scholarly journals The pricing of open access journals: Diverse niches and sources of value in academic publishing

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle Siler ◽  
Koen Frenken
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Numerous Publication ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Contemporary Science ◽  
Geographic Regions ◽  
Journal Impact

Open access (OA) publishing has created new academic and economic niches in contemporary science. OA journals offer numerous publication outlets with varying editorial philosophies and business models. This article analyzes the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) ( n = 12,127) to identify characteristics of OA academic journals related to the adoption of article processing charge (APC)-based business models, as well as the price points of journals that charge APCs. Journal impact factor (JIF), language, publisher mission, DOAJ Seal, economic and geographic regions of publishers, peer review duration, and journal discipline are all significantly related to the adoption and pricing of journal APCs. Even after accounting for other journal characteristics (prestige, discipline, publisher country), journals published by for-profit publishers charge the highest APCs. Journals with status endowments (JIF, DOAJ Seal) and articles written in English, published in wealthier regions, and in medical or science-based disciplines are also relatively costlier. The OA publishing market reveals insights into forces that create economic and academic value in contemporary science. Political and institutional inequalities manifest in the varying niches occupied by different OA journals and publishers.

scholarly journals “Worth(less) papers” – are journal impact factor and number of citations suitable indicators to evaluate quality of scientists?

2018 ◽  
Vol XVI (2) ◽  
pp. 369-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Racz ◽  
Suzana Marković
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Digital Repository ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
On Line ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact

Technology driven changings with consecutive increase in the on-line availability and accessibility of journals and papers rapidly changes patterns of academic communication and publishing. The dissemination of important research findings through the academic and scientific community begins with publication in peer-reviewed journals. Aim of this article is to identify, critically evaluate and integrate the findings of relevant, high-quality individual studies addressing the trends of enhancement of visibility and accessibility of academic publishing in digital era. The number of citations a paper receives is often used as a measure of its impact and by extension, of its quality. Many aberrations of the citation practices have been reported in the attempt to increase impact of someone’s paper through manipulation with self-citation, inter-citation and citation cartels. Authors revenues to legally extend visibility, awareness and accessibility of their research outputs with uprising in citation and amplifying measurable personal scientist impact has strongly been enhanced by on line communication tools like networking (LinkedIn, Research Gate, Academia.edu, Google Scholar), sharing (Facebook, Blogs, Twitter, Google Plus) media sharing (Slide Share), data sharing (Dryad Digital Repository, Mendeley database, PubMed, PubChem), code sharing, impact tracking. Publishing in Open Access journals. Many studies and review articles in last decade have examined whether open access articles receive more citations than equivalent subscription toll access) articles and most of them lead to conclusion that there might be high probability that open access articles have the open access citation advantage over generally equivalent payfor-access articles in many, if not most disciplines. But it is still questionable are those never cited papers indeed “Worth(less) papers” and should journal impact factor and number of citations be considered as only suitable indicators to evaluate quality of scientists? “Publish or perish” phrase usually used to describe the pressure in academia to rapidly and continually publish academic work to sustain or further one’s career can now in 21. Century be reformulate into “Publish, be cited and maybe will not Perish”.

scholarly journals The ClarivateTM Analytics acquisition of Publons – an evolution or commodification of peer review?

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva ◽  
Aceil Al-Khatib
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
A Site ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact

Without peer reviewers, the entire scholarly publishing system as we currently know it would collapse. However, as it currently stands, publishing is an extremely exploitative system, relative to other business models, in which trained and specialized labor is exploited, in the form of editors and peer reviewers, primarily by for-profit publishers, in return for a pat on the back, and a public nod of thanks. This is the “standardized” and “accepted” form for deriving mainstream peer reviewed literature. However, except for open peer review, where reports are open and identities are known, traditional peer review is closed, and the content of peer reports is known only to the authors and editors involved. Publons launched in 2012 as a platform that would offer recognition to peer reviewers for their work. In 2016, Publons rewarded the most productive reviewers with a “Sentinels of Science” award, accompanied by a dismal monetary reward (38 US cents/review) for their efforts. A site aimed at registering pre- and post-publication peer efforts, Publons was perceived as a positive step towards a more transparent peer review system. However, the continued presence of fake peer reviews and a spike in retractions, even among publishers that were Publons sponsors, suggests that perhaps peers may be exploiting Publons to get recognition for superficial or poor peer review. Since all reviews are not public, their content and quality cannot be verified. On 1 June 2017, ClarivateTM Analytics, which owns the journal impact factor—most likely the most gamed non-academic factor in academic publishing—which is a measure of the number of citations of papers in journals, many of which are published by the for-profit publishers—including Publons sponsors—that “employ” free peer reviewers to quality check the literature they then sell for profit, purchased Publons. Touting the purchase as a way to increase transparency, and stamp out fake peer review, some who had supported Publons felt betrayed, even cancelling their Publons accounts immediately when learning of this purchase. Their concerns included the possible “gaming” of peer review as had taken place with the journal impact factor. This commentary examines possible positive and negative aspects of this business transaction, and what it might mean to academics and publishers.

scholarly journals Open Access dynamics and prospects

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grzegorz Grynkiewicz ◽  
Katarzyna Filip
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Publicly Funded ◽  
New Era ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Green Route

The www has started a new era in dissemination of scientific information, which is already to such extent propagated by electronic media that it has become practically independent from the system of subscription driven printed journals. These developments of marked increase in availability of scientific information, commonly described as Open Access, have profound consequences for functioning of all segments of scientific community and also strategically influence education systems. Generally, there are growing expectations for freely available results of publicly funded research. Open Access (OA), which is developing for ca 25 years, has generated a number of large publishers (i.e. BioMedCentral) and over 5 000 of scholarly peer reviewed journals, which can be checked in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ; https://doaj.org/). Leaving aside new types of business models which evolved in connection with widespread of electronic publishing, we will analyze the OA phenomenon from the point of view of an active life science researcher, as a reader and an author. Thus, the OA “for profit” publishing modalities, distinguished as “green route” and “gold route” will be presented as well as some extracts from ongoing debate on the economics of particular variants. Finally, the question of choice between publishing options for prospective results in getting cited, will be touched upon.

scholarly journals Open Access dynamics and prospects

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grzegorz Grynkiewicz ◽  
Katarzyna Filip
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Publicly Funded ◽  
New Era ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Green Route

The www has started a new era in dissemination of scientific information, which is already to such extent propagated by electronic media that it has become practically independent from the system of subscription driven printed journals. These developments of marked increase in availability of scientific information, commonly described as Open Access, have profound consequences for functioning of all segments of scientific community and also strategically influence education systems. Generally, there are growing expectations for freely available results of publicly funded research. Open Access (OA), which is developing for ca 25 years, has generated a number of large publishers (i.e. BioMedCentral) and over 5 000 of scholarly peer reviewed journals, which can be checked in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ; https://doaj.org/). Leaving aside new types of business models which evolved in connection with widespread of electronic publishing, we will analyze the OA phenomenon from the point of view of an active life science researcher, as a reader and an author. Thus, the OA “for profit” publishing modalities, distinguished as “green route” and “gold route” will be presented as well as some extracts from ongoing debate on the economics of particular variants. Finally, the question of choice between publishing options for prospective results in getting cited, will be touched upon.

What are the variables associated with Altmetric scores? – An overview of methodological reviews (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Costa Araujo Sr ◽  
Adriane Aver Vanin Sr ◽  
Dafne Port Nascimento Sr ◽  
Gabrielle Zoldan Gonzalez Sr ◽  
Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa Sr
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Publishing Journal

BACKGROUND The most common way to assess the impact of an article is based upon the number of citations. However, the number of citations do not precisely reflect if the message of the paper is reaching a wider audience. Currently, social media has been used to disseminate contents of scientific articles. In order to measure this type of impact a new tool named Altmetric was created. Altmetric aims to quantify the impact of each article through the media online. OBJECTIVE This overview of methodological reviews aims to describe the associations between the publishing journal and the publishing articles variables with Altmetric scores. METHODS Search strategies on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Cochrane Library including publications since the inception until July 2018 were conducted. We extracted data related to the publishing trial and the publishing journal associated with Altmetric scores. RESULTS A total of 11 studies were considered eligible. These studies summarized a total of 565,352 articles. The variables citation counts, journal impact factor, access counts (i.e. considered as the sum of HTML views and PDF downloads), papers published as open access and press release generated by the publishing journal were associated with Altmetric scores. The magnitudes of these correlations ranged from weak to moderate. CONCLUSIONS Citation counts and journal impact factor are the most common associators of high Altmetric scores. Other variables such as access counts, papers published in open access journals and the use of press releases are also likely to influence online media attention. CLINICALTRIAL N/A

scholarly journals Open Access Publishing Trends in the Forest Sciences

Forests ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 238
Author(s):  
Kevin O’Hara
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
The Public ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Professional Societies ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Access Model

Open access models for academic publishing offer an alternative to traditional subscription-based journals. In the open access model, the author generally retains the copyright and the published articles are available free on the internet. Publication costs are either borne by the author as article processing charges, or are free for some journals published by societies or institutions. Traditional subscription-based journals are funded by subscription costs to libraries and individuals, the publisher retains the copyright, and these journals are generally not freely available to the public. This traditional model has created two problems: (1) many for-profit publishers control access in a form of oligopoly and impose high costs to subscribers; and (2) it limits access of scientific information to the public which disproportionately affects poorly funded research institutions and developing countries. Other subscription-based journals are published by scientific and professional societies but are not “for-profit”. In the forest sciences, several open access journals emerged in the last 10–15 years. These open access journals are published by for-profit publishing companies, research institutions, and professional societies. Some of these journals have been successful at attracting manuscript submissions, becoming indexed by various indexation services, and have seen metrics representing their importance increase over time. This paper documents these trends and assesses the viability of the open access model in the forest sciences and compares them to other types of journals.

scholarly journals What Are the Variables Associated With Altmetric Scores? – An Overview of Methodological Reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Costa Araujo ◽  
Adriane Aver Vanin ◽  
Dafne Port Nascimento ◽  
Gabrielle Zoldan Gonzalez ◽  
Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
The Media ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Publishing Journal

Abstract Background: Currently, social media has been used to disseminate contents of scientific articles. In order to measure this type of impact a new tool named Altmetric was created. Altmetric aims to quantify the impact of each article through the media online. This overview of methodological reviews aims to describe the associations between the publishing journal and the publishing articles variables with Altmetric scores. Methods: Search strategies on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Cochrane Library. We extracted data related to the publishing trial and the publishing journal associated with Altmetric scores. Results: A total of 11 studies were considered eligible. These studies summarized a total of 565,352 articles. The variables citation counts, journal impact factor, access counts, papers published as open access and press release generated by the publishing journal were associated with Altmetric scores. The magnitudes of these correlations ranged from weak to moderate. Conclusion: Citation counts and journal impact factor are the most common associators of high Altmetric scores. Other variables such as access counts, papers published in open access journals and the use of press releases are also likely to influence online media attention.Systematic Review registrations: Not applicable

scholarly journals How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited

Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo-Christer Björk ◽  
Sari Kanto-Karvonen ◽  
J. Tuomas Harviainen
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Citation Statistics

Predatory journals are Open Access journals of highly questionable scientific quality. Such journals pretend to use peer review for quality assurance, and spam academics with requests for submissions, in order to collect author payments. In recent years predatory journals have received a lot of negative media. While much has been said about the harm that such journals cause to academic publishing in general, an overlooked aspect is how much articles in such journals are actually read and in particular cited, that is if they have any significant impact on the research in their fields. Other studies have already demonstrated that only some of the articles in predatory journals contain faulty and directly harmful results, while a lot of the articles present mediocre and poorly reported studies. We studied citation statistics over a five-year period in Google Scholar for 250 random articles published in such journals in 2014 and found an average of 2.6 citations per article, and that 56% of the articles had no citations at all. For comparison, a random sample of articles published in the approximately 25,000 peer reviewed journals included in the Scopus index had an average of 18, 1 citations in the same period with only 9% receiving no citations. We conclude that articles published in predatory journals have little scientific impact.

scholarly journals Library Supported Open Access Funds: Criteria, Impact, and Viability

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 21-37
Author(s):  
Amanda B. Click ◽  
Rachel Borchardt
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Financial Stability ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
High Impact ◽  
H Index ◽  
Publication Data ◽  
Scholarly Publications ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Article Impact

Abstract Objective – This study analyzes scholarly publications supported by library open access funds, including author demographics, journal trends, and article impact. It also identifies and summarizes open access fund criteria and viability. The goal is to better understand the sustainability of open access funds, as well as identify potential best practices for institutions with open access funds. Methods – Publication data was solicited from universities with open access (OA) funds, and supplemented with publication and author metrics, including Journal Impact Factor, Altmetric Attention Score, and author h-index. Additionally, data was collected from OA fund websites, including fund criteria and guidelines. Results – Library OA funds tend to support faculty in science and medical fields. Impact varied widely, especially between disciplines, but a limited measurement indicated an overall smaller relative impact of publications funded by library OA funds. Many open access funds operate using similar criteria related to author and publication eligibility, which seem to be largely successful at avoiding the funding of articles published in predatory journals. Conclusions – Libraries have successfully funded many publications using criteria that could constitute best practices in this area. However, institutions with OA funds may need to identify opportunities to increase support for high-impact publications, as well as consider the financial stability of these funds. Alternative models for OA support are discussed in the context of an ever-changing open access landscape.

Knowledge Unlatched: An Argument for Academic Scholarship in Law to be Open and How it Might be Achieved

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 185-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances Pinter ◽  
Nicholas Bown
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Efficient Market ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Not For Profit ◽  
Academic Scholarship ◽  
Library Consortium ◽  
Open Content ◽  
Access Model

AbstractThe market in academic monographs is problematic, and sales have been in decline for decades. Concurrently, Open Access models of publishing are being developed and open content licenses designating a ‘some rights reserved’ status for content have been employed to provide a legal framework to reflect the changing ways content is used online. In the context of these innovations, Frances Pinter and Nicholas Bown describe Knowledge Unlatched, a not-for-profit library consortium project which seeks to combine a financially viable Open Access model with the use of open content licences to create a more efficient market in scholarly books to the benefit of all stakeholders in the academic publishing ecosystem.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document