scholarly journals Why Open Access: Economics and Business Researchers’ Perspectives

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Carmen López-Vergara ◽  
Pilar Flores Asenjo ◽  
Alfonso Rosa-García

Public research policies have been promoting open-access publication in recent years as an adequate model for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. However, depending on the disciplines, its use is very diverse. This study explores the determinants of open-access publication among academic researchers of economics and business, as well as their assessment of different economic measures focused on publication stimulus. To do so, a survey of Spanish business and economics researchers was conducted. They reported an average of 19% of their publications in open-access journals, hybrids or fully Gold Route open access. Almost 80% of the researchers foresee a future increase in the volume of open-access publications. When determining where to publish their research results, the main criterion for the selection of a scientific journal is the impact factor. Regarding open access, the most valued aspect is the visibility and dissemination it provides. Although the cost of publication is not the most relevant criterion in the choice of a journal, three out of four researchers consider that a reduction in fees and an increase in funding are measures that would boost the open-access model.

Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 29
Author(s):  
Carmen López-Vergara ◽  
Pilar Flores Asenjo ◽  
Alfonso Rosa-García

Technological development has transformed academic publication over the past two decades and new publication models, especially Open Access, have captured an important part of the publishing market, traditionally dominated by the Subscription publication model. Although Health Sciences have been one of the leading fields promoting Open Access, the perspectives of Health Science researchers on the benefits and possibilities of Open Access remain an open question. The present study sought to unveil the perspective of researchers on scientific publication decisions, in terms of the Subscription and Open Access publication model, Gold Road. With this aim, we surveyed Spanish researchers in Health Sciences. Our findings show that the value of publishing in Open Access journals increases as the experience of the researcher increases and the less she/he values the impact factor. Moreover, visibility and dissemination of the results are the main determinants of publication when choosing an Open Access journal as the first option. According to the response of the researchers, the reduction of fees and the increase in financing are important economic incentive measures to promote the Open Access publication model. It is widely accepted that the volume of Open Access publications will increase in the future.


SICOT-J ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 64
Author(s):  
Robert Cooke ◽  
Neil Jain

Background: The internet has changed the way we access and publish Orthopaedic literature. Traditional subscription journals have been challenged by the open access method of publication which permits the author to make their article available to all readers for free, often at a cost to the author. This has also been adopted in part by traditional subscription journals forming hybrid journals. One of the criticisms of open access publications is that it provides the author with a “pay to publish” opportunity. We aimed to determine if access to the journals impacts their influence. Methods: We selected the top 40 Trauma and Orthopaedic Journals as ranked by the SCImago Rank. Each journal was reviewed and assessed for the journal quality, defined by reviewing the journal impact factor and SCImago rank; influence, defined by reviewing the top 10 articles provided by the journal for the number of citations; and cost of open access publication. Results: Of the top 40 journals, 10 were subscription, 10 were open access, and 20 were hybrid journals. Subscription journals had the highest mean impact factor, and SCImago rank with a significant difference in the impact factor (p = 0.001) and SCImago rank (p = 0.021) observed between subscription and open access journals. No significant difference was seen between citation numbers of articles published in subscription and open access journals (p = 0.168). There was a positive correlation between the cost of publishing in an open access journal and the impact factor (r = 0.404) but a negative correlation between cost and the number of citations (r = 0.319). Conclusion: Open access journals have significantly lower quality measures in comparison to subscription journals. Despite this, we found no difference between the number of citations, suggestive of there being no difference in the influence of these journals in spite of the observed difference in quality.


Genome ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. A. Morton

The impact of insecticide resistance is well documented. It includes the toxic effects of pesticides on the environment and the cost of the increased amounts of insecticides required to effectively control resistant insects. Resistance evolves by the selection of genes that confer tolerance to insecticides. Several resistance genes have been identified and cloned in Drosophila, including genes for mutant target molecules and genes that increase insecticide degradation. Drosophila is a useful system to understand the evolution of quantitative traits in general as well as the population genetics of insecticide resistance. Through it, we may hope to understand the relationship between discrete genetic change and continuously varying characters. In addition, molecular genetic techniques developed using Drosophila can eventually be transferred to other insects in order to help control pest populations.Key words: insecticide resistance, evolution of tolerance, selection of resistant genes, molecular genetics, Drosophila.


2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 187-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joachim Schöpfel

Purpose – This paper aims to provide an overview and update of what one actually knows about the impact of open access on inter-lending and document supply. Design/methodology/approach – A review of recent papers, published after the Berlin Declaration on Open Access in 2003. Findings – Everything seems to oppose document supply and open access. Open access has contributed to the recent decline of interlibrary loan (ILL) and document supply requests but is not the only reason and probably not the most important. Open repositories and open-access journals have the potential to substitute ILL and document supply; yet for different reasons, including legal compliance, this substitution remains of limited interest. ILL and document supply institutions have started to integrate open access into their workflow and service provision in different ways, and the paper provides a conceptual framework with some perspectives for further service development. Originality/value – Paradoxically, relatively few papers make the link between open access and document supply, with empirical and/or conceptual elements. This paper proposes a synthesis and opens perspectives for future development and research.


Author(s):  
Zohreh Estakhr ◽  
Hajar Sotudeh ◽  
Javad Abbaspour ◽  
◽  

Introduction. The present study investigated the cost-effectiveness of article-processing-charge-funded model across the world countries in terms of its citation value proportional to the article processing charges. Method. Using a comparative citation analysis method at the macro level, it explored a sample of articles in forty-seven Elsevier hybrid open access journals that had been following the model since 2007. Analysis. The contributing countries' open access citation advantages were calculated based on the percentage of their open access citation surplus proportional to that of their non-open access articles. Their relative open access citation cost-effectiveness was obtained based on their open access citation counts proportional to the article processing charges, normalised by those of non-open access papers. The countries were categorised into four scientific blocks using Rand's categorization of countries' scientific development. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data in SPSS. Results. The results supported the citation advantage of the article-processing-charge-funded papers, encompassing the majority of the contributing countries in the four scientific development blocks. The articles showed relative cost-effectiveness over the years and for most countries in all the scientific development blocks. Conclusions. Publishing article-processing-charge-funded papers is relatively cost-effective, implying higher visibility and influence in exchange for the money paid.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calin Gurau

A thriving open access publication (OAP) system represents a sound basis for Open Science development. Unfortunately, it is not yet clear what are the factors determining that academic researchers use OAPs, both as a source of knowledge and relevant references, and as an outlet to present their work to their peers, students and/or the general public. To investigate this topic, we assume an interpretative framework rooted in the institutional theory. Considering the development and evolution of the OAP system as a coherent set of structures, norms and routines, our research aims to (i) identify the factors that determine academic researchers in the business field to become active participants in this system; and (ii) to compare the way in which these factors influence academic researchers’ choices and professional strategies in three different European countries, which are traditionally different in terms of research culture and orientation: France, Romania and the UK. We adopt a research methodology based on semi-structured interviews, as our research objectives require a qualitative approach to identify not only the individual reasons for using the OAP system, but also the influence of the professional environment in shaping these decisions in terms of institutional standards, rules and practices. To collect primary data, we interviewed a total of 42 academics, who are active in both teaching and research in higher education institutions located in France, Romania or the UK (14 respondents from each country). The interviews lasted between 30 and 45 minutes, being conducted either face-to-face or through skype. With the permission of respondents – but under strict confidentiality standards, the interviews were transcribed, coded and analysed. The findings draw a highly complex picture indicating a set of conflicting factors and forces that determine the official perception and use of the OAP system. Although each of the investigated countries has specific features in terms of higher education quality standards and practices, respondents indicated a strong tendency towards uniformization, determined by the global spread of the North American academic system, which directly connects the professional status and evolution of academic researchers to their capacity to publish in peer-reviewed journals that are highly ranked in national or international publications lists (e.g., ISI, ABS, CNRS, FNEGE, etc.). Presently, there are relatively few open access journals included in national/international journal ranking lists, which prevents a widespread use of the OAP system by business academic researchers. Respondents indicated that although they currently use OAPs as a source of knowledge for teaching, they are more reluctant to use them as publication outlets for their research work, or as references in their scholarly publications. This tendency differs between these national education systems, although the general trend indicates a strong convergence of opinions and institutional practices. Overall, the academic publishing landscape can be described as a battlefield between two competing sets of institutions centred around open access and paid access systems, the paid access system still representing the standard for academic quality and professional recognition.


2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (1(105)) ◽  
pp. 7-19
Author(s):  
David Nicholas

PURPOSE: The research upon which this article is largely based comes from a year-long international study of trustworthiness in scholarly Communications in the digital age, Essentially, the main thrust of the project was to determine the impact of the digital transition and the new products it has ushered in, such as open access publications and the social media, on academic researchers’ scholarly practices. This paper focuses and reflects further on the disciplinary differences of scholarly researchers when it comes to using, citing and publishing and, especially, whether arts and humanities researchers are any different in the way they think and behave to their counterparts in the sciences and social sciences. APPROACH/METHODS: An international survey of over 3650 academic researchers examined how trustworthiness is determined when making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing in the digital age. The survey asked respondents whether or not they agreed with comments and ąuotes about scholarly behaviour obtained from pre-survey focus groups and interviews. Data from focus groups, interviews and the published literature are also used to explain further the results of the survey. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In generał, it was found that traditional methods and criteria remain important across the board. That is, researchers have moved inexorably from a print-based system to a digital system, but have not significantly changed the way they decide what to trust, where to publish, what to cite or use. Social media outlets and (non-peer reviewed) open access publications are not fully trusted. However, there were some significant differences according to the discipline of the respondent and this papers focuses upon these differences by comparing the views and behaviour of arts and humanities researchers with those from other disciplines. The main findings were: a) journals and the metrics that surround them are clearly not so important to humanities scholars, but nevertheless still pretty important; b) humanities researchers take a lot more care about what they use and where content comes from; c) humanities researchers look slightly more favourably on the social media. Originality/value: As far as it is known this is the first comprehensive study of digital humanities researchers and their decisions on what they use and cite and where they choose to publish.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mithu Lucraft

Accelerating progress towards full and immediate open access (OA) is reliant on being able to source adequate funding to cover the costs of gold OA. Monitoring and tracking OA payments has created a complex and challenging role for institutions, but is crucial in order to understand the complete picture of the cost of OA. Whilst some institutions have developed methods to monitor OA payments, there remain a high number of "APCs in the wild", or APC payments whose origins are difficult to track. In this presentation we will summarise research Springer Nature has undertaken to explore the tracking and monitoring of APC payments, including interviews and a survey of global librarians, and data from Springer Nature authors to better understand the sources of APC funding, and the motivations and challenges concerning the monitoring of APCs. We will focus on feedback from institutions on the routes to implement better tracking, and on the noted benefits of being able to do so in enabling a faster transition to OA.  


2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 99-101
Author(s):  
Jessica Koos

A Review of: Hampson, C., & Stregger, E. (2017). Measuring cost per use of library-funded open access article processing charges: Examination and implications of one method. Journal of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication, 5(1), eP2182. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2182 Abstract Objective – To determine the feasibility and potential effects of a cost-per-use analysis of library funds dedicated to open access. Design – Cost-per-use analysis, case study. Setting – PLOS and BioMed Central. Subjects – 591 articles published in PLOS ONE, 165 articles published in PLOS Biology, and 17 articles published in BioMed Central. Methods – Three specific examples are provided of how academic libraries can employ a cost-per-use analysis in order to determine the impact of library-based open access (OA) funds. This method is modeled after the traditional cost-per-use method of analyzing a library collection, and facilitates comparison to other non-OA items. The first example consisted of using a formula dividing the total library-funded article processing charges (APCs) by the total global use of the specific PLOS journal articles that were funded. The second and third examples demonstrated what a library-funded OA membership to BioMed Central would cost alone, and then with APCs that cost could be divided by the total usage of the funded articles to determine cost-per-use. Main Results – The authors found both of the examples described in the article to be potential ways of determining cost-per-use of OA articles, with some limitations. For instance, counting article usage through the publisher’s website may not capture the true usage of an article, as it does not take altmetrics into consideration. In addition, article-level data is not always readily available. In addition, the cost-per-use of OA articles was found to be very low, ranging from $0.01 to $1.51 after the first three years of publication based on the cost of library-funded APCs. The second and third methods revealed a cost-per-use of $0.10 using membership-only payments, while using the cost of membership plus APCs resulted in a cost-per-use of $0.41. Conclusion – Libraries may wish to consider using these methods for demonstrating the value of OA funds in terms of return on investment, as these techniques allow for direct comparison to the usage of traditional journals. However, several barriers need to be overcome in how article-level usage is obtained in order for these methods to be more accurate and efficient. In addition, while the authors report that "The specific examples in this study suggest that OA APCs may compare favorably to traditional publishing when considering value for money based on cost per use," they also caution that the study was not designed to answer the question if the ROI is greater for OA publications than for traditional articles, stating that "...the data in this study should not be interpreted as a verification of such an argument, as this study was not designed to answer that question, nor can it do so given the limitations on the data. This paper was designed to present and illustrate a method. Further study would be necessary to verify or refute this possibility" (p. 15).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document