“Non-profit life-sciences publisher PLOS is gunning for a bigger share of science beyond the biomedical realm with the launch of five journals in fields where open science is less widely adopted. They will be its first new titles in 14 years. It is also piloting a new open-access business model, in a bid to spread the cost of publishing more equally among researchers….
The new business model is the first shake-up at the publisher for a while, and has been eagerly anticipated….
The publisher’s financial history is chequered. It first broke even in 2010. In recent years it has fallen into deficit, with 2019 the first year that it made an operating surplus since 2015….
The idea behind the new model is that the cost of publishing a paper is spread more equally across all of the authors’ institutions, rather than the corresponding author’s institution or funder footing the bill, as is standard with an article processing charge. PLOS says that as more members join the scheme, it will become cheaper for researchers to publish papers. So far, more than 75 institutions in 8 countries have signed up….
PLOS’s chief publishing officer, Niamh O’Connor, says that PLOS hopes to circumvent the idea that open access moves the cost of publishing a paper from the reader to the author. “While the article-processing model has allowed open access to develop, we don’t see that as the future,” she says. “We are working to a future where those barriers are removed.” …”
“In an exciting new chapter for its scientific publishing, the Royal Society sets out how it will transition its primary research journals to open access and make more of its world-leading research available to all.
Following a review by its Council, the Royal Society has committed to ‘flipping’ the journals Biology Letters, Interface, Proceedings A, and Proceedings B to a fully open access model when 75% of articles are being published open access.
This transition will be driven chiefly by the expansion of Read & Publish agreements with major research institutions, enabling their scientific research output to be published open access in the Society’s journals.
The process is already well underway, the Society launched Royal Society Read & Publish in January 2021 and has pioneered new agreements – including a shared funding arrangement announced this year with the University of California….”
“Five years on, the Open Science-driven journal Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO) published an editorial that looks back on the 300 research ideas and research outcomes it has published so far.
Since its early days, RIO has enjoyed quite positive reactions from the open-minded academic community for its innovative approach to Open Science in practice: it provides a niche that had long been missing, namely the publication of early, intermediate and generally unconventional research outcomes from all around the research cycle (e.g. grant proposals, data management plans, project deliverables, reports, policy briefs, conference materials) in a cross-disciplinary scientific journal. In fact, several months after its launch, in 2016, the journal was acknowledged with the SPARC Innovator Award….”
“The majority (44/50) of sampled funders indicated funding health research. 38 (of 44, 86%) had publicly available information about disseminating funded research, typically called “policies” (29, 76%). Of these 38, 36 (95%) mentioned journal publication for dissemination of which 13 (36.11%) offer variable guidance on selecting a journal, all of which relate to the funder’s open access mandate. Six funders (17%) outlined publisher requirements or features by which to select a journal. One funder linked to a document providing features of journals to look for (e.g. listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals) and to be wary of (e.g., no journal scope statement, uses direct and unsolicited marketing).”
“The landscape of scientific publishing has been shifting for a while but the remote research situations forced by COVID-19 brought many inadequacies of the current system into the limelight. Data management challenges, open access availability, wariness of predatory publishers, and an overwhelming abundance of information avenues make publishing research more difficult than ever before. Join your colleagues across five geographically separate institutions to role play case studies in small group discussions to examine our choices as content creators and the value we assign to journals according to their various attributes and our own career situations….”
“In this essay, I’m going to make the case that open access agreements that rely upon a pay-to-publish model are good for the groups who sign them but bad for the overall system. To do that, I’ll start with a quick refresher on public goods and then use that framework to discuss the state of open access and the variations in different colors as they relate to public goods.undefined After laying out a model of open access as a public good, I’ll argue that what we are actually building is not a system rooted in public goods but one that has merely shifted the entry barriers from readers to authors. I’ll conclude by offering some hope for the future, again rooted in the social science of public goods….”
Abstract: The Corona pandemic as never before shows the advantages of Open Science and Open Access (OA), understood as the unrestricted access to research data, software and publications over the internet. It might accelerate the long-predicted “access revolution” in the academic publishing system towards a system in which scientific publications are freely available for readers over the internet. This paradigm shift, for which the “flipping” of this journal is but one of many examples, is underway, with major research funding organisations at the national and international levels massively supporting it. The call for OA has now also been taken up by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which in its recent General Comment (GC) No. 25 explicitly asks states to promote OA. Following the line of argument of the OA movement, the Committee finds that OA is beneficial to democracy, scientific progress and furthermore a tool to bridge the “knowledge gap”. The aim of this paper is to critically examine the GC and its implications for the global science system in the digital age. It argues that the great merit of the GC lies in highlighting that “benefitting” from science includes access to science as such and not only to its material outcomes. This underscores the independent meaning of the right to science which so far was primarily seen as an enabler for other social rights. However, when it comes to OA, the GC has problematic flaws. It simply assumes that OA is beneficial to the right to science, overlooking that the OA model which is likely to become the global standard risks to benefit the already privileged, namely researchers and publishers of wealthy institutions in the Global North, further sidelining those at the margins. Rather than narrowing existing gaps, it risks to further deepen them. In order to remain meaningful in the face of the fundamental criticism it faces, human rights law needs to address systemic issues and inequalities in the science system and beyond.
“We have examined retracted publications in different subject fields and attempted to analyse whether online free accessibility (Open Access) influences retraction by examining the scholarly literature published from 2000 through 2019, an incidence of the recent 20 years of publications. InCites, a research analytics tool developed by Clarivate Analytics®, in consultation with Web of Science, PubMed Central, and Retraction Watch databases were used to harvest data for the study. Retracted ‘Article’ and ‘Review’ publications were examined concerning their online accessibility mode (Toll Access and Open Access), based on non-parametric tests like Odds Ratio, Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, Mann–Whitney U Test, Mann–Kendall and Sen’s methods. The Odds for OA articles to have retraction are about 1.62 as large (62% higher) compared with TA articles (95% CI 1.5, 1.7). 0.028% of OA publications are retracted compared with 0.017% TA publications. Retractions have occurred in all subject areas. In eight subject areas, the Odds for retraction of OA articles are larger compared with retraction of TA articles. In three subject areas, the Odds for retraction of OA articles are lesser compared with the retraction of TA articles. In the remaining 11 subject areas, no significant difference is observed. Post-retraction, though a decline is observed in the citation count of OA & TA publications (p?<?.01), yet the Odds for OA articles to get cited after retraction are about 1.21 as large (21% higher) compared with TA articles (95% CI 1.53, 1.72). TA publications are retracted earlier compared to OA publications (p?<?.01). We observed an increasing trend of retracted works published in both modes. However, the rate of retraction of OA publications is double than the rate of retraction of TA publications.
“Are you involved in developing or executing OA publishing strategy? Do you have responsibility for implementing an OA programme? Do you need to inform your strategic planning of OA with a practical perspective?
This course will equip participants with the tools and insights to inform their OA strategic thinking and decision making. It will take people through the complexities and challenges of OA, highlighting the ways in which OA publishing is deeply different to subscription publishing (and some ways that it is the same!).
The course, aimed at senior managers, is an intensive half-day looking at the strategic aspects of overseeing and developing OA journals. There will be group discussion, case studies and scenarios to prepare delegates for meeting the challenges of planning and running OA journals. We will explore the issues encountered in setting strategy, budgets and pricing; the policy and competitive landscape; and sales and marketing….”
“What I usually meant by defaulting to open was that you should look for an open option first. My co-authors and I did that and we ran out of [gold] options quickly. It reminded me that in some fields and in regard to some topics, defaulting to [gold] open might be a list of one or two journals, or it might still be a list of none — not to mention all the hurdles inherent with trying to get an article published in a single particular journal. My experience with this one article reminded me that I need to listen more carefully to the experiences of my colleagues and the pressures of their fields. It can indeed be that options for open publishing remain limited in particular fields or for those with no access to institutional or philanthropic funding….”