along?

“She would have gotten credit instantly for her contribution,” said Susan Lamb, a historian of medicine who holds the Hannah Chair in the History of Medicine at the University of Ottawa….”

‘Broken access’ publishing corrodes quality

I’m passionately in favour of everyone having open access to the results of the scientific research that their taxes pay for. But I think there are deep problems with one of the current modes for delivering it. The author-pays model (which I call broken access) means journals increase their profits when they accept more papers and reject fewer. That makes it all too tempting to subordinate stringent acceptance criteria to the balance sheet. This conflict of interest has allowed the proliferation of predatory journals, which charge authors to publish papers but do not provide the expected services and offer no quality control.

The problem is not addressed, in my view, by the Plan S updates announced in May …

But I know of a fix, and I have seen it in operation. I propose a model in which journals compete not for libraries’ or authors’ money, but for funds allocated by public-research agencies. The major agencies should call for proposals, similar to research-grant applications. Any publisher could apply with its strategic plans and multi-year budgets; applications would be reviewed by panels of scientists and specialists in scientific publishing.

The number of papers published would then become one of a journal’s qualities that could be assessed rather than the clearest route to economic viability. Other assessable factors could include turnaround times, quality of searchable databases, durability of archiving, procedures to deal with fraud and retractions, innovations in cooperative peer review, and the option of post-publication review. Although the updated Plan S calls for many such factors to be reported openly, it does not provide any clear mechanism to reward their implementation.

I call my proposed approach Public Service Open Access (PSOA). It uncouples the publisher’s revenues from the number of papers published, removing incentives to publish low-quality or bogus science. Crucially, scientists would decide how to allocate resources to journals….

The journal that I have directed for the past four years, Swiss Medical Weekly, has functioned in this way since 2001. Readers don’t pay for access, authors don’t pay for publication and reviewers are paid 50 Swiss francs (US$50) for each report. The journal’s costs (roughly 1,900? Swiss francs for each published paper, although automated systems might lower costs in the future) are covered by a consortium of Swiss university and cantonal hospitals, the Swiss Medical Association, the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences and charities — which have evaluated our model and prioritized it over those of other publishers….

In the past, journals were only economically viable if their value was deemed worth their subscription fees, thereby collimating the publisher’s and the readers’ interest. A mechanism must be restored to align the financial interests of publishers with the research enterprise’s need for high-quality (rather than high-quantity) publications.”

Appeal from the victims of Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) | NWU

As working writers, translators, photographers, and graphic artists; as unions, organizations, and federations representing the creators of works included in published books; as book publishers; and as reproduction rights and public lending rights organizations; we oppose so-called “Controlled Digital Lending” (CDL) as a flagrant violation of copyright and authors’ rights.

The copyright infringement inherent in CDL is not a victimless crime. As the victims of CDL, we want librarians, archivists, and readers to understand how they are harming the authors of the books they love by participating in CDL projects, even if they have the best of intentions.

The attached FAQ was written to explain to authors, publishers, readers, librarians, and archivists what CDL is, how it differs from traditional and legitimate new forms of library lending, how it violates the economic and moral rights of authors, and how it makes it even harder for authors to try to make a living from writing or to afford to devote time to writing.

When writers can’t make a living, they can’t afford to keep writing, and readers lose too….”

Research England awards £2.2m to project to improve and increase open access publishing – Research England

A new Research England funded project is set to help universities, researchers, libraries and publishers to make more, and better, use of open access book publishing. It will enable greater access to world-leading research and increase its impact.

Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM) is a partnership led by Coventry University and also consisting of:

  • Birkbeck, University of London, Lancaster University and Trinity College, Cambridge
     
  • The ScholarLed consortium of established open access presses (Open Book Publishers, punctum books, Open Humanities Press, Mattering Press, and meson press)
     
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) Library and Loughborough University Library
     
  • Infrastructure providers the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) and Jisc, and international membership organisation The Digital Preservation Coalition (DPC)….”

Knowledge Futures Group: An interview with Amy Brand, Director of the MIT Press – The Scholarly Kitchen

The MIT Knowledge Futures Group is a new joint venture of the MIT Press and the MIT Media Lab. Its ultimate goal is to help build a more sustainable scholarly publishing ecosystem. As we grow — adding resources, new staff and now new advisors — we’re looking to accelerate the path from research breakthrough to application and societal benefit, developing tools that enrich and fortify our knowledge infrastructure. At the same time, we’re trying to galvanize a real movement towards greater institutional and public investment in that infrastructure, by serving as a model for it and partnering actively with aligned initiatives. It’s worth pointing out that MIT has a strong track record in homegrown knowledge infrastructure. It is, after all, the birthplace of Dspace and Open Courseware….”

Launching Transpose, a database of journal policies on preprinting & peer review – ASAPbio

“Today, we’re excited to announce the launch of Transpose (@TransposeSCI), a database of journal peer review, co-reviewing, and preprint policies relating to media coverage, licensing, versions, and citation.

These policies can often be difficult to find, unclear, or undefined. Our hope is to bring them to light so that authors, readers, reviewers, and other stakeholders can more easily find journals that align with their values. At the same time, editors can use this resource to draw inspiration from changing practices at other journals. (Read more user stories here.)

In addition to searching for individual journals, users can select up to three journals to compare side-by-side. For instance, when planning when to preprint, researchers may wish to look up the preprint policies for up to three journals they’re likely to submit to and check which are supportive of preprints and any conditions attached to this….”

Lifting the lid on preprints: part one

So as an academic author, what is important to know about preprints? We [Elsevier] have asked two experts to shed some light on the topic: Gregory J. Gordon, President and CEO of the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), which joined Elsevier in 2016, and Courtney K. Soderberg, statistician at the Center for Open Science (COS) in Charlottesville, Virginia….”

Plan S: what’s the point of policy consultations? (part 2) – Samuel Moore

“Earlier this year I wrote a post about the Plan S open access policy consultation process. I explored what I feel is the purpose of policy consultations, arguing that they are not radical or deliberative democratic exercises but are instead intended to confer a sense of legitimacy to top-down policy mandates…

Today the revised guidance for Plan S has been released in accordance with consultation feedback, including a helpful explainer on the rationale for each change. I thought it would be worth offering a quick assessment of the revised policy in accordance with my previous post….”

The politics of open access in action – Samuel Moore

“Open access is a movement constituted by conflict and disagreement rather than consensus and harmony. Given just how much disagreement there is about strategies, definitions, goals, etc., it is incredible that open access has successfully transformed the publishing landscape (and looks set to continue to do so). As OA increases in popularity and inevitability, more conflict arises between those from a range of disciplines and positions, and especially those encountering OA for the first time (often through coercive mandates)….”