scholarly journals Preserving the Open Access Benefits Pioneered by the Journal of Medical Internet Research and Discouraging Fraudulent Journals (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy C Wyatt

UNSTRUCTURED The <italic>Journal of Medical Internet Research</italic> (JMIR) was an early pioneer of open access online publishing, and two decades later, some readers and authors may have forgotten the challenges of previous scientific publishing models. This commentary summarizes the many advantages of open access publishing for each of the main stakeholders in scientific publishing and reminds us that, like every innovation, there are disadvantages that we need to guard against, such as the problem of fraudulent journals. This paper then reviews the potential impact of some current initiatives, such as Plan S and JMIRx, concluding with some suggestions to help new open-access publishers ensure that the advantages of open access publishing outweigh the challenges.

10.2196/16532 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (12) ◽  
pp. e16532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy C Wyatt

The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) was an early pioneer of open access online publishing, and two decades later, some readers and authors may have forgotten the challenges of previous scientific publishing models. This commentary summarizes the many advantages of open access publishing for each of the main stakeholders in scientific publishing and reminds us that, like every innovation, there are disadvantages that we need to guard against, such as the problem of fraudulent journals. This paper then reviews the potential impact of some current initiatives, such as Plan S and JMIRx, concluding with some suggestions to help new open-access publishers ensure that the advantages of open access publishing outweigh the challenges.


Author(s):  
David Nicholas ◽  
Hamid R. Jamali ◽  
Eti Herman ◽  
Jie Xu ◽  
Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri ◽  
...  

This study explores early career researchers’ (ECRs) appreciation and utilisation of open access (OA) publishing. The evidence reported here results from a questionnaire-based international survey with 1600 participants, which forms the second leg and final year of a four year long, mixed methods, longitudinal study that sought to discover whether ECRs will be the harbingers of change when it comes to scholarly communications. Proceeding from the notion that today’s neophyte researchers, believed to hold millennial values of openness to change, transparency and sharing, may be best placed to power the take-up of OA publishing, the study sought to discover: the extent to which ECRs publish OA papers; the main reasons for their doing or not doing so; and what were thought to be the broader advantages and disadvantages of OA publishing. The survey data is presented against a backdrop of the literature-based evidence on the subject, with the interview stage data providing contextualisation and qualitative depth. The findings show that the majority of ECRs published in OA journals and this varied by discipline and country. Most importantly, there were more advantages and fewer disadvantages to OA publishing, which may be indicative of problems to do with cost and availability, rather than reputational factors. Among the many reasons cited for publishing OA the most important one is societal, although OA is seen as especially benefiting ECRs in career progression. Cost is plainly considered the main downside.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 193-194
Author(s):  
Peter Black

The two faces of open access remain a point of contention in the global world of scientific publishing, and this carries over into the microcosm of urologic publishing. Many of us are part of the research community and all of us are consumers of new research findings. On both sides of the research enterprise—as providers and consumers—our interests are best met by broad dissemination and universal access to all published research. These are the underlying objectives of open access publishing.


2018 ◽  
pp. 13-29
Author(s):  
Steinar Risnes

Outsourcing of scientific publishing to scientific journals is problematic, both economically and academically. It is expensive, slow, non-transparent, unbalanced and excluding. Academic library subscriptions contribute substantially to the publishing companies’ 30-40% profit. There is general consensus that scientific reports should be openly accessible on the Internet. This is generally not the case with articles published in the traditional scientific journals. Open access journals are multiplying fast, but many are of questionable quality. Although open access publishing is less expensive than journal subscription, the article processing charges (APC) of open access journals are still high (up to 5,000 USD) and should be reduced. Science is expensive, scientific publishing should not be expensive.The impression the present system, with its editors and anonymous reviewers, conveys of quality and objectivity, is partly an illusion. The basis for decision on manuscripts is too thin and the balance of power is too uneven.Instead of a complicated fallible system, a simple fallible system is suggested: web-based, indexed and searchable repositories funded and organized by accountable and non-profit institutions/organizations where researchers may upload reports that have been thoroughly reviewed by and are supported by one or more competent, impartial, unbiased and named expert peers chosen by the authors themselves. After publication, reports may be further openly evaluated and commented online by named researchers in the field. Article processing charges should be moderate. Such a system would be simple, reasonable, fast, transparent, balanced, including, efficient, and adequately quality secured.


Author(s):  
Laurence Bénichou ◽  
Isabelle Gérard ◽  
Éric Laureys ◽  
Michelle Price

In order to consider the effects of online publishing on the career of researchers, as well as to encourage both its recognition and its improved positioning within the field and beyond, the CETAF Membership organized two workshops during which specific questions about scientific publishing in taxonomy were addressed: authorship citation and Open Access. The present opinion paper is the result of those workshops held on 19 October 2016 in Madrid and on 4 October 2017 in Heraklion. The discussions were aimed at reconciling the requirements of the relevant nomenclatural codes with recommendations for best practices that are adapted to the evolving landscape of e-publishing. By evaluating the different policies of a range of journals regarding authorship citation, we were able to recognise the conflicting and incoherent practices related to the citation of taxon authorships; an issue that is important to clarify for scientific (explicit source), practical (findability of source) and reputational (citation index) reasons. A collective policy on authorship citation also fits into the wider challenge faced by researchers and institutions, whereby interoperability and traceability become key priorities, both for facilitating access to scientific resources and for generating metrics that accurately represent the activities and output of the community. Publications resulting from publicly-funded research should be considered as an essential part of the research process and there has been a strong move towards Open Access, which increases visibility, citability, innovation and impact. Diverse models of Open Access have appeared in scientific publishing but while they each promote free access to the end user, they are not always equitable for the authors and funders of the original research. Herein we formulate recommendations for the relevant research communities and outline the advantages behind adopting a collective strategy towards the issues of authorship citation and Open Access.


2013 ◽  
Vol 411-414 ◽  
pp. 152-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Xu ◽  
Mi Zou ◽  
Wei Liu

Scientific publishing is currently undergoing significant paradigm shifts, as it makes the transition from print to electronic format, from subscribers only to open access and from static information to a dynamic knowledge space. In this paper, we investigate four tremendously promising online publishing systems and projects as a short review of state-off-the-art scientific publishing platforms.


Author(s):  
David Böhm ◽  
Diana Tillmann ◽  
Alexander Grossmann ◽  
Michael Reiche

Die Publikationsinfrastruktur für Open-Access-Veröffentlichungen stellt sich durch die Vernetzung verschiedener OA-Publikationsworkflows mit verschiedensten beteiligten Systemen aktuell als sehr heterogen dar. Dabei werden in der wissenschaftlichen Publikationslandschaft in deren unterschiedlichsten Bereichen des Publikationsprozesses eine Vielzahl existierender Standards, Normen sowie Spezifikationen verwendet. Das vorliegende Dokument stellt in einer ersten Version eine Übersicht zu den offenen Standards im wissenschaftlichen Publizieren dar. In einer umfangreichen Recherche wurde eine große Anzahl an Standards, Normen und Spezifikationen identifiziert. Um aus der großen Masse an Standards die wesentlichen herauszufiltern, entwickelte das Forscherteam eine spezifische Arbeitsdefinition des Begriffes Standard im Kontext von Open-Access-Publikationsprozessen: „ Ein offener Standard für wissenschaftliches Publizieren beschreibt eine einheitlich dokumentierte, weithin anerkannte, vielfach angewandte, offen zugängliche und erweiterbare Spezifikation, die bei der Erstellung, Beschreibung, Herstellung und Verbreitung wissenschaftlicher Publikationen angewandt wird“. Der Überblick über offene Standards im wissenschaftlichen Publizieren umfasst in dieser ersten Version 102 Standards, Normen und Spezifikationen, gegliedert in zehn Kategorien. Darüber hinaus enthalten alle aufgeführten Standards eine direkte Verlinkung zur jeweiligen technischen Dokumentation oder zu weiterführenden Informationen. Damit stellt die Übersicht eine Grundlage für die zukünftige Diskussion und Zusammenarbeit mit Stakeholdern und der Forschungscommunity dar. Im Rahmen des vom Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) geförderten Forschungsprojektes OPEN-ACCESS-Strukturierte-Kommunikation (OA-STRUKTKOMM) wird der Überblick über offene Standards im wissenschaftlichen Publizieren entwickelt. Ziel des Projektes ist es, notwendige Werkzeuge und Strategien für die flächendeckende Einführung eines bereits entwickelten State-of-the-Art-Workflows zur Herstellung und Verbreitung von OA-Monografien (DOI 10.33968/9783966270175-00) zu entwickeln. Dabei soll neben dem Wissenstransfer eine XML-basierte Kommunikationsstruktur entwickelt werden, welche den Datenaustausch zwischen den workflowbeteiligten Systemen robuster und kompatibel gestaltet, um damit eine leistungsfähigere Publikationsinfrastruktur zu etablieren, diese weitestgehend zu standardisieren und so Open Access durch eine vereinfachte Nutzung attraktiver zu machen. Weitere Informationen finden sich auf der Forschungswebsite: oa-struktkomm.htwk-leipzig.de Translated Abstract The publication infrastructure for Open Access publications is currently very heterogeneous due to the networking of various OA publication workflows with a wide range of systems involved. In the scientific publication landscape, a large number of existing standards and specifications are used in the various areas of the publication process. The first version of this document provides an overview of open standards in scientific publishing. In an extensive research a large number of standards and specifications were identified. In order to filter out the essential ones from the large mass of standards, the research team developed a specific working definition of the term standard in the context of open access publishing processes: "An open standard for scholarly publishing describes a uniformly documented, widely accepted, widely used, openly accessible, and extensible specification that is applied to the creation, description, production, and dissemination of scholarly publications." In this first version, the overview of open standards in scientific publishing includes 102 standards and specifications, organized into ten categories. In addition, all listed standards contain a direct link to the respective technical documentation or to further information. Thus, the overview provides a basis for future discussion and collaboration with stakeholders and the research community. Within the research project OPEN-ACCESS-Structured-Communication (OA-STRUKTKOMM), funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), the overview of open standards in scientific publishing is being developed. The aim of the project is to develop the necessary tools and strategies for the widespread introduction of an already developed state-of-the-art workflow for the production and dissemination of OA monographs (DOI 10.33968/9783966270175-00). In addition to knowledge transfer, a XML-based communication structure is to be developed that will make data exchange between the systems involved in the workflow more robust and compatible. The aim is to make the publication infrastructure more efficient, standardize it as far as possible and make Open Access more attractive by simplifying its use. Further information can be found on the research website: oa-struktkomm.htwk-leipzig.de


2010 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 89-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Scott Metcalfe ◽  
Samuel Esseh ◽  
John Willinsky

This paper examines the evolving relationship between Canada and the African academic research community through the promotion of a concept known as Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D) and with an eye to its implications for increasing the circulation of research through such means as open access (OA) publishing models. We analyze the programmatic discourse of Canada’s International Development Research Centre’s (IDRC) African research initiatives, and report on an IDRC research and development project assessing the means of increasing access to African scholarly journals through the use of open source software platforms and open access publishing and archiving models. Consistent with IDRC’s multi-year effort to contribute directly to university-based research capacities by investing in ICT infrastructure in Africa, our survey of African editors, librarians, and faculty from five African nations reveals a similar interest in developing those capacities, despite numerous challenges, through the use of online publishing systems and OA publishing models, which hold some promise of increasing access to research published in Africa.  


2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Pimm

SummaryRadical changes are taking place in scientific publishing, driven by mandates from major research funders both in the UK and elsewhere. The publishing landscape is changing, and open access is increasingly being seen as a viable alternative to subscription-based business models. Although many issues are yet unresolved, even the large commercial publishers are developing stables of open access journals. To reach a wider audience, and to increase appeal to potential contributors deciding where to publish, the Bulletin has now become an open access journal with effect from this issue.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick Anderson ◽  
Seth Denbo ◽  
Diane Graves ◽  
Susan Haigh ◽  
Steven Hill ◽  
...  

The scholarly community’s current definition of “open” captures only some of the attributes of openness that exist across different publishing models and content types. Open is not an end in itself, but a means for achieving the most effective dissemination of scholarship and research. We suggest that the different attributes of open exist along a broad spectrum and propose an alternative way of describing and evaluating openness based on four attributes: discoverable, accessible, reusable, and transparent. These four attributes of openness, taken together, form the draft “DART Framework for Open Access.” This framework can be applied to both research artifacts as well as research processes. We welcome input from the broader scholarly community about this framework.OSI2016 workgroup questionThere is a broad difference of opinion among the many stakeholders in scholarly publishing about how to precisely define open access publishing. Are “open access” and “open data” what we mean by open? Does “open” mean anything else? Does it mean “to make available,” or “to make freely available in a particular format?” Is a clearer definition needed (or maybe just better education on the current definition)? Why or why not? At present, some stakeholders see public access as being an acceptable stopping point in the move toward open access. Others see “open” as requiring free and immediate access with articles being available in CC-BY format. The range of opinions between these extremes is vast. How should these differences be decided? Who should decide? Is it possible to make binding recommendations (and how)? Is consensus necessary? What are the consequences of the lack of consensus?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document